Posted on 10/17/2005 12:20:04 AM PDT by tallhappy
My "Gram" used to despise FDR also. When I was a little boy and the FDR dimes came out, she used to give them all to me until they became so profuse that she could no longer afford not use them.
Additionally, we are reminded that success in fighting crime in our nation is more than treating symptoms. We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes. All of us, men and women, young and old, must pledge ourselves to address the ills that surround us in our communities.
We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction.
This is how liberals think. It is how social engineers think. It is how the excuse wing of the organized bar thinks. Crime is society's fault. If only there were some decent research to support this canard.
She was probably one of the few women in Bklyn. to vote for Wendell Wilkie.
There's actually a small engraved bust of Wilkie a few blocks from the main branch of the NYPL.
Why do I get the feeling that even though we expected a Rehnquist or Scalia, we're going to get Jonathan Kozol instead?
Wow, Al Gore would be proud.
I still can't fathom why she was passed over-YET AGAIN-for an open seat on the Supreme Court.
Her writing is cloddish and hamhanded.
This insightful observation leapt off the page. Let the BushBots descend and put this straight.
Not to mention, probably filtered and polished by her secretary.
Aside from the writing, which is quite poor, her suggestions in the first article are typical liberal crap-o-la. "Root causes" (including low self-esteem! and poor health care!) of murderous crime; throwing more money at the problem, etc. And I don't think most people see lawyers as "problem solvers", they may be "dispute settlers" but that's about it. I only read the first article, but thanks for finding and posting these so we can indeed judge for ourselves.
LOL. Thanks for clearing that up. I wondered about your words, "You ignorant fool!". You're always one of the smarter ones around here.
;-)
I was thinking she sounded just like a FReeper in that particular quote!
Read it again.
She does not prescribe government action, much less big-government far-off Washington action, to address crime and other social ills. She is talking about dysfunctional people and families and communities, and she prescribes voluntary individual help by successful citizens towards their fellows citizens who are down and out.
This is not Liberalism. It is as American as apple pie.
I have seen this misapprehension or in some cases, outright lie, before. It is stupid. And they say Harriet Miers is stupid.
No, wait, they are saying President Bush is stupid. Me, I think their critics are stuck on it (stupid).
I'll just say that there ARE some societal issues that foster criminal behavior. Lack of mental health care, poor education and family dysfunction are a big ones. I could be wrong but I believe family dysfunction is number one. So what can society do to relieve this?
Better education by school and teacher accountability, school choice, parental control.
Strong families by heterosexual marriage, parental authority and moral values that discourage premarital sex and abortion.
Moral values encouraged by religious freedom.
Lack of self-esteem is indeed a bogus term. Hopelessness is a better descriptive of the sociopathic behavior of selfish immature people resulting from the lack responsibility and discipline brought on by the breakdown of the family.
In other words, most of the solutions for the so-called root causes of crime are traditionally conservative "values".
Did you mean "Mired" nomination?
I don't think her writing is that bad. You can understand everything she writes, it's grammatical and properly spelled, punctuated and arranged, and she stops writing when she has finished what she had to say.
Having been through two law firm mergers, I don't agree with that article (the failure of the merging partners to consider the fact of clashing cultures and that effect on the people below partner level proved darned near fatal in one case) but thre was nothing in it that was illiterate and flawed.
In fact, if it had been written by a Black woman, most people would not dare to criticize a word of either article.
From all the reading I'm doing right now, this doesn't look all that bad. Of course, I'm still a college student, so much of what I'm reading has been written by lefties...
Hey, you all noticed that she is FOR Right to Keep and Bear Arms? As for discussion of mergers between law firms, she was probably drinking cola syrup by the gallon to get through it without vomiting! That would break the concentration pretty badly. Also, kindly note that editors are supposed to smooth things out and correct grammatical errors in writings for publication; these days, they seldom do.
in regards to your comments on "the first article" - it makes a difference if you happened to live in Ft Worth or Dallas when the shooting she describes happened. Her comments mirror the discussions of many. Is she supposed to write an article or editorial as the leader of the Texas bar that is full of citations of law as if she was a preacher quoting the Bible on Sunday? This article lays out the concepts of many arguements going on in Texas after this shooting - by a lawyer - who killed a judge and courthouse civilians. Notice she does not advocate taking away the right to carry a gun or the elimination of a death penalty.
I just can't see Janice Rogers Brown writting this. That would be a piece about the death penalty not being used in swift, decisive manor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.