Jim Stillman

Lutz (Tampa), Florida, UNITED STATES


Joined January 23rd 2007

Number of Posts:
222

Number of Comments:
492

Karma:
10



About Me
Retired after 25 years with the Florida Department of Revenue. I am also a retired New York attorney. I have a part-time job to keep busy and do a bit of free lance writing to keep my mind engaged. I consider myself a social Liberal with leanings to Libertarianism. My motto: ALWAYS POSITIVE, SOMETIMES RIGHT.
Other sites
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/20932/jim_stillman.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-900-Tampa-Bay-Politics-Examiner

Tags & Posts

Bookmark Tags



Popular Tags

Popular Posts

Blogs

Jim Stillman's Blogs

17169 Vote(s)
1336 Comment(s)
237 Post(s)

I mentor these bloggers

Learn more about the Orble Mentoring Program.


I do not mentor any bloggers.

Recent Posts

I'll be back!

June 23rd 2009 22:51
I want to explain my absence from these pages, in the midst of the on-going abortion debate with SLB and while very exciting political issues surround us.

About 10 days ago, I was exceptionally careless and tripped over a threshold into our home. The result: A broken knee cap, a stay in a rehab center (with limited internet access), little patience to read and an anticipated 6 or 8 weeks of therapy.

I hope to return to the fray as soon as I return home in a week or two.
63
Vote
   


The debate has run its course

June 11th 2009 17:35
I posted the following comment earlier today. It appears that both parties have expressed their respective viewpoints.

There are no winners or losers here. But I would appreciate the Orble community's reactions.



SL and I are just about winding down our debate. When the last question is asked and answered, sometime next week, I have a suggestion and a request.

Anyone who feels that he or she is more in agreement with me, why not post a comment to that effect on her blog. By the same token, if you feel that I am wrong or missing basic points, post your comments here.

Nothing is more pointless than just hearing from those in agreement!


I do not know if SL will agree but it seems to have interesting possibilities.
54
Vote
   


Within the past weeks, two murders took place. In Little Rock, Arkansas, William Long was killed outside of an Army recruiting office, allegedly by an American convert to Islam, 23 year old Abdulhakim Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad reportedly said that the shooting was a general and vague “war protest” and police initially have reported that the shooter had acted alone.

While it may end up otherwise, the killing of Private Long does not appear to be part of a group religious conspiracy but rather the act of a deranged criminal. Nonetheless, the killing was inexcusable and the murderer needs to be punished in accordance with the law.

On May 31st, while standing in the foyer of his Wichita church, serving as an usher and distributing bulletins, Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder an unstable drifter who found a home on the extremist right, joining a militia group that refused to pay taxes and allegedly posting comments on antiabortion websites likening Dr. Tiller to the infamous Nazi Josef Mengele.

Immediately the far Right complained that media coverage of Dr. Tiller’s murder was far more extensive than that of Private Long, thus equating the two. I do not dispute the different amounts of coverage but the murder of Dr. Tiller seems more newsworthy.

The killing of the soldier in Little Rock was a criminal act supported by no political group in this country; it was inexcusable and, as far as I am aware, no one has posed any conceivable excuse or politically based defense. On the other hand, many on the right have stretched facts in order to provide some justification for Mr. Roeder.

Most disturbing is that for years religious leaders, many in the media and. influential members of the anti-abortion have set the stage for violence.

To their credit, some of these same religious leaders have acknowledged the responsibility they bear, the harm that comes from referring to opponents in pejorative terms and how that kind of talk is not only counter-productive but can incite violence by the weak and unsophisticated. Others still deny the repeated calls to violence, calls to which Mr. Roeder responded. The efforts some on the far Right is illustrated by the following excerpt of a comment on these pages where motives are discussed:

Tiller was a Baby Killer, Jim. He murdered over 60,000 babies that could have survived outside the mother. He was a monster. There is no excuse for what he did.

That being said, the man who shot him may have had motives that we don't yet know. Perhaps Tiller murdered his grandchild or perhaps his granddaughter lost her mind after Tiller killed her baby. Until we know the motivations, I'm willing to wait to condemn the shooter.

