A Reader Shares A Sad Story

I received the following email today from a reader:

Hi,
Came across your blog about your dog. We are taking our lab mix into the vet today and I think she has the same thing. She started limping on her right rear leg a couple weeks ago. We just thought she hurt it as she has a few times before chasing cats or squirrels. Now it's got a big baseball sized swelling at her knee. Sad. Anyway, thanks for the info on your blog.

Please keep this dog and her family in your prayers, as they may have some tough times ahead.

Your comments?

Joe

Maddy's Cancer Battle

AJA Press

Reader Comments

Reader comments on my post, Fred Thompson for President?:

Anonymous said:

Fred Thompson has a natural grassroots force run by everyday people and uncomparable to any other political machine. Should he decide to go for it, he CAN win the presidency. Find out why we believe this and why we, and so many other everyday American citizens have already committed to work tirelessly for Fred. Join more than 6,900 of us in the most important grassroots campaign ever!http://www.grassrootsvoter.com/

Of course he can win the White House with enough support. Anyone can. That's the nature of our political system. I'll admit that Fred Thompon is one of the very few original thinkers in the campaign right now. And with the right movement, he can quite possibly defeat his Republican rivals for the nomination. But does he have what it takes to beat the Democrats heavy-hitters?

If the Republicans want to hold on to the White House in 2008 -- and I think that would be best for the country -- they need to quickly unite behind one candidate and build that candidate to be the best candidate period, not just the best Republican candidate.

Can Fred Thompson do that? Your thoughts?

Joe

Joe

Reader Comments

Reader Comments on Hillary Clinton paying off Tom Vilsack's campaign debt in exchange for his endorsement:
(http://averagejoeblogs.blogspot.com/2007/03/sen-clinton-to-pay-off-vilsacks.html).

SQ said...

Same thing occurred in 2004 when former Illinois senator Carol Moseley Braun endorsed Howard Dean for president. Dean's campaign agreed to help her raise money to pay off her debt. They also gave her a $20,000 a month travel stipend to help her spread word of the endorsement.

Reader Comments

Reader Comments on "Spare Parts" by Buzz Williams:
(http://averagejoeblogs.blogspot.com/2006/11/book-review-spare-parts-by-buzz.html).

Anonymous said...

Awesome book. Tells the real story of a reservist no matter what branch. You must prove yourself to the active duty that you are worthy. An easy process but should not have to happen. Depicts a true reserve deployment process from deployment to redeployment home. This should be required reading for all military officers/NCOs.

Thanksgiving Reader Comments

2 comments:

cat said...

Why would it surprise you that many atheists happily celebrate Thanksgiving? It's one of the few great american holidays that is neither christian nor pagan and co-opted by the christians. Think easter (eggs and bunnies obviously the fertility fest of Ostara) and xmas (mistletoe and the yule log long pre-date christianity as winter solstice symbols). Being thankful doesn't require supreme being mythology. Thankfully ;). Happy thanksgiving to you from one of the numerous thankful atheists.

Average Joe American said...

What was the origin of Thanksgiving? Try this: religious pilgrims expressing thankfulness to God their Creator for the bountiful harvest.

How you think that's not religious, I don't know. Without someone to be thankful to, what is Thanksgiving?

Joe

Post a Comment

Reader Comments

Reader Comments on Justice Scalia Gets It. Do You?

Anonymous said...

You touch on an excellent point here.

Perhaps the MOST important job that the President does is to select those who sit on the bench in the Supreme Court. It is this act - more than any other - that will affect the lives of U.S. citizens every day.

It is the most important job that any President will do.

Actually, It was Justice Scalia that made the point to which you refer. My post was a direct quote from him. However, this does bring one very important point to my mind. While this indeed is the most important job that any President will do -- because it affects everyone every day for many years due to the lifetime appointment of Federal Judges and Justices -- it gives every U.S. adult citizen the opportunity to do the most important job that they will ever do in just over two weeks: get out there and vote!

While we may not be voting for the office of President this year, there are many seats on the U.S. Senate that are on the ballot. Every judicial nominee that the President selects must be confirmed by the Senate before taking the bench. You now have the opportunity to impact what Senators will be involved in those confirmation hearings.

