Sunday, September 10, 2006

The Freedom to Choose Freedom

This topic has gotten a bit of attention from some bloggers, and I can see why. A publisher's book blurb has summarized an important argument that is rarely spelled out in black and white, but is often assumed. By putting it in the light of day, they have given us an opportunity to think a little more clearly about some beliefs that divide us as a country.

Look, here's Amazon-dot-com's blurb on Dinesh d'Souza's new book, The Enemy at Home:
Book Description

In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America’s cultural left.

D’Souza shows that liberals—people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore—are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy—including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror—contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D’Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries.

Terrorist attacks happen because liberals abuse their freedom.

You can run so many different directions with this.

First of all, of course, there's a core of truth to what he says. We can all see what people hate about America. We're trashy, rowdy, provincial, rude, not to mention fat. We have no breeding, no taste, no manners. We like our women sexy and half-naked and our men burly and macho -- at least on television and in the movies. Our mass-produced commercial culture is lacking in quality, personality, nuance.

I mean, c'mon, that's easy.

But, uh, what does that have to do with "liberals?" Like, Red Staters don't shop at Wal-Mart and eat at McDonald's?

Here's the money quote from this blurb:
He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The whole thing turns on the distinction between the "exercise" and "abuse" of freedom.

To tell you the truth, there are lots of times I wish I was different. I wish my thoughts were clearer and more logical, that my mind was more disciplined. I wish I didn't get distracted when a pretty girl walked by. It would be good if I listened to more classical music and less blues. I should be forty pounds thinner. It would be better if I drank less and exercised more. These are all choices I make, given that I have the freedom to make them; I make bad choices.

But, dude, that's no reason to blow yourself up in a crowded place.

See, the problem with this freedom stuff is that we are just as free to make bad choices as to make good ones.

And so some people -- and I am using myself as an example, but you're just as bad -- make some bad choices. I chose to pick up a piece of cake after the going-away party at work Friday: bad choice.

Now, I am trying to imagine a "freedom" where people are only allowed to make good choices. I'm sure, as Mr. d'Souza is saying, that if America were The Land of Good Choices Only the terrorists wouldn't hate us, we wouldn't have been attacked five years ago, and the USA wouldn't have to cower in constant fear as we do now.

But you notice I had to put the word "freedom" in quotes. Because ... that wouldn't be freedom, would it?

That's the paradox. It's the exercise versus abuse thing. If you can't abuse your freedom then you ain't got none.

Exercising freedom is, by some standards, identical to abusing it, and that's really the problem, if you ask me. You will choose to do something different from what other people are doing, and lots of times they have chosen to do what they're doing because it's a good thing to do. People who think perfectly logically are doing the right thing. Classical music is better than blues. It's usually better to keep your mouth shut and go along with things, better for you of course, but it also turns out people often know what they're doing and you don't. Conformity serves an important function, and generally it will serve society well.

We really should be more logical and listen to better music (he said, with Dylan's new CD blasting in the background).

Of course that would be a boring nightmare, you're thinking. Life would hardly seem worth living.

So which is it? What do you want? Freedom, and the mistakes and the danger that come with it, or totalitarian uniformity and safety?

What we have to do is to model good choices and allow bad ones. There are a million reasons why it is necessary for people to learn by trial and error, to learn by doing, why people need to be allowed to make bad choices. Besides making life, y'know, "interesting," people need to try things in order to innovate, to make life better. Any inventor, any artist or musician, any creative person will tell you they get it wrong a lot of the time, a lot of the things they try don't work out. A country where everybody only did what was perfectly acceptable to everyone would be a country of such incredible wimpiness that it would be unable to defend itself, a country of such blandness that nobody would want to live there, and country that would go to the back of the line where innovation and entrepreneurship were involved.

So we've got this freedom thing, thanks to Founding Fathers and subsequent diligent custodians. People like d'Souza want to give it up so the terrorists won't hurt us. People like the President and the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense want to accuse those who exercise their freedom of abusing it, they want to assert that we're traitors or worse for expressing opinions that deviate from theirs. It seems that there's a lot of pressure for everyone to walk the same straight-and-narrow.

The choice seems obvious to me, but obviously I'm just one guy. We could use the power of our government to ensure that Americans make only good choices, and after a while I'll just betcha that, like Mr. d'Souza is saying here, the terrorists would stop bothering us.

