"Jailed Cop Killer Invited To Speak At Goddard College, Prison Chief Is Outraged"

kuwisdelu said:

That reduces his entire worth as a person to a single act.

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Yep. That works for me. But keep in mind, it wasn't simply one non-consequential act. It was a barbarous act. And, yes, to me that one barbarous act defines his entire worth. When you murder someone, you deserve to be defined by that act.

kuwisdelu said:

He will forever be judged for that single act, and making sure of that appears to be the goal of many of those opposed to the Goddard students' decision.

Click to expand...

You're suggesting we stop judging him for being a murderer? When exactly is it the right time to stop judging murderers for being murderers?

If they invited him to speak on the basis of his killing a cop, then they must have been very disappointed, since that hardly figured into his speech at all, except for passing mentions of having been on Death Row.

Vince524 said:

Again, I do.

Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Vince524 said:

That they made a mistake. They were cruel and didn't give a flying fuck about her feelings and that by giving a moment of honor to a man who murdered her husband, they were saying her pain is insignificant, her loss was immaterial, the dreams of a future and plans to have a family with him irrelevant compared to us wanting to be cool and different and have a meaningless moment. And God help us should we ever have someone we love ripped from our lives and be disgusted that for decades people are more interested in honoring that person's killer and not honoring the memory of that person that had their life stolen.

Click to expand...

Haggis said:

You're suggesting we stop judging him for being a murderer? When exactly is it the right time to stop judging murderers for being murderers?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying it's possible to judge criminals for things besides their crimes.

Roman Polanski's sexual abuse case doesn't make him less of a filmmaker, for example.

kuwisdelu said:

No, I'm saying it's possible to judge criminals for things besides their crimes.

Roman Polanski's sexual abuse case doesn't make him less of a filmmaker, for example.

Click to expand...

You invite him to dinner. I'll pass.

Haggis said:

You invite him to dinner. I'll pass.

Click to expand...

He hasn't been returning my calls lately.

kuwisdelu said:

He hasn't been returning my calls lately.

Click to expand...

Celebrities. Pfffft.

AMCrenshaw said:

For the record, Mumai didn't exit the prison and take a bus to Vermont.

Click to expand...

Astral projection is cheaper.

kuwisdelu said:

Astral projection is cheaper.

Click to expand...

And so much more pleasant. Long distance buses are hell.

CassandraW said:

Long distance buses are hell.

Click to expand...

I've only been on one. It was worse than Death Row.

I didn't get any commencement invitations for it, though.

AMCrenshaw said:

Again, Vince, I think your argument hinges on the idea that commencement speakers are being honored. Given a platform to speak does not equal being honored. That involves a preconception on your part.

In addition I ask you be mindful of name calling. Not a subject I want to discuss with you.

Click to expand...

I think that most consider a commencement speech a point of honor. It's not academic. And the important part of what you said was Being given. There was no reason to give this to him.

As far as name calling, I hadn't realize I had. I apologize that I either did or gave the impression.

kuwisdelu said:

I've only been on one. It was worse than Death Row.

Click to expand...

To be fair, one generally spends less time on a long-distance bus than one does on Death Row. On the other hand, it seems longer.

Haggis said:

Pretty much. Yep. That works for me. But keep in mind, it wasn't simply one non-consequential act. It was a barbarous act. And, yes, to me that one barbarous act defines his entire worth. When you murder someone, you deserve to be defined by that act.


You're suggesting we stop judging him for being a murderer? When exactly is it the right time to stop judging murderers for being murderers?

Click to expand...

kuwisdelu said:

No, I'm saying it's possible to judge criminals for things besides their crimes.

Roman Polanski's sexual abuse case doesn't make him less of a filmmaker, for example.

Click to expand...

Huh. I was thinking of going with a Joe Paterno reference, myself...

But you know, I agree that Polanski's actions--his drugging and raping of a minor--don't impact his abilities as a filmmaker. The question is whether or not such actions are sufficient--for a given individual--to make a point of ignoring his films, of saying "I'm not going to spend any money or time for Polanski's benefit, ever."

Different people have different standards in this regard.

Me, I have no interest in anything Abu-Jamal has to say. I wouldn't cross the street to hear him speak or buy one of his books on a bet. But that's me.

It doesn't bother me that he gave a commencement speech in the least, though. If it was my commencement speech, it might have. Probably not, since it's just not that important a thing imo.

But...as much as he can give that speech, can use the event as a platform to say what he will, others can do the same to criticize him.

robeiae said:

But you know, I agree that Polanski's actions--his drugging and raping of a minor--don't impact his abilities as a filmmaker. The question is whether or not such actions are sufficient--for a given individual--to make a point of ignoring his films, of saying "I'm not going to spend any money or time for Polanski's benefit, ever."

Different people have different standards in this regard.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I think it's perfectly valid to disregard Abu-Jamal's writings and anything he has to say based on what he did.

But likewise, I think it's asinine to argue that when other people choose to read or listen to him anyway, it's 100% due to implicit support for what he did.