Which gives me the opportunity to voice my opinion once more. I'll bet that doesn't surprise you. In 2004 I voted for the candidate running against Democrat Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Not for any reason other than the fact that I think Evan Bayh is such a terrible Senator that even a monkey could do a better job.

This year, Senator Richard Lugar (Republican) is up for reelection. If you've been around here long, it's no surprise to you that I'm a conservative. But that doesn't necessarily mean I always vote Republican. In 2006, for the Indiana Senate, I'm throwing my support behind the Independent candidate, Rick Hale. Rick Hale is both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, as well as a candidate who has the courage to stand up for what he believes, rather than for a party line. While I believe that Richard Lugar has done a fine service to the country and to the people of Indiana, I believe it's time for a change to someone with morals, conservative values, and the freedom to do what's right, not just what his party says is right.

Good luck, Rick Hale. You'll have my vote on November 7.

Joe

Reader Comments

Reader Comments on Childhood Innocence:

Anonymous said...

Yesterday, my youngest child turned 18 years old.

Just last week he was 1 year old and we were putting together his first Halloween costume.

I suspect that in less than a year he will be in Parris Island, SC training to be a U.S. Marine (his dream for many years now).

Those 18 years have gone by very, very fast.

I believe you are right about your calendar. Put it away. Take out the camera. Enjoy every moment, good and bad.

Next week, he will turn 18 years old.

Reader Comments

Reader Comments on Constitution Day 2006:
Anonymous said...

How nice of you to post a tribute to the Constitution of the United States. It is truly an amazing document! I often refer to it as being Divinely inspired. While that may be a bit blasphemous, and probably not entirely accurate, the document is so near perfection that one must suspect that its authors and contributors had at least some guidance from our Creator.

It is an amazing, amazing document. It is the foundation of a kind of government that had never before existed. It represents a complete change-of-thought about man, and what his rights and life should be like. The idea that any man, chosen by his peers, could lead. The idea that all men should have a say in how they are governed. The idea that no line of men is �appointed by God� to lead, and that the king is a man just like any other.

People don't take time to learn history and see how truly amazing this step was for mankind.

Anyway, I'm glad you took time to mention it.

Saint: A New Novel by Ted Dekker

Carl Strople is an assassin with unusual telekinetic gifts. He's been kidnapped, taken into hiding, and had his memory wiped out over a ten-month period of intense training and torture. With a new set of memories and developing skills, he is being molded into a killer for an extraordinary mission. Saint . . . he's not who you think he is. Or perhaps even who he thinks he is.

Be one of the first to get a glimpse into Ted Dekker's upcoming thriller, Saint. Download a FREE Introduction today!

And tell 'em Joe sent you.

The Debate Continues

The debate over capital punishment, sparked by my rant about the Andrea Yates "Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity" verdict, continues. To make this debate easier to read, I have woven my replies in the Reader's comments:

Anonymous said...

We stand in agreement on certain points of this issue. For one, I think we both believe that one of the responsibilities of a government is to protect its citizens from being preyed upon by other citizens.

If government kills a citizen in order to protect other citizens from him, then without a doubt, the dead man can commit no sin against his fellow man. Killing Andrea Yates (whether she is ill or not) would certainly keep her from killing again.

Killing a man, no matter what the circumstances, leaves a person dead. But how we feel about that death varies greatly depending upon the circumstances of the killing. For example:

- A soldier who kills another soldier in combat may be seen as a hero.
- A woman who kills a man who is attacking her, may not be seen as a hero, but is certainly seen as justified in her actions.
- A woman who has been abused by her husband, and then kills him in his sleep… That one may be OK. But there are going to be many questions and some disagreement about that one.
- Parents of conjoined twins may be forced to have one of the children killed and separated from the other in order to give at least one of them the chance of survival. That would be a gut-wrenching position to be in, and most people would probably empathize rather than condemn them for their choice.

Average Joe said...

The following example is where I begin to disagree with your view on the subject. My biggest issue with the situation with Andrea Yates is the insanity defense. I do not believe that the science of psychiatry can accurately diagnose "temporary" insanity. By what measures do you determine if an apparently sane person today was "temporarily insane" at the time of committing such a terrible act as that to which Andrea Yates confessed? That's like going to the doctor to find out if the cough you had a month ago was something serious or just the common cold. Or like taking your car to the mechanic and saying, "It wouldn't start last week, but it's been running fine ever since. Can you tell me what's wrong?"

If you're reading this and unfamiliar with the Andrea Yates case, you may want to bring yourself up to speed at Wikipedia.

Anonymous said...

- A sick woman kills her children because she was instructed to by God. Well, this lady will be hard pressed to find any empathy or sympathy. There is no other way to describe that than as a tragedy.
- A man has watched for months or years as the woman he has loved for 50 years lies in agonizing pain, and he chooses to help her end her pain by causing her death. Is it possible to love a person so much that it becomes more caring to kill her than to keep her alive?
- A man decides that he must end the rivalry with another man, so he plans that man’s death, and kills him or has him killed. Now this guy is going to have a VERY difficult time getting people lined up to support him.

Average Joe said...

I can only speak for myself, but I don't usually struggle long before taking a stance on whether to support capital punishment or not in any particular case. Maybe it's not appropriate for me to make such a judgment, but my judgment is merely my opinion, and that opinion is usually based on one of two things:

1. Who the victim of the crime is. In the Andrea Yates case, the victims are innocent, helpless children who were murdered in the bathtub by the one person who they certainly never feared.
2. The apparent motivation behind the crime. No one can truly say what the motivation was behind the Andrea Yates case. She has cited recurrent postpartum psychosis, among a general mental instability. She was, in fact, being treated for depression and had been taken off her antipsychotic medication only two months prior to the murders.

Maybe this is where society -- and government, specifically -- failed those children in the first place. It seems quite clear that the doctors caring for Yates knew of her instability, but failed to act to protect her children from what they feared she was capable of doing to them.

Does this mean Yates should be found not guilty? I say no. I think it proves one thing quite well, however: if Andrea Yates was suffering from insanity at the time that she murdered her children, it clearly was a long-term diagnosed and treated illness, and not at all temporary. Whether she should be put to death for her crime is debatable, but she certainly should never have the opportunity to be free among society again, and that is exactly what she has with this recent verdict. She has been committed to a state mental hospital with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released.

It is my contention that, regardless of the motivation or condition of culprit, someone committing such an act against such a defenseless victim should be removed from society on a permanent basis. I don't particularly care if that removal is accomplished through permanent imprisonment or capital punishment.

Anonymous said...

But today we even have many gray areas in the situations noted above. Several of our military have been charged with, or investigated for, murder in reference to their actions in the Middle East. Women have been placed on trial for killings that in the past would have been considered “self-defense”, but now are being questioned as perhaps pre-meditated.

I set that list in place so that we can consider the fact that it is difficult to create a list of killings that are “OK”, and a list of killings that should be condemned. These are VERY, VERY tough calls to make. Those calls are packed with emotion and disagreement.

Death is final (at least here on earth). There’s no bringing someone back from that.

Throughout the history of man we have empowered our governments to make life-and-death calls for us. Or, more appropriately, our governments have seized the right to make those calls for us. I for one am not really comfortable with permitting our government to use this power against its citizens, particularly since other options are available.

If killing by the government were not final, then the women who were killed for witchcraft could have been “un-killed” once the witch hysteria ended. But it is final and those women remain dead at the hands of their government.

Average Joe said...

I find one significant difference here: Andrea Yates original conviction was handed down by a jury of her peers, in an open and orderly courtroom that was presided over by an experienced judge. Andrea Yates had confessed to the killings. Her conviction was a far cry from the lynch mobs that burned women at the stakes for suspected witchcraft. Those lynch mobs claimed that if the woman was a witch, she would survive the burning, and therefore the burning itself was the trial. In today's society, as in Andrea Yates first trial, the suspect was tried, confessed, and convicted before the capital punishment was meted out. The Salem (and other) witch trials were literally trials by fire that delivered the punishment in order to determine guilt or innocence. I do not believe that this is a reasonable comparison to make.