Notice, if you will, the killing of Dr. Tiller is probably wrong, but. . . he may have had a granddaughter, his hypothetical granddaughter may have become pregnant, that hypothetical granddaughter who may have become pregnant may have had a late-term abortion, she may have traveled to Wichita, she may have voluntarily gone to Dr. Tiller’s clinic where the doctor may have legally performed a legal procedure. So it’s possibly excusable to kill Dr. Tiller. There is always, “but”.

There is a fiction going around that the pro-choice and anti-abortion-at-all-costs groups are two equally extreme positions, and that rational answers exist in the middle, where everybody disapproves of abortion except when they want one for themselves or someone they care about.

There's only one set of extremists here, the one that uses language like "baby killer," " Nazi," "murderer," and "death mill," kidnaps and murders providers and clinic workers, burns and bombs clinics and drives cars into them, posts pictures of clinic workers and their families on the internet, and harasses patients on their way to get care.

Bret McAtee, a well known and popular Michigan pastor made a statement regarding Dr. Tiller’s murder:

Somehow when the end came for Dr. George “Mengle” Tiller the setting of his death was altogether appropriate. Tiller had spent his life serving as the high priest in the sanctuary of humanism for decades, bringing murder, death and torture to tens of thousands in his abortuary [sic]. In turn, when Tiller was murdered Sunday, God returned him the favor as Tiller was murdered as he stood in God’s house. The irony shouldn’t be lost on us – it seems that even God operates with an eye for an eye ethic. …

But I also know joy. Not the shallow type of joy but a deep resonating joy. I feel joy that no longer will this wicked man slay the judicially innocent. I feel joy because justice, albeit of a rough variety, was visited on someone who so thoroughly opposed a culture of life and who worked so assiduously to spread the culture of death. I know joy because the truth of Scripture that those who take up the sword shall die by the sword is seen as authoritative. I know joy because I know that no longer will Dr. Tiller be sucking out the brains of people, or torturing people with saline or dismembering people in utero. How could a sane person not feel joy at the death of a mass murderer and a terrorist?

To their credit, some religious leaders and people strongly opposed to the work if George Tiller (which after all was legal and sanctioned by Kansas law) have acknowledged that hate speech is inexcusable. Frank Schaeffer, a long time evangelical on the Right, along with his late father, assumes responsibility and guilt:

Angry speech has become the norm in American religion from both the right and the left. Words are spoken which -- when taken seriously -- lead directly to violence by the unhinged and/or the truly committed.
When evangelicals on the right call President Obama a socialist, a racist, anti-American, an abortionist, not a real American, and, echoing the former Vice President, someone who is weakening America's defenses and making us less safe, the logical conclusion is violence. If you take these words literally you might pull the trigger to "make America safe" and/or free us from communism or to even protect us from -- what some "Christian" leaders claim -- Obama as the Antichrist. …
The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as "murderers." And today once again the "pro-life" leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I'd like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for performing abortions that I -- and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.

I am very sorry.

And so am I.



77
Vote
   


I really am not certain of the significance of the far Right’s, Fox’s and a few others’ fixation on the President’s faith. Normally, we take a person’s word on the specific Deity to whom one chooses to pray or even the absence of such a Deity.

Certainly, many of President Obama’s critics, including those at this site who cannot even bear to write his name (now, that’s hatred!) claim to be members of the Clergy and Christian; I take them at their word. If the President says that he is a Christian that ends the irrelevant question. This does not mean that I agree with all of the tenets of that faith, and I do not. But the issue of his being Christian is settled


[ Click here to read more ]
77
Vote
   


I am posting this to let the 7 people in the world who, if they do not actually agree totally with me on all issues, political, economic and social, are at least prepared to hear me out.

Starting next week, SL and I will be engaged in a debate-discussion. Damo is going to moderate and keep us honest


[ Click here to read more ]
72
Vote
   


In a previous post, I suggested that the way to best challenge and defeat terrorists would be to use well established and experienced civilian law enforcement agencies to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and, if appropriate, punish and incarcerate those convicted through the regular judicial system.