Or ... we can go on being the regular slobs we are, each of us in his or her own way trying to figure out what works and what doesn't through a chaotic cacophony of mass blundering trial and error, exercising and maybe abusing our freedom in the hope that maybe there are better ways to live.

That's easy. I choose blunder.

33 Comments:

Blogger Theresa said...

There are some things that are immoral and wrong, and should be characterized as so.

Society, for instance, should be more punishing and should ostracize men decide to abandon their families and marry someone 20 years younger.

For instance, I have a friend of a neighbor who decided to leave his wife of twelve years, abandon his three small children (the youngest is 5), re-marry someone 20 years younger, have a brand new baby and start over.

That's wrong, it's immoral, and shows no compassion for his existing family that society should insist that he has not only a financial obligation too but an emotional obligation too as well.

In this age of no fault divorce, people like you Jim, will just accept this guy and his new family as "oh well, whatever floats your boat"...

If society instead would as a whole immediately stop associating with this new family because 1) new wife is completely immoral and a HORRIBLE person for dating someone with three small kids and 2) dad is immoral for deserting his family...

Then dad would know not to desert his family because all of his friends, his mom, his dad and his siblings will never talk to him again.

That, Jim, would definitely make a difference.

This acceptance of "hell, anything goes" and we must accept and tolerate all people and all behaviors is a downward spiral.

And, you, my dear, are contributing to it.

September 10, 2006 1:09 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

So, Theresa, why don't you start some public shaming on your own? Why don't you get together with your friend and pass out flyers describing this fellow and his new family -- set up soemthing similar to a pedophile watch committee which can harrass this family in shifts.

Then when it's worked in this neighborhood, you can export it to the red states where they often have a monopoly on this sort of immoral behavior. So much for your religious beliefs.

When those states under our federal system have proven that the Southern utopia is a much more delightful place, then we can import it back home.

September 10, 2006 4:58 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa

I'm sorry I made this guy run off and leave his wife. Now I've pissed off not only the Taliban, but you.

Was he a liberal, by any chance? Or was it just that the liberals made him do it?

Or to ask another way, do you really think that liberals do that sort of thing any more than conservatives? (The answer to that question is hinted at in Dana's comments.)

Look, Theresa, here's a serious question. What do you think should be the government's role in regulating guys' tendencies to run off with younger women after X years of marriage? Should it be a crime? Should, maybe, deserted wives be given peremission to shoot their cheater husbands?

Do, tell me how a free country should deal with this kind of situation.

JimK

September 10, 2006 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Daisy said...

Theresa said..."There are some things that are immoral and wrong, and should be characterized as so...September 10, 2006 1:09 PM"

Apparently vigilantism is not one of those "things that are immoral and wrong" because Theresa also said..."Someone hurts my kids, I will kill them myself...September 06, 2006 7:52 PM"

If this is an example of your ideas of the morals we should hold in order to maintain and improve society, you can keep them.

Tell us, would you lynch the person who hurt your kid before or after the trial?

Daisy

September 10, 2006 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saddam Hussein admitted today that he used WMD against ethnic group. He doesn't feel guilty about it:

"Witness Testifies About Chemical Attack on Kurds

Saddam Hussein Says Iraqis Shouldn't Feel Guilt Over 1980s Crackdown

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Sept. 11) -- A 56-year-old Kurdish-American woman told of seeing people sickened and dying during an alleged chemical attack carried out by Saddam Hussein's forces, as his genocide trial resumed Monday. The defiant ex-president told his countrymen they should not feel guilty for crushing the Kurdish insurgency in the 1980s.


The prosecution alleges about 180,000 people were killed in the Anfal campaign in 1987-88 to put down a Kurdish insurgency during the later stages of an Iraqi war with Iran. Saddam accused the Kurds of helping Iran in the war.

"My message to the Iraqi people is that they should not suffer from the guilt that they killed Kurds," Saddam said as his trial resumed after a three-week break."

September 11, 2006 10:46 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Did this surprise you, Anon? I thought it was common knowledge.

JimK

September 11, 2006 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, but his willingness to use them, his statement that their use was justified, the fact that he maintained his capacity to produce them, and his belligerence toward the U.S. and our allies combined, along with his ruthless dictorial reign, to make his removal from power a compelling necessity.

