[Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule

[Randall Cotton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
To: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "danielle schumacher"
<danielle at illinoisnorml.org>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule


: Wait a minute, Randall: it was you who offered the quoted commentary as a
: specification of the goals of the "conference," about which I asked.

To claim my citation of the Aaron's commentary was meant as a "specification
of the goals of the conference", is yet another mischaracterization (you're
on a roll, Carl 8-)

Let's review. You asked the following question:

"Disenfranchisements for released felons include the prohibition of owning a
gun. What else?"

and I cited Aarons commentary because it itemized several other examples of
disenfranchisement. Pretty straightforward.

: (I
: won't insist on "rally," altho' it's arguable.) And now you say, "Aaron
: never mentioned Forgiveness Weekend in this piece" -- so, presumably,
: these are *not* the goals of the conference.  What, then, is the
: conference for?

Again, this claim that Aaron's commentary constitutes the "goals of the
conference" is your own invention.

: And surely you don't mean that people are not being asked to support
: anything.  What I wanted to know was *what* they were being asked to
: support.  Apparently the answer is (or maybe isn't) Aaron's commentary...

Well, I suppose whether people will be "asked" for "support" or not depends
on interpretation. If you take this at face value (and I did), I took "being
asked to support" to mean "individually challenged to assist with". And I
tend to doubt that's what will happen. A different interpretation (yours,
perhaps) might yield "collectively petitioned to agree with". And, indeed, I
imagine there will be some of that.

: Can you dismiss the reference to the president as "inconsequential"? I
: mentioned it merely to show that the information about felons'
: disabilities was unreliable on its face. So I remain puzzled by the
: question you ask: what restrictions on felons are under attack by CUCFPJ?

Well, my point was that if the claim about the President was the only thing
that was inaccurate in the itemized list, it would hardly diminish the
weight of the overall content.

However, on closer examination, I think it's possible that Aaron wasn't
referring to the President *of the United States*. There is such as a thing
as
municipal President of a City council or Village Board of Trustees. Aaron's
text reads "municipal elected office such as Mayor or city council member or
President." Rereading now,  it actually seems more likely to me that he
meant a municipal President (which is akin to a Mayor). It's certainly a
valid interpretation of the phrase as it stands.

: Or (as I asked at the outset of this correspondence), "What, specifically,
: is the disenfranchisement of felons that this conference seeks to end?"
: I still don't know.

Indeed, such a statement of purpose was never revealed. But do conferences
require such definitive statements of purpose? Isn't it sufficient for a
conference to just exist as a series of scheduled presentations, speeches
and discussions loosely organized around a topic? Perhaps that's all we're
dealing with here, and that doesn't negate its value.

I do agree, though, that there does seem to be a bit of an information
vacuum regarding the conference. There's not much detail available and
people wish they knew more (and not necessarily because they feel uneasy
about the conference as you do 8-).

Perhaps Danielle or someone else in CUCFPJ will have time to inform us a
little more soon.

R

:
: Regards, Carl
:
:
: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Randall Cotton wrote:
:
: > ----- Original Message ----- 
: > From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
: > To: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
: > Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "danielle schumacher"
: > <danielle at illinoisnorml.org>
: > Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:04 PM
: > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule
: >
: >
: > : Randall--
: > :
: > : My question was about the "overall goal of the event," not (as you
rightly
: > : say) "Bevel's undeniably objectionable support of the Larouche and
Moon
: > : cult."  I'd like to see spelled out what it is one is being asked to
: > : support -- information apparently absent from the web-site and
publicity
: > : for the event.
: >
: > I'm not under the impression that by attending, folks are being asked to
: > support anything.
: >
: > I could be wrong, I suppose, but it seems to me that the conference is
: > educational and informative in nature, not a "rally", as you label it.
: >
: > I agree that there does seem to be a lack of detailed information about
the
: > event, especially considering its extent. The best info available that
I'm
: > aware of (at that web address I posted) doesn't provide much beyond
titles.
: > That may be due at least in part to the organizers being a bit
overwhelmed,
: > I don't know.
: >
: > Perhaps more information is available elsewhere. If not, I suspect more
: > details will foster greater attendance.
: >
: > : My "bias" against the event arises from my suspicion that it attacks
the
: > : wrong problem (and may even overstate it).  Do you think that there
should
: > : be no restrictions placed on felons?
: >
: > Nope, but no one has put forth such a premise except you 8-). For
instance,
: > in Aaron's statement below, it seems to me that he is clearly only
speaking
: > in favor of relaxing some restrictions in the context of felonies due to
: > "minor crimes such as possession of a small amount of marijuana, video
and
: > audio taping of traffic stops of police officers or giving the police a
: > false name". Why do you leap from that to "no restrictions placed on
: > felons"?
: >
: > : That's a very different matter from
: > : the the fact that many people become felons inappropriately, owing to
the
: > : present drug laws.
: > :
: > : Aaron lists a number of these restrictions.  I don't know that they
all
: > : exist.  (It is for example not true that an ex-felon is debarred form
: > : being president, as he says: the only requirements for president are
in
: > : the constitution.).
: >
: > Well, while that may be true about the President, it seems pretty
: > inconsequential 8-)
: >
: > : Nor do I think that all such restrictions are
: > : necessarily inappropriate. Do you think that the "murderers, rapists,
and
: > : pedophiles," whom Aaron mentions, should not be prevented from being a
: > : "public school teacher, principal, counselor, bus driver, coach or
: > : janitor"?
: >
: > Again, you're implying that Aaron has advocated this, but clearly he
: > qualified the "public school teacher, principal, counselor, bus driver,
: > coach or janitor" bit with "someone who smoked a little bit of pot", not
: > "murderers, rapists, and pedophiles". This is quite unlike you, Carl, to
: > make such a mischaracterization and I remain mystified.
: >
: > : Aaron admits that there is no literal disfranchisement of felons in
: > : Illinois (i.e., they can vote). But his ultimate demand is for "full
: > : voting rights restored to all felons who have paid their debts to
society
: > : by serving their time" -- at best a misleading statement of the goals
of
: > : the rally, apparently.
: >
: > What "rally"? Forgiveness Weekend? Aaron never mentioned Forgiveness
: > Weekend in this piece (and again, I'm not sure why you characterize it
: > as a "rally" as opposed to a conference or forum). He only mentioned
: > CUCFPJ, so if anything, in that last paragraph he was listing issues
: > that CUCFPJ is concerned with (of which voting rights for felons is
: > just one example). Again, it seems to me that you're jumping to all
: > sorts of conclusions without rational basis. Why is that? It's not
: > like you.
: >
: > : As I said, I'm afraid that the Forgiveness Weekend is at best working
on
: > : the edges of a serious social problem, perhaps inefficiently (the
reforms
: > : requested will do nothing to lessen the prison population)
: >
: > Well, decriminalizing drug use altogether, for instance, would solve a
: > lot of problems, granted. It would prevent charges and incarceration
: > in the first place. So yes, that would accomplish more, but it's an
: > immense and long-term undertaking by comparison. Who's to judge that
: > suffering with no relief for years until the grand Shangri-la is
: > achieved all at once rather than focusing on smaller incremental
: > relief in the short term (along the road to desired ends) is somehow a
: > better approach? Certainly neither you nor I.
: >
: > : and even
: > : wrong-headedly (some restrictions on true felons may be appropriate).
: >
: > Which "appropriate" restrictions on true felons do you believe are
: > under attack by CUCFPJ? And on what rational basis do you conclude as
: > such?
: >
: > Thanks R
: >
:
:
: _______________________________________________
: Peace-discuss mailing list
: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss