![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by James K on May 13, 2006, at 13:56:07
In reply to Re: Kinky Friedman - Yep or Nope? » zazenduck, posted by jakeman on May 12, 2006, at 20:45:44
It's nothing against Kinky, but Chris Bell is a great candidate. He was a good councilman and a good representative until Tom Delay made his district disappear. He also had the courage to bring the ethics charges against Tom Delay. I'm a Democrat, so I think that is a good thing. Even if you are a Republican, you might admit it was courageous. I also came to a decision some time ago that if there is a chance that a decent candidate can win, I will vote for him rather than another candidate who I think is cool but can't win. (Texas has only been Republican for a short time, anything can happen)
James K
Posted by Estella on May 14, 2006, at 1:47:50
In reply to Nope, posted by James K on May 13, 2006, at 13:56:07
er...
is that his real name?
Posted by James K on May 14, 2006, at 1:56:53
In reply to Re: Nope, posted by Estella on May 14, 2006, at 1:47:50
> er...
>
> is that his real name?Yes, Chris Bell is his real name.
Huh Kinky Friedman, I don't know what his mother called him, but that's what he's gone by for years. He writes detective novels about himself and plays (played?) music with his band The Texas Jewboys. He is a serious candidate mainly because our governor is a somewhat powerless role, so he is as qualified as an unsuccesful business man, A guy with good hair, Scotty's mother, and other past and present governors and candidants for the governorship.
James K
Posted by zazenduck on May 16, 2006, at 10:10:55
In reply to Nope, posted by James K on May 13, 2006, at 13:56:07
I assume he would stop executing people. That's the only real power he would have I guess except calling out the national gaurd.I laughed months ago when he said he was going to call them up to protect the border but now the President's on board with that I guess.
And I think if teachers aren't teaching they should be fired not given 7000 dollars a year extra. If there's a job Americans wont do at the wages offered aren't we supposed to let people immigrate to take it?
I'm tired of his one liners tho. I find myself bored. And I'm afraid that the name of his band offends some of the people in my head including myself and reportedly his own daddy. Still I like his ranch for lost dawgs.
Posted by Jakeman on May 16, 2006, at 19:23:30
In reply to The death penalty, posted by zazenduck on May 16, 2006, at 10:10:55
You've probably heard his statement that Texas should be first in something other than executions. It would take an act of the legislature to change that, but I admire his courage in taking a stand that is unpopular.
> I assume he would stop executing people. That's the only real power he would have I guess except calling out the national gaurd.I laughed months ago when he said he was going to call them up to protect the border but now the President's on board with that I guess.
>
> And I think if teachers aren't teaching they should be fired not given 7000 dollars a year extra. If there's a job Americans wont do at the wages offered aren't we supposed to let people immigrate to take it?
>
> I'm tired of his one liners tho. I find myself bored. And I'm afraid that the name of his band offends some of the people in my head including myself and reportedly his own daddy. Still I like his ranch for lost dawgs.
Posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 8:35:51
In reply to Re: The death penalty, posted by Jakeman on May 16, 2006, at 19:23:30
> You've probably heard his statement that Texas should be first in something other than executions.
Yes but I was talking about his position on the death penalty. There still seems to some confusion. His website states that he is not against the death penalty just against executing the wrong guy. However in February he testified at a death penalty case that he was against the death penalty without any conditions. I admire his change of mind too. But I would feel more comfortable if it was reflected on his official website.
It would take an act of the legislature to change that,
Yes I know that. I was thinking the real power he would have would be to commute sentences and put a moratorium on executions during his term. I am not sure how adept he would be at convincing the legislature to do anything.
but I admire his courage in taking a stand that is unpopular.
>
>
> > I assume he would stop executing people. That's the only real power he would have I guess except calling out the national gaurd.I laughed months ago when he said he was going to call them up to protect the border but now the President's on board with that I guess.
> >
> > And I think if teachers aren't teaching they should be fired not given 7000 dollars a year extra. If there's a job Americans wont do at the wages offered aren't we supposed to let people immigrate to take it?