September 11, 2006 11:05 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Did they give him a chance to mention that he used these weapons with the full support of the United States?

And ... did you see something somewhere that told you that "he maintained his capacity to produce them?"

And ... did you think that punishing a crime from nearly 20 years ago was more important to the USA than dealing with the terrorists who attacked our country five years ago?

Because, personally, I was pretty upset by those attacks that we commemorate today, and thought it would have been a good thing for our country to put a stop to it. In fact, the whole world was in agreement on that. Except the Bush administration.

What's your point, Anon?

JimK

September 11, 2006 11:21 AM  
Blogger andrear said...

Theresa,
Are you kidding??? Why don't you become Amish- they shun people they don't agree with-and you can shun your neighbor and his new wife. Murder is immoral, rape is immoral but divorce is legal- maybe not the best solution to every problem but the best we have worked out. But as the moral arbiter of the neighborhood and all knowing- you go ahead and hate these horrible people and sanctify the ex-wife(ever think maybe she was cheating too?)

September 11, 2006 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did they give him a chance to mention that he used these weapons with the full support of the United States?"

I see. The Great Satan made him do it. We tricked into and then turned around and attacked him. I'm surprised his lawyer doesn't bring up that defense.

Oh, that's right- nonr of his lawyers live long enough to form a strategy. His supporters kill them to disrupt proceedings.

"And ... did you see something somewhere that told you that "he maintained his capacity to produce them?""

Yes, I did. It was in a report submitted to Congress this summer.

"And ... did you think that punishing a crime from nearly 20 years ago was more important to the USA than dealing with the terrorists who attacked our country five years ago?"

We had a chance, and still do, to create a Middle East that doesn't breed and harbor terrorists. You may not remember, but when we rolled into Baghdad, we found terrorists that had been wanted for years living in comfy apartments. Of course, if we desert the Iraqis, at this point, we'll embolden terrorists worldwide.

"Because, personally, I was pretty upset by those attacks that we commemorate today, and thought it would have been a good thing for our country to put a stop to it. In fact, the whole world was in agreement on that. Except the Bush administration."

Immediately following 9/11, Bin Laden announced that "storm of planes" would continue. Despite persistent threats, there have been no repeated attacks. We took the war to them and they've had their hands full. Someone's doing something right- and it's not woth the support of Democrats.

September 11, 2006 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(he said, with Dylan's new CD blasting in the background)."

Well, if nothing else, Jim, at least you like good music. Disc of the month at Starbucks.

Watch out, though. I don't think Dylan believes in evolution.

September 11, 2006 2:40 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

If Dylan doesn't believe in evolution then he's as ignorant as you are.

September 11, 2006 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said...
This acceptance of "hell, anything goes" and we must accept and tolerate all people and all behaviors is a downward spiral. "oh well, whatever floats your boat"... There are some things that are immoral and wrong, and should be characterized as so.
Society, for instance, should be more punishing and should ostracize men decide to abandon their families and marry someone 20 years younger.

Well-said Theresa. This is a group that wants to define moral behavior by there own standards of moral relativism. If you can justify it than it is OK unless it is in conflict with their personal moral relativism and than it is intolerant and bigoted by there own code. Hippocrates each and every one.

Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
…set up something similar to a pedophile watch committee….

Would you favor of a pedophile watch committee? Even if the pedophile was not gay? I don’t think so. You will not even give a position on the age of consent. but please feel free to go on the record.

JimK said...
…What do you think should be the government's role in regulating a guys' tendencies…

There is a difference between a governments role and a societies role you are confusing definitions again Jim. By a dictionary so you can fallow the conversation.

Daisy said...
…If this is an example of your ideas of the morals we should hold in order to maintain and improve society, you can keep them… …Tell us, would you lynch the person who hurt your kid before or after the trial?

Well after the democrats tried to kill Jessica’s law and how ambivalent liberals are about sex and who can do what to who I would feel that if the government will no longer protect my kids from those who would pray on them than I am willing to take the law into my hands but first I am going to try to force the government to do its job. And pray I don’t have to do the former. So Daisy if you rape my children than you better hope the cops finds you before I do!

andrear said...
… as the moral arbiter of the neighborhood and all knowing- you go ahead and hate these horrible people…

Have you ever made an intelligent comment andrear? Not just here, I know you have never made an intelligent comment here, but any place in your life?