Almost ten years ago, the United States General Accounting Office published a report studying the manner in which Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and the United Kingdom addressed the issues. Certainly, no one can doubt that the United Kingdom has had years of terrorist acts by the I.R.A. and Israel has been under the threat of imminent attacks from the day it was established


[ Click here to read more ]
58
Vote
   


Several years ago, I wrote of our proclivity to use the term “war” when we really mean focusing our resources to address a societal problem. Thus we have had a “war on poverty”, a “war against drugs”, a “war against inflation” and others. These are not real wars in the conventional sense; no one seriously expects to totally eradicate drugs or poverty, for example but there is no real harm in using the term.


[ Click here to read more ]
38
Vote
   


A more formal greeting

May 22nd 2009 18:06
The preceding piece was written by Nevar who is going to post occasional material to this site. I welcomed him in a comment appended to his article but I think that the occasion deserves special attention.

My comment was


[ Click here to read more ]
36
Vote
   


Member notification

May 21st 2009 03:34
A fellow-Orble writer has requested to become a member-participant on poliicalcertainty. The email link sent to me doesnn't work but his name is in the "settings" but noy on the side pane. Any suggestions? Jon?
26
Vote
   


Is this the best we can do?

May 18th 2009 16:46
Not that anyone is likely to notice, it having been suggested that there may be six or seven misguided people, at most, who read my scribbles, but I am posting less and less on Orble and closing to write on and for Examiner and Worldblogosphere. In addition to the fact that they, or at least the former, pay far more, attempts that I have made to engage in dialogue with those opposed to my views have been totally rebuffed.

I am willing to take responsibility for this and accept that my inability to convince anyone to address issues and not engage in ad hominem attacks is the cause of this failure


[ Click here to read more ]
44
Vote
   


 

Recent Comments

Comment by Jim Stillman
on The debate has run its course

June 14th 2009 19:39
Thanks, SL. I tripped over my own feet in our kitchen and on the way down smacked my knee! No permanent injuries but plenty of comments from my wife to the effect that, if I weren't so interested in getting back to the laptop... etc., etc.

Comment by Jim Stillman
on The debate has run its course

June 14th 2009 17:31
I apologize for the delay, but I ended up in the hospital following a fall. I will try and get an answer to SL’s last question posted in an hour or two.

Comment by Jim Stillman
on The Great Debate 2 is now on: Jim verses SLB

June 11th 2009 14:39
I’m not convinced that S L answered the first question; thus, for my final question. I will rephrase it.


Assuming that, in spite of a future overturning of Roe v Wade, a woman elects to have an abortion, what punishment should be imposed on her.

Comment by Jim Stillman
on Don't lump me in with the crazies

June 11th 2009 10:52
I am not "bashing" SL specifically and certainly not exclusively. I'm sorry that she finds polite and temperate discussions so foreign to her.

I will, however, look for a hobby -- if she will every now and then use a thesaurus. For example, President Obama may be wrong, he may make poor decisions; this does not equate to being a "liar".

Democrats and Liberals may have, in her opinion, poorly phrased or formulated viewpoints; this doesn't mean they are evil or traitors or less patriotic than the Right.

Randy, I do not believe that I have called you raciest for not supporting the President; you are expressing political views. And, upon reflection, SL is likely not a raciest, either.

She is, however, guilty of hate speech. The kind of nonsense that may inspire a domestic terrorist to act. Please note that while foreign terrorist did attack us in 1993 and 2001, the killings in Oklahoma City, Wichita and Washington this week were all done by home-grown raciests who had been spurred on by hate speech.

I am not asking you to request anyone to "tone down" language. Just be aware.

Comment by Jim Stillman
on Don't lump me in with the crazies

June 11th 2009 01:29
I have never suggested that you were one of the “crazies”! If you had been, I would not have invited you to collaborate on my site.