> >
> > I'm tired of his one liners tho. I find myself bored. And I'm afraid that the name of his band offends some of the people in my head including myself and reportedly his own daddy. Still I like his ranch for lost dawgs.
>
>
Posted by AuntieMel on May 17, 2006, at 12:09:42
In reply to Re: The death penalty, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 8:35:51
Actually the governor doesn't even have the power to commute a death penalty.
The most he can do is a 30 day stay, and then only if the board of pardons & paroles advises it.
But I do like the band. It's all satire - biting satire, which I admire greatly. Good songs like "Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed."
I do have to admit though, that if it looks like he's going to be a spoiler and help Perry get re-elected I'm voting for Bell.
Posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 12:50:43
In reply to Re: The death penalty » zazenduck, posted by AuntieMel on May 17, 2006, at 12:09:42
> Actually the governor doesn't even have the power to commute a death penalty.
Thanks for that information. He would be able to appoint members of the pardon board though and wield influence that way.
>
> The most he can do is a 30 day stay, and then only if the board of pardons & paroles advises itI think you may be mistaken. What is your source? Here's mine.
At the same time that the defense is exhausting its legal appeals, it may file a petition with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. The parole board consists of 18 members, appointed by the governor. (Six new members are appointed every two years.) It has the power to grant everything from a 120-day reprieve, to a commuted sentence, to a full, unconditional pardon. The board does not meet as a body; rather, each member considers the case and faxes his or her vote to the governor. The governor may also request that the board members issue a certain ruling, but they do not have to comply. The parole board's vote is almost always taken the day of the execution. Decisions are rendered by majority vote.
Without a court ruling or parole board recommendation, there is only one person that can stop the execution, and that is the governor, who has the unilateral authority to grant a 30-day stay. This power may be used only once per prisoner. Even if the execution ends up being delayed for years, when it is ultimately reset, the governor (or his/her successor) may not issue another stay for that prisoner. Because of this, the governor always waits until every other last resort has failed, which means that if a stay is issued, it will be within hours or even minutes of the execution time.
http://www.txexecutions.org/primer.asp
>
> But I do like the band. It's all satire -Thanks for clueing us in ;)
I think he's an amusing satirist and a great friend of lost dogs. But I still don't understand why he doesn't just post his position on the death penalty on his campaign site. I think it would be the unw*ssy thing to do and the unw*ssification of ***** IS one of his campaign planks. He was under oath when he swore he opposed it in all cases in February. I think it would be nice if he updated his website.
Posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 15:47:55
In reply to Re: The death penalty, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 12:50:43
Chris Bell is a nice man who teaches Sunday School and feeds the homeless. (His position on the death penalty is unknown to this poster)
From Chris Bell's siteI was addressing an adult Sunday school series on politics and faith in Houston last year when one of my Republican friends posed a question that stumped me. "Jesus had the most radical social agenda in the history of the world," he began. "Why don't Democrats ever invoke that?"
It was a good question. In the past, I was as guilty as any other Democrat in being hesitant to speak of political issues in moral and religious terms. But I have come to realize that there are some policy areas in which I can best articulate my political beliefs by also articulating the Christian values in which these beliefs are rooted.
Health care policy is the clearest example of this. Jesus himself walked from town to town healing the sick in order to manifest God's love for us. In Texas today, we have no less of a calling to heal the sick, for the mandate of the New Mainstream is rooted in the belief that we are all in this together. In the New Mainstream, quality health care can not be a privilege reserved for just the fortunate and the well-connected
http://www.chrisbell.com/issues/healthcare
Posted by Declan on May 17, 2006, at 18:57:03
In reply to WWJVF?, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 15:47:55
Too right. It's been a mystery to me how the right snaffled Jesus. Was it because the left wasn't interested? And yet Christianity wasn't always the preserve of the right. What's the name of that bloke? Was he President? Anyway he was a Democrat candidate...Waylong Jennings Bryan?????? That can't be quite right. There's that influential study group thingo (please excuse) on Capitol Hill that says that Jesus would have believed in the free market. I shouldn't let that bother me, of course.
Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
In reply to WWJVF?, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 15:47:55
>... In the past, I was as guilty as any other Democrat in being hesitant to speak of political issues in moral and religious terms. But I have come to realize that there are some policy areas in which I can best articulate my political beliefs by also articulating the Christian values in which these beliefs are rooted.
:-O
christian values?
how about muslim values
or hindu values
or athiest values
or buddist values?
why does he have to drag christianity into it?
can't you just talk about your human values without invoking religion?
can't you just talk about your human values and morality without invoking religion?
i don't understand...
:-(
er...
so the death penalty is popular in texas (in the sense that most people in texas think it should be retained)?
er...
i still don't understand why someone would want to change his name to that...
and i still don't understand how someone who changed his name to that could be taken terribly seriously...
and how someone might get voted in for a dawg orphanage (how about a people orphanage)
?but then i don't understand the world one hell of a lot...
Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:44:24
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
er...
dare i ask what people think jesus would say about the death penalty?
where did the christian values go?
Posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:03:10
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
> >... In the past, I was as guilty as any other Democrat in being hesitant to speak of political issues in moral and religious terms. But I have come to realize that there are some policy areas in which I can best articulate my political beliefs by also articulating the Christian values in which these beliefs are rooted.
>
> :-O
>
> christian values?
>
> how about muslim values
> or hindu values
> or athiest values
> or buddist values
>
> ?How about them?
>
> why does he have to drag christianity into it?Why not?
>
> can't you just talk about your human values without invoking religion?Can you? Should you? Should you ask others to do the same?
>
> can't you just talk about your human values and morality without invoking religion?Well some folk claim humanism is a religion. Of course the Kinkster is on record supporting non denominational prayer in the school even if the kids want to pray to a rock or a tree. So I suppose if you wanted to pray to the Psyche or human wisdom or your uncle Bob that would be okay by him too.
But like ole Bob Zimmerman said before he renamed himself after a Welsh poet....You gotta serve somebody ....So I want to know who the guy I'm voting for is serving. Yes I want to know what he believes but I want to know why and what his guiding principals are.I want him to be forthright and stand up for what he believes. Kinky is calling for dewuss*fication (an end to political correctness) and by Georgina I'm for that too. That's a long way from wanting him to establish a religion for me. And it's a long way from saying I wouldn't vote for someone with different beliefs.
>
> i don't understand...
>
> :-(
>
> er...
>
> so the death penalty is popular in texas (in the sense that most people in texas think it should be retained)?I don't know. It is legal.
>
> er...
>
> i still don't understand why someone would want to change his name to that...Why not? Why would you not want to change your name to that? Does it matter that he did?
> and i still don't understand how someone who changed his name to that could be taken terribly seriously...
If he had been born with that name would you be able to take him seriously? What about his decision to change his name makes it hard for you ?
> and how someone might get voted in for a dawg orphanage (how about a people orphanage)
> ?Do you believe he might be voted in for a dawg orphanage? It isn't part of his official platform. I included it in the spirit of positive posting. And I personally think you can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats a stray dawg. Chris bell feeds the homeless once a week. Do you think he will be voted in because of that? I would never look a gift sandwich in the mouth but that seems like pretty short rations for sustaining life. And them dawgs have a home for life. And it gives Kinky an opportunity to make powerful political friends. Miss Laura the first lady of our nation has donated a pen to Kinky's dawg home. I personally believe this enhances his political resume which also includes a failed attempt to run for city council of Kerrville.
Do you think running a dawg orphanage somehow indicates a lack of support for human orphanages? (Many of them are run either by the state or by religous organizations.)
>
> but then i don't understand the world one hell of a lot...Same here :)
Posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:10:18
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:44:24
> er...