September 11, 2006 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
If Dylan doesn't believe in evolution then he's as ignorant as you are.

September 11, 2006 3:03 PM

Bigoted intolerant hateful anti religious dogma from the candidate

September 11, 2006 3:27 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe in science. If you don't believe in science, then you are ignorant. It's that simple. You benefit from science and technology every day, but you have the nerve to condemn those who simply accept reality. So that also makes you a hypocrite.

I have not said anything, now or before, that could in any way be mnisconstrued as "bigoted, hateful, intolerant or anti-religious," and I dare you to prove otherwise.

September 11, 2006 4:57 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

A few thoughts on Theresa’s response to this blog.

I have noticed that one of the catch-phrases often used by social conservatives is that liberals are in favor of an "anything goes" society, suggesting that liberals have no "standards."

Theresa, I think it unfair to assume that "people like . . . Jim" (or me, I suppose) "will just accept this guy. . . as 'oh, well, whatever floats your boat,'...."' This stereotype of people who are not social conservatives (and this is a political, not a personal, description, I believe) is a straw man.

My own life is pretty much what I suspect you would see as a model: Married nearly thirty years to my first (and only) wife, who was a stay-at-home mom when the kids were young. Monogamy has always been a given. Being active in our religious congregation has always been a given. Putting our children first has always been a given. Having a strong sense of responsibility to those who need us has always been a given. Most of our friends are liberals. And they all fit the same pattern as we do.

As a general matter, I am predisposed to disapprove of someone who abandons his or her family. While there sometimes are circumstances that make separation or divorce the best of bad alternatives, I see that as the last resort. When we assume responsibilities to other people, I believe we should make every effort to fulfill those responsibilities. But I recognize that sometimes a devastatingly bad marriage may be worse than a divorce.

What has made America great has been the growth and maturation of the notion of individual liberty and freedom. That freedom is not simply license to do whatever pleases us personally. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,“the freedom to swing my fist ends at the other fellow’s nose."

But freedom does mean that our laws should proscribe action that does not hurt others. This is not always an easy standard, however. Divorce can be an abdication of personal responsibility; but it can also be the least destructive of bad alternatives, depending on the situation in any given family. The government does not interfere in these personal dramas, other than to try to make certain that people fulfill their financial responsibilities; and that is as far as the government should reasonably go.

What we seek is a culture in which people are unselfish and care about their families, friends, and communities; a culture in which most people will gravitate to such caring as the obvious way to live. If that is ingrained in people, the sort of divorce you describe above will be less prevalent.

Given the nature of a profit-driven media and the vagaries of a free-market economic system, that kind of caring culture is not always easy to achieve. But we also understand that some kinds of attempts to tame a profit-driven media or to tame a free-market economy may create more harm than good. The challenge of living in a free society is to find the most effective balance.

Freedom can be scary. But the absence of freedom is scarier.

September 11, 2006 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As the original poster of the Dylan comment, while I disagree with the Dr, I also disagree that the Dr remarks amount to "Bigoted intolerant hateful anti religious dogma from the candidate".

If you aren't just a fabrication of Jim's, other anon, then you should tone down the hyperbole. It doesn't serve any purpose.

September 11, 2006 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

“If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe in science.”

That’s Dogma; Science is more that evolution to say that evolution is the sum total of science is an alternative reality.
I have not benefited from the theory of evolution and the world has suffered from it in ways to numerous to calculate. The holocaust is a good example. So are Jim Crow laws. You should know that, you’re a democrat.
Technology is intelligently designed no evolution there, and if you think so, than you are ignorant.
Beyer you are not in the position to condemn or accuse anyone for not accepting reality.

“If you don't believe in science, then you are ignorant.”
That statement is intolerant and anti-religious

September 11, 2006 5:19 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

If you aren't just a fabrication of Jim's, other anon,

This is too cool: Battling Anons.

I was once jamming after-hours in a country-western bar in Washington State, when there were actually three Elvis impersonators on the stage at the same time. This is kind of like that... A Battle of the Anonymice.

Oh, and if you are insinuating that the "other anon" is me, no, it's not, I don't even understand half of what you guys are talking about.

JimK

September 11, 2006 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David S. Fishback said...
A long-winded and pointless statement on freedom. Freedom with out responsibility is as bad a dictatorship and the statement was that society not the government should advocate people taking responsibility for their actions. And there should be social consequences for not taking responsibility for your actions. Learn the difference between government and society.