Anonymous said...

If a citizen is wrong about a killing, then he will be tried and punished. But what of a government that is wrong in its killing? What happens to the government? The people who were killed by the government are just as dead as the people killed by the individual. In fact, in the case of the government killings things are usually far worse, because the government has usually killed many more people than a citizen has killed. For example, Germany, Iraq, Bosnia, Russia, Rome, China, Japan, etc. All of these countries have killed many of their own citizens during acts that they justified at the time, but that history has condemned.

Average Joe said...

Again, I believe there is a distinct difference between mob justice and the type of orderly community justice that is practiced in American courtrooms. In addition, there is no comparison between the American justice system and the acts of tyrannical dictators the likes of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, et. al.

Anonymous said...

Do we really want to grant permission to our government to kill us? If we are ever to learn anything from history, we should learn that this is a BAD idea. Our governments have proven to be exceedingly bad at making these decisions.

As for a deterrent, there is no real evidence that capital punishment deters others from committing crimes. Most murders are not premeditated. The vast majority of murders happen as the result of deep emotion or motivation that defies logic. Simply put, most people who murder never stop to consider what will happen when they are caught. They are too caught up in emotion, addiction or other factors to ever stop to consider what they have done.

But what about those other, premeditated murders? There is no evidence that capital punishment deters those either. Those who plan murders, plan to not be caught. And most of them succeed in both the murder, and the escape. If I am planning to kill someone, the fact that Andrea Yates was given the needle is not going to stop me from planning it. It will just make me plan better.

We have other options. I am certainly not suggesting that we set Andrea Yates free. I am only saying that we should not allow our government to kill her. There are other options to employ here. It is not a choice of killing Andrea Yates, or putting all of society in danger. There are many other options. I am suggesting that the most appropriate response doesn't come from either end of the extreme, but rather from some other alternative.

In your rebuttal you stated, “Of course killing Andrea Yates would probably not teach her a lesson. I doubt that she is capable of learning any lessons.”. That statement makes me wonder if you agree that Andrea Yates is not well. I suspect that some part of you also sees her as a sick woman.

Average Joe said...

Indeed I do see Andrea Yates as a sick woman. I just don't feel that any sickness can justify the crime that she committed. I don't see how there is any justifiable reason to ever turn this woman loose on society again. Call it punishment. Call it protection. Call it what you will, but she -- in my opinion -- forfeited her privilege to exist in an open and free society at the instant she first considered and acted upon taking the life of a defenseless child. There is no greater sin in my view.

Anonymous said...

There are many kinds of killings, as I noted above. But I submit that the worst kind of all is the one that is premeditated and planned. I further submit that that kind of killing is the most damnable – whether it is committed by an individual, or by a government.

It’s not that I have any particular sympathy for Andrea Yates, or for what she did. Both she and her acts were deplorable. I just think it is worse if our government commits the same crime against her as she did against her children. Particularly since our government would be doing it in a deliberate, planned, premeditated manner.

----- And you probably do know who is writing this. I love your blog.

Average Joe said...

Thanks again for your comments and your kind words about my site. If you have additional thoughts to share, I would love to hear them.

As a quick after note, I find it interesting that in her new trial, Andrea Yates was acquitted in the murders of only three of her children. The District Attorney retains the option of trying her again for either or both of the remaining murders.

Anyone else who may wish to get into the debate, please feel free. You may use the comment link below or email me at averagejoe.blogs@gmail.com

Joe

Thought Provoking Reader Comments

Some very interesting comments from a reader in response to my Daily Gripe #7 - The Andrea Yates rant. And might I add that though I don't know who wrote these comments, they certainly sound like the words of someone very familiar to me.

Anonymous said...

When considering issues of criminal justice, I find that the only way to remain fair and unbiased is to consider and accept certain standards, completely free of any influence from specific cases or occurrences. I try to start by asking general questions. For example:

- Does a government have a right to place punishment for violations of established law?

- Should punishment placed by a government be for the purpose of revenge and retribution, or should it be for the purpose of correction. (In other words, do we punish a child because he did wrong and deserves to be punished, or do we punish a child so that he learns to behave better in the future?)