Legitimate political expressions from the Right do not promote violence, in my opinion. What is, however, inexcusable and provides rationales for the “crazies” is hate speech. I do not suggest that you are a participant in hate speech, but you seem to excuse or justify those on Orble who cannot or will not resist the name-calling and hatred.

You have aligned yourself with those who cannot avoid hate speech. Even in childish matters such as refusing to use the President’s name, making up story after story about the President’s religion, continuing to repeat the many times discredited story about his being born in Hawaii, the silly talk about his “new name”.

If you want to be taken seriously, and I, for one, understand your opinions about gun ownership (with which I do not agree), then stop accepting the hate that comes from your friend’s mouth. Be the first of SL’s friends to say, “That’s enough”. Let’s address the issues and cut out the names that incite violence.






Comment by Jim Stillman
on The upcoming clash of points of view

June 11th 2009 00:28
SL and I are just about winding down our debate. When the last quetion is asked and answered, sometime next week, I have a suggestion and a request.

Anyone who feels that he or she is more in agreement with me, why not post a comment to that effect on her blog. By the same token, if you feel that I am wrong or missing basic points, post your comments here.

Nothing is more pointless than just hearing from those in agreement!

Comment by Jim Stillman
on The Great Debate 2 is now on: Jim verses SLB

June 11th 2009 00:00
I confess that I have a lawyer's bad habits, even now. Verbosity!


There is only one question:

So, assuming you see the need to eliminate abortions, in toto, are you able to articulate in specific terms the laws that you would have enacted, taking into account Constitutional rights that are applicable?


Please fee free to disragard any of my suggestions.




Comment by Jim Stillman
on The Great Debate 2 is now on: Jim verses SLB

June 10th 2009 23:41
I would expect that we are in general agreement with regard to the issue of a terminated pregnancy being related to the issue of the start of “personhood”. We differ on when that might occur in a pregnancy, but I think that is reasonable and appropriate. It is also a start to mutual understanding.

So if we can continue in the vein of calm discussion, without hyperbole. .
.
The issue of the creation of personhood has been discussed and disputed for thousands of years. As new knowledge comes along, the timing shifts. The issue has been under discussion and has perplexed the legal, ethical and moral communities for millennia; it seems irrational to blame any President of the United States or any contemporaneous political group for creating the issue.

So, assuming you see the need to eliminate abortions, in toto, are you able to articulate in specific terms the laws that you would have enacted, taking into account Constitutional rights that are applicable?

What is your suggestion, your solution? What would you have be done:

A draconian measure that protects everything down to the fertilized single cell to blastomeres to a zygote?

A criminalization of birth control and the bringing of criminal charges against the pregnant woman and any health care professional who participates to any extent in the abortion process?

Laws that would decriminalize all anti-abortion protests outsede of clinics?


A law that made use of a post fertilization drug or device categorically illegal?

How would you fix things, without mentioning, even once, Barack Obama?


Comment by Jim Stillman
on The Great Debate 2 is now on: Jim verses SLB

June 10th 2009 14:36
When you pose the issue in those terms and with that terminology, you compel an affirmative answer. There is no question or uncertainty in my mind that a “fetus” is entitles to rights including that of life.

There are inescapable sub-issues I cannot answer other than with my personal beliefs.

Aborting or the voluntary termination of a pregnancy is, as nearly everyone will acknowledge, is an extremely complex matter. Much depends on the concept of “personhood”. Most people have different opinions on when that “person” comes into being.

I consider the evolution from unfertilized ovum to the first splitting of a single cell creating blastomeres to zygote to fetus to baby to be an unbroken continuum. An excellent explanation of the opinions of science and faith are discussed at Really Long Link

As the development proceeds, the degree of moral choice decreases.

Finally, in the event of a conflict between the pregnant woman and the interests of the potential person, after examining the stage of the potential person’s development, I would give the decision making to the for mer. Certainly I would resolve any question as to the health of the mother in her favor.

Since the issue of the start of personhood is grounded on one’s religion and culture and not on scientific verities, we each have an absolute right to our viewpoints.




It's a little late to join the chorus. Great writing and kudos on the research.