"Anonymous said...
As the original poster of the Dylan comment,"

I find it good to not hold back sometimes and let them know how strongly I feel they seem to get it then.

September 11, 2006 5:31 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You continue to insist that evolution is more than science, as if reperating that ad nauseum will make it so. That racists and bigots and sexists and the like miscontstrued the philosophical underpinnings of the biological theory of evolution is irrelevant to this discussion. Physicists used physics to make nuclear weapons, too. That's a distinct issue from the science. Nuclear physics is reality, a part of the physical world, jsut as evolutionary biology is part of the biological world. Extrapolating from that theory or some political positon of Charles Darwin himself to condemn the science is patently absurd and shows your political agenda if not your ignorance of what science really is.

September 11, 2006 10:52 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Dana -
No, I don't think you have ever hurled personal insults at me the way Andrear, Daisy, et all have.
I don't think Jim has either... and I haven't hurled many at him (except holding him responsible for the detoriation of society).

As a matter of fact, every time I get exhausted from all the CRC work I am doing I just pop on over, post a good solid right wing opinion of mine, and watch the insults fly. It reminds me of all the nastiness I, and my kids, were a subject of at NCC when we did not shut up on the subject of the curriculum (as we were supposed to after the gay "jamming" session)...

Jamming is the gay communitys way of trying to fling enough personal insults at anyone who opposes their opinion to get them to shut up. Unfortunately, I have a combination Irish/American Indian heritage. We happen to be very stubborn ....

And I knew I was right on the curriculum.... the lovely little passage in the resources about the curriculum questioning whether or not homosexuality was a sin and chastising the Baptist religon had been on our blog for ages...

So, hey, thanks for the motivation.

September 11, 2006 11:24 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Oh, and one other thing.

If I found out that some jerk had molested my two year old, the way that happened in the recent case, I would probably kill the perpertrator....

And you know what, that is not a Democrat or Republican held view.

That is a parent's view.

It was one of the very few things that my very liberal neighbor across the street and I agreed on (the same one that convinced me to move my kids to public school).

We had a pact. Anyone hurts our kids, we go after them together.

Daisy, you must not have kids.

September 11, 2006 11:29 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

"jsut as evolutionary biology is part of the biological world"

Dana - I don't think so...

Maybe in some forms, but not to the point that it explains life on earth. No transitional fossils...the fossil record doesn't hold up to Darwin's theory, AND IT SHOULD BY NOW, statiscally.

Big debate over what a transitional fossil really is...

Hey, when I was inviting you folks to a debate, I wasn't planning on debating you....

I have a friend who holds a doctorate in micro biology who also believes the evidence does not support evolution... a christian (but being a christian does not by definition negate all your scientific training and make you an idiot, like you would like to imply...)... I was planning on shooting the issues to my friend..you guys just laughed at me, but, I think this might be an interesting debate.

I also believed evolution was a fact, until I had reason to go investigate... and the more I looked at the evidence, the more I had doubts... clearly I am not enough of an expert to determine which is correct.. but the experts are disagreeing (don't make me start quoting the references again... I will, but this weekend.)

Theresa

September 12, 2006 12:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GO VOTE! EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOM TO CHOOSE

September 12, 2006 6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You continue to insist that evolution is more than science, as if reperating that ad nauseum will make it so. That racists and bigots and sexists and the like miscontstrued the philosophical underpinnings of the biological theory of evolution is irrelevant to this discussion. Physicists used physics to make nuclear weapons, too. That's a distinct issue from the science. Nuclear physics is reality, a part of the physical world, jsut as evolutionary biology is part of the biological world. Extrapolating from that theory or some political positon of Charles Darwin himself to condemn the science is patently absurd and shows your political agenda if not your ignorance of what science really is."

Dr

I think your analogy with Physics is not appropos. Evolution is a more complicated situation. If you believe that intelligent life is a good thing and that intelligent life was created by eons of ruthless, "survival-of-the-fittest" behavior, the implication might be that either that type of behavior is good.

Further, while adaption to the environment among species seems evident, that is not synonymous with evolution but had been noted prior to Darwin. Darwin's contribution was to assert that the adaption process was responsible for all the varied speciation of our planet. This seems unlikely from looking at the fossil record.

September 12, 2006 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Daisy said...