- Should a government have the right to do things that its laws prohibit individuals from doing?

- Should a government punish a person who committed a crime because he was too sick to fully understand what he was doing? This one may seem a bit bleeding heart at first, but consider this: You have two children. One of them (age 8, let’s say) becomes sick and spikes a fever of 104. He becomes very irritable. His young brother (age 6 let’s say) is worried about him and walks over to give him a hug. As the 6-year-old grabs the 8-year-old to hug him, the 8-year-old swings out and clobbers his little brother. Maybe he draws blood. Would you punish your 8-year-old the same way you would if he had been well when the incident happened?

There are many questions such as these to consider, before even bringing in the Andrea Yates case specifically.

I won’t take time to run a long debate here about those questions, and others like them. I will quickly mention one other thing, however. Many people claim that God approves of capital punishment and that he specifically calls for it in the Bible. However, they fail to note that in the sections of the Bible in which God specifically directs killing a man as a form of punishment, God also sets certain restrictions and requirements of such punishment. The biggest requirement is that there be an eye witness to those certain crimes where God directs man to use capital punishment.

Interestingly, when God himself handed down a punishment for murder (when Cain killed Abel), God did not kill Cain. God separated Cain from the rest of society and placed a mark on him.

I believe that Andrea Yates was sick when she killed her children. Because of this, I believe killing her would be just as wrong as harshly punishing the 8-year-old mentioned above. I also believe it would be against God’s will and direction to us.

The murders of those children were horrible, horrible things. (Sadly, our world is filled with horrible, horrible things.) Killing Andrea Yates would not make the situation less horrible. It would not teach Andrea Yates a lesson. It would not prevent the next sick woman from killing her children.

I suspect that the only thing it might do is help the general public somehow make some sense of things, knowing that if a person commits a VERY bad act, he will be punished.

But the thing is, killing Andrea Yates would also be a VERY bad act. Where would that leave us?

10:15 PM

Of course, I can't let that go without a little feedback:

Average Joe American said...

At this point, avoiding debate is agreeable. However, I do have a brief rebuttal to some of your key points. Specifically, your last three paragraphs.

- Of course killing Andrea Yates would probably not teach her a lesson. I doubt that she is capable of learning any lessons. It also would probably not prevent a truly sick woman from killing her children. It would certainly act as a deterrent to those who are not "insane" but might otherwise try to use an insanity defense to justify their actions.

- I further believe that removing Andrea Yates from society on a permanent basis would do more than just give the general public some kind of closure. It would guarantee us one thing: Andrea Yates would never again kill, whether "by reason of insanity" or otherwise.

It is for this last reason more than any other that I stand strongly convinced that Andrea Yates, and anyone else who would commit such a heinous act against a defenseless, innocent child, should not be released into society again. The biggest benefit of capital punishment is it's deterrent value, and there are two types of deterrent that result from capital punishment: 1) the individual punished would be deterred from killing again by his/her mere lack of existence; 2) others capable of premeditating their act might be persuaded otherwise by the possible consequences they would face.

What is best for society? To punish the masses for the crimes of the few by subjecting us to the danger of repeat offenders? Or to protect society from the dangerous few by preventing them from having the opportunity to become repeat offenders? I see only one acceptable choice, and I don't think I need to say which one that is. All too often the scales of justice come down in favor of protecting the guilty more than the innocent. Even the remote possibility of freeing Andrea Yates is a travesty.

Thank you for your thought-provoking input.

Joe

11:03 PM

Got anything to add? Please use the comment link below, or email me.

Joe

Reader Comments

Anonymous said...

Here’s a gripe for you…

You get your favorite blog in your email. For example, Average Joe’s “The Daily Gripe #3”. You want to comment, so you click the link at the top of the page. Your browser opens and you wait for the page to load, but instead, you get a message that says:

Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server. Please visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance.

Now THAT is something to gripe about!

12:11 PM

First of all, I'm flattered that you would list Average Joe American among your favorite blogs. I consider that a complement.