>
> dare i ask what people think jesus would say about the death penalty?What do you think he would say?
>
> where did the christian values go?Er, I believe Chris Bell said he had them?
Posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:26:12
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Declan on May 17, 2006, at 18:57:03
> Too right. It's been a mystery to me how the right snaffled Jesus. Was it because the left wasn't interested? And yet Christianity wasn't always the preserve of the right.
The civil rights movement sprang out of the African American churches in the south and the Democratic party.
>What's the name of that bloke? Was he President? Anyway he was a Democrat candidate...Waylong Jennings Bryan?????? That can't be quite right.William Jennings Bryan..that old populist. There was a time when people thought they could rise up and control their own destinies with political action. sigh... course he didn't win
>There's that influential study group thingo (please excuse) on Capitol Hill that says that Jesus would have believed in the free market. I shouldn't let that bother me, of course.
It would be interesting to find out who funded that! Of course people can just slap the christian brand on anything but I think that should be questioned and people should feel free to argue their own interpretations of Christian action not just cede the faith to a particular polital group.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 12:59:19
In reply to Re: The death penalty, posted by zazenduck on May 17, 2006, at 12:50:43
You are right - he can do one 30 day stay without permission.
It still isn't much. We Texans do like to keep our politicians out of trouble, don't we?
I don't understand why he doesn't post it, either.
Myself? I *might* not mind the execution of someone if I were convinced he was past redemption - and truly guilty - and the crime was really, really bad and coldhearted.
But I don't think anyone can ever assure me all those things would be true.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 13:09:07
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » zazenduck, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 5:43:43
"i still don't understand why someone would want to change his name to that..."
It's a nickname, like Bubba. Or Dubya. Lots of us Texans have nicknames.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 13:15:50
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Declan, posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:26:12
I read an editorial about the Republican party and the religeous right. The guy was of the opinion that the religeous right has become the tail wagging the dog.
The really funny thing was that the guy writing the editorial was one of the group who first formed the strategy of getting them into the party in the first place.
Irony. I love it.
Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 21:56:53
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:03:10
> > christian values?
> > how about muslim values
> > or hindu values
> > or athiest values
> > or buddist values
> > ?
> How about them?he seems to think his values are specifically christian. i guess i was wondering whether his values might well be consistent with any other religious belief and hence why does he bother dragging one particular religion into it?
i guess i would have thought that one would be better off articulating ones values in a way that other people can assess them without buying into his variety of religion. i mean... surely not everybody in texas is christian? but maybe professing christianity is a vote winner? i'm fairly surprised at that is all. i would have thought specific policies would be more of a vote winner. and i would have thought it is possible to talk about values without mentioning a religion. i mean there is probably more variability in values from people within a religion than from people between religions. and people who profess certain values... have a way of casting specific acts in line with them even when the majority would disagree...
> > why does he have to drag christianity into it?
> Why not?
i thought politics and religion were supposed to be kept seperate.
i thought that was a western value.
seems i was wrong...
or... maybe it is more in line with England than the US.
because of seperating parliament from the kings rule (where the king was supposed to be divinely appointed by god and parliament was meant to be democratically elected)
i think maybe the idea of seperating church and actual (as opposed to figure head) governance came from there...but could be wrong about all that...
> Well some folk claim humanism is a religion.if you define religion verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry loosely...
> Of course the Kinkster is on record supporting non denominational prayer in the school
er...
what if you don't want to pray at all?i'm used to...
public schools don't have religious rites / rituals.
no prayer.
there may be religious education. parents need to sign a consent form for that. most kids get exemptions.
you might learn about 'what people of different religions believe'. but you learn about it as study of society rather than 'this is the truth'.private schools...
can have a religious element (because people volountarily send their kids to the school)
hence private catholic, anglican, methodist etc schools.
but not public schooling.seperation of church and state...
> You gotta serve somebody ....
do you?
can't you live your life just trying to be a good person?
where there are certain things that 'being a good person' means to you such as:
x
x
xI would have thought there would be more consensus on that than there would be in dragging one particular religon into it.