The question I was addressing was whether or not such actions are sufficient to conclude that any individual who doesn't dismiss a person for them is also culpable.

But...as much as he can give that speech, can use the event as a platform to say what he will, others can do the same to criticize him.

Click to expand...

I think it's fine to criticize him... it's what those criticisms reveal that are of interest to me. Not all criticisms are created equal.

kuwisdelu said:

I think it's fine to criticize him... it's what those criticisms reveal that are of interest to me. Not all criticisms are created equal.

Click to expand...

No disagreement here.

AMCrenshaw said:

Nighttimer: Michael Jordan. Leaps of logic: Dunking from the half-court line.[

--

Click to expand...

Is this you geeking out because NBA 2K15 was released today or you wanting to make it abundantly clear you have nothing remotely resembling a rebuttal to my post?

AMCrenshaw said:

Keep in mind it might very well be the ability to tell a compelling tale that is of interest to Goddard students.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind if you actually read the transcript of Abu-Jamal remarks as posted by Mr. Haskins there was a lot of standard revolutionary boilerplate, empty platitudes, trivial sentimentality, tedious tripping down Memory Lane and a few newsworthy references just to be topical.

I'm sure a few of Abu-Jamal's fellow Goddardites squirmed with boredom in their seats.

They thought they were getting fire and brimstone from a radical political prisoner and all they got was the dull reminiscences of a 60-year-old convict. How very disappointing for them.

kuwisdelu said:

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with inviting a murderer to speak at a commencement.

Click to expand...

I think everything is inherently wrong with inviting a murderer or a rapist or a pedophile or other violent, pathological, unrepentant scum to speak at a commencement.

There is a reason why convicted murderers are not allowed to roam freely, interact with whomever they choose whenever they want and otherwise do as they please. They got to where they are by depriving another person of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, so they deserve no liberty, denial of what makes them happy and a severely restricted, controlled and limited life.

Mumia Abu-Jamal will be judged for the remainder of his life for taking Daniel Faulkner's. He doesn't deserve the honor, but he's arrogant enough to play on the gullibility and cluelessness of bourgeois radical wannabees looking to flip the bird to The Man and polite society.

There are hundreds--maybe thousands--of prisoners unjustly serving hard time whose stories are more compelling and the evidence they were wrongly convicted than that of the cop killer formerly known as Wesley Cook. But they weren't invited to speak to the Goddard grads. Guess they didn't have the advantage as Abu-Jamal did to get a private school education in Vermont and squander the advantage so spectacularly.

Showering honors and accolades on a murderer is not a sign of critical thinking and thumbing one's nose at mindless conformity. It's the same old radical chic dressed up in contemporary gear.

But when George Zimmerman, Susan Smith, and Charles Manson hit the commencement circuit, I'll be sure to let you know so you can score your tickets.

nighttimer said:

I think everything is inherently wrong with inviting a murderer or a rapist or a pedophile or other violent, pathological, unrepentant scum to speak at a commencement.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm abundantly aware that issues concerning criminals, prisoners, and the death penalty are probably the biggest area where our views are radically and diametrically opposed.

But I guess if I agreed with you all the time, things would get boring.

nighttimer said:

Keep in mind if you actually read the transcript of Abu-Jamal remarks as posted by Mr. Haskins there was a lot of standard revolutionary boilerplate, empty platitudes, trivial sentimentality, tedious tripping down Memory Lane and a few newsworthy references just to be topical.

I'm sure a few of Abu-Jamal's fellow Goodardites squirmed with boredom in their seats.

Click to expand...

That was certainly my reaction to the speech. I was so bored I had trouble finishing it.

nighttimer said:

There are hundreds--maybe thousands--of prisoners unjustly serving hard time whose stories are more compelling and the evidence they were wrongly convicted than that of the cop killer formerly known as Wesley Cook.

Click to expand...

And that really gets me riled. What a waste of energy and attention has been squandered on someone who's had quite enough undeserved fanfare, when there are so many people more deserving -- and who might make better use of it.

kuwisdelu said:

Oh, I'm abundantly aware that issues concerning criminals, prisoners, and the death penalty are probably the biggest area where our views are radically and diametrically opposed.

Click to expand...

Are they? Or is it merely most of polite society has declined the opportunity to join in on the romanticizing of an unrepentant killer who has reinvented himself as a political prisoner unjustly imprisoned by a racist, imperialistic government, but whose story has been proven to be a royal scam which doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of Mumia Abu-Jamal's admirers, sympathizers and supporters to make the case he is the martyr he fancies himself to be. But I don't see a Gandhi, a King or a Mandela or even a Bobby Sands in the prisoner formerly known as Wesley Cook. What I see is a wily, intelligent, manipulative, and charismatic con man who saw the need within some on the political Left to latch onto a figure to rally around and seized the opportunity to fill the void.

kuwisdelu said:

But I guess if I agreed with you all the time, things would get boring.

Click to expand...

If everyone is thinking alike nobody is thinking very much. Conformity is corrosive.