Secondly, I apologize that you were unable to access Blogger to leave your comments. If you visited the Blogger homepage as the error message advised, you would have discovered the following (circled in red in the screen capture):




As you can see, the entire Blogger domain was down for maintenance beginning at 8:23AM PST (11:23AM Eastern). Your comment was posted at 12:11 PM Eastern, while the site was probably still down for maintenance. While the blog hosting doman, Blogspot.com, was fully functional for viewing the site, the blog editing domain, Blogger.com, was not available.

My sincere apologies that you were unable to access the site. This is an irregular occurrence that unfortunately happens from time to time. I hope you'll continue to read Average Joe American, whether through your email (subscribe link in the sidebar), your favorite aggregator, or at http://averagejoeblogs.blogspot.com.

And remember, if at any time in the future you're unable to post your comments via the comment link, you can freely email them to me and I will see that they get posted.

Joe

Comments: Chaos in the Capitol posted 05-28-06

Recent comments received from a reader:

Average Joe,

In your posting on 05-28-06 you asked if the actions of the police was "Necessary precaution, or overkill?". I suggest that it was both.

Sir Robert Peel, widely regarded as the father of modern policing, said:

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

And that is exactly what modern policing was intended to be, and should be. However, over time the role of policing has been perverted and re-shaped. Much of the general public today see the police as the Enforcement Arm of the Government and the Protectors of Society. Most people do not view police as being a part of the public, but rather something outside the realm of the general public, in place to keep them safe and others in-line.

Police work has moved into a period where the police, rather than being a part of the public, instead must respond to the public needs and expectations. Most people view the police as an entirely different set of people, set in place to meet their needs and expectations for safety. This is why the same person will complain about reckless driving AND complain that he received a speeding ticket.

Further, the public has placed expectations on the police that they (police) will respond in certain ways during certain situations. If they respond too strongly, they are criticized. If they respond too weakly, they are criticized. There are even situations, such as Columbine, where the police were criticized for being both too weak (the immediate police response), and too strong (the later police response).

So, in the case about which you wrote on 05-28-06, I suggest that the response was indeed "overkill". The reality of the situation certainly did not call for such a strong response. However, at the same time it was a "necessary precaution", because the response was probably what was expected of the police by the public, given the totality of the situation (location, statement of the witness, etc.). Robert Peel also said, "No minister ever stood, or could stand, against public opinion." So the police must do what the public wants from them, whether it is right or not.

Remember, that "hammer mistaken for gun fire" was mistaken by the witness, not by the police. It was the police who figured out what the lady likely heard, and that it was not likely to have been gun fire.

After having read about, studied, and worked in law enforcement for over 20 years now, I am not very optimistic about the appropriateness of the direction in which we (both police and public) are headed. But, it is the direction that is mandated by the public. Therefore, it is the road that we must travel.

Average Joe's Average Brother

Okay, so the reader was my brother, who has a pretty extensive background in law enforcement, but that doesn't make the comments any less interesting.

Joe

Reader Comments

Anonymous said...

my comment is about bayh's email address. He keeps changing it so we can't easily contact him! We need to contact him now about defeating Kennedy and McCain bill to give amnesty to illegal aliens and 400,000 guest workers. They are trying hard to bring us socialism. Fight Back!!!!!

12:04 PM

------------

Average Joe replied...

Evan Bayh has a Senate email address, but if you email him at this address you will receive an auto-response telling you to contact him using the webform at his website, located here: http://bayh.senate.gov/LegForm.htm.

You can also contact him by mail at:
Senator Evan Bayh
463 Russell Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510.

Also, by phone at one of his many district offices:
DC Office, Washington, DC
(202) 224-5623
Indianapolis
(317) 554-0750
Evansville
(812) 465-6500
Fort Wayne
(260) 426-3151
Hammond
(219) 852-2763
Jeffersonville
(812) 218-2317
South Bend
(574) 236-8302.

REMEMBER, there are TWO Indiana Senators. I encourage you to contact them both. You can reach Senator Richard Lugar, Republican, in a much simpler manner. Just email him at:

senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov.

10:00 PM

------------

If you would like a personal reply when posting comments, or notification that a reply to your comments has been posted on the site, you can email me at averagejoe.blogs@gmail.com.

Joe