> Kinky is calling for dewuss*fication (an end to political correctness)
what does he mean by 'political correctness'?
e.g. it is politically incorrect to go around calling out to people of african american descent 'yo n*gger'
it is politically incorrect to make jokes about people with physical disability
it is politically incorrect to grab the *ss of a woman (or man for that matter) in the work place.what does he mean by putting an end to 'political correctness'?
why do people think that is a good thing?
> > and i still don't understand how someone who changed his name to that could be taken terribly seriously...
> If he had been born with that name would you be able to take him seriously? What about his decision to change his name makes it hard for you ?i just wondered if he was a joke candidate.
like the mcgillicudy serious party in nz. (not sure how you spell that). they wanted to outlaw motor vechicles and bring back the horse and cart. stuff like that. they satirised the process basically. i wondered if that was what he was trying to do...
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 3:05:21
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 21:56:53
i guess i have a personal bias (just like everyone else)
but my bias is that i'm an athiest.
though if pushed...
i'll fall back on agnosticism as the most rational position...
but if by 'god' you mean an agent that is beyond the natural laws yet can affect changes (directly) to what lies within the natural world...
an agent that is all loving (benevolent)
all powerful
then i think that notion is incoherant(a contradiction cannot be the case)
so i guess that makes me an athiest
(if you define god as consciousness then i believe in consciousness so i guess that means i believe in god, if you define god as life then i believe in life so i guess that means i believe in god but you have radically changed the meaning of 'god' in defining him as being numerically identical with those things)
when i see the wars that result from religion...
the hostility...
the fighting (both verbal and physical)
for what?
a notion that is deeply incoherant?sigh.
i have no trouble with learning about what people believe
i have no trouble with learning about what different religions saybut to hear it as truth
to be required to pray...requiring people to pray...
imo it is a personal choice that should be confined to the personal realm. do it at home. do it in churches.
but teaching it as truth?
as facts?i have trouble with taht...
Posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 3:28:56
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 3:05:21
People have, I guess, all sorts of ideas about God. Here in new age territory people use the word to mean the unconditioned, taking the idea from the esoteric tradition and Buddhism. I think religions should be benign, inneffective and beleved in (is this a utilitarian argument? I dunno if I like them); in this I am using Burke's idea that in the absence of religion something (worse) will take its place.
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 3:28:56
er... like science ;-)
i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
spirituality... sure...
but religion...
ugh.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:09:17
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
> er... like science ;-)
>
> i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
>.Please be civil. Please do not post anything which might make someone else feel put down. This does not mean I don't like you or that I do not think you are a good person. :)
> spirituality... sure...
>
> but religion...
>
> ugh.see above
For the record I personally am not offended. I think political correctness is something like not ever saying anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere.
Kinky's proposal was for voluntary prayer.
Kinky was defeated for Justice of the Peace of Kerrville. I was mistaken above.
I would not want my children to read some of Kinky's lyrics. I would not want my governor to use that kind of language. I don't think that's political correctness. I think it's common decency. I don't know exactly what the difference is.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:22:08
In reply to Re: My bad » zazenduck, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 12:59:19
>
> I don't understand why he doesn't post it, either.
>
> Myself? I *might* not mind the execution of someone if I were convinced he was past redemption - and truly guilty - and the crime was really, really bad and coldhearted.
>
> But I don't think anyone can ever assure me all those things would be true.Yes that's what I thought Kinky was trying to say by saying he was in favor of it if he was sure the guy was guilty etc. It just sounded like such a political answer.. that he was playing the game..but that's what people have to do if they want to win I know.
I wouldn't be able to give someone the death penalty either I don't think. I wouldn't serve on a death penalty jury. And to me that just seems like there is no way for a man to get a jury of his peers when so many refuse to be on death penalty juries.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 8:56:46
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
sorry I asked you to be civil
that may have felt uncivil to you and that was not my intent.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.