Theresa said..."If I found out that some jerk had molested my two year old, the way that happened in the recent case, I would probably kill the perpertrator....Daisy you must not have kids."

Dear Theresa,

I'm not sure which recent case you're talking about, but I am sorry you feel I insulted you by expressing my disapproval of your stated support for vigilantism. I'm also sorry to disappoint you but I do have kids. Were someone to harm one of them, I would hope that I could follow my faith and forgive the perpetrator as Glen Mitchell has done.

"Jacksonville man joins with son's killer to stop violence
RON WORD
Associated Press
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Glen Mitchell has every right to hate Ellis Curry, one of four young thugs who shot down his son outside a Jacksonville high school 13 years ago.

But he doesn't.

Now, Curry is free after 12 years in prison and he and Mitchell have joined forces to spread the word that violence and murder are not the answer.

The unlikely duo recently appeared before more than 6,500 people at the Day of Faith. The city-sponsored rally was designed to draw in the religious community to try to stem this city's homicide epidemic - more than 100 have died this year.

It's amazing to Curry that Mitchell never had any anger toward him or the others who killed 14-year-old Jeff Mitchell.

"I can't explain it," Mitchell said. "Having anger would not bring honor to Jeff."

"You really have to be very spiritual or understanding to feel like that," Curry said. "To see him humble like that, you've got to respect that."

Curry, now 29, was just 16 when he was with a group of four teenagers who attempted to rob Jeff outside Terry Parker High School on Nov. 4, 1993. Mitchell was waiting for his father to pick him up after a fundraising event.

Curry, Omar Jones and two others, high on adrenaline, marijuana and cheap wine, approached Mitchell and a friend.

When the baby-faced teen said "No" to a demand for money, Jones shot Mitchell twice, once in the hip and once in the head.

Curry, Jones, Marlon Hawkins and Edward Goodman ran, but were quickly arrested.

Minutes after the shooting, Glen Mitchell arrived and found his bleeding son. He followed the ambulance to the hospital.

"I could see the emergency technicians working on Jeff through the window and I just knew he wasn't going to recover," Mitchell recalls. "I said, 'There's got to be some reason for this. His life has got to be more than these 15 years.'"

Jeff Mitchell died the next morning.

"A lot of my purpose has been to continue to honor Jeff's life," Mitchell said. Along with his wife, Margaret, he started Compassionate Families to help families of murder victims. The organization occupies the second floor of Mitchell's downtown landscape architecture business. It is lined with photographs of Jacksonville murder victims.

Curry is working with Mitchell to atone for the slaying. The Mitchells met Curry about 10 months after their son's slaying and noticed there was something different about him from the other three suspects.

"What stood out about Ellis at that time was that he was the only one who seemed to have any understanding of what actually happened. He was certainly the only who expressed any sense of remorse," Mitchell said.

Curry pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and testified against Jones, who is serving a life sentence. Curry was released after 12 years and has spent the last year trying to rebuild his life, finding work as a welder, a trade he learned behind bars.

Although he did not shoot Mitchell, Curry said he sometimes shot at people, using guns that could be obtained for as little as $25.

"I thought that it was real cool to shoot at people and put fear in their hearts. I thought that made me a man, and that was terribly wrong," Curry said.

Curry and Mitchell were reunited earlier this year when Mitchell became involved in a study of the city's climbing murder rate conducted by the Jacksonville Community Council Inc.

A friend suggested he invite Curry. And although he felt some trepidation about getting involved with his son's killer, he asked Curry to attend the JCCI meeting and talk about the murder and he agreed.

"I thought his story could much more of a dramatic impact ... than hearing from someone like me," Mitchell said.

It was - Curry got standing ovations, first at the JCCI meeting and again at the Day of Faith, where he urged those in attendance to report those carrying guns or promoting violence.

"The police didn't know I had a gun, the sheriff's office didn't know I had a gun, the mayor didn't know I had a gun, but everybody in my community did."

The pair have several appearances scheduled in Jacksonville area schools for Curry to tell his story and emphasize to students that one mistake can change their lives.

"I feel Ellis is very sincere and wants to positively influence others," Mitchell said.

Michael Hallett, a criminologist at the University of North Florida, believes appearances by people like Curry and Mitchell can make a difference in this city coping with an increasing murder rate.

"Ellis Curry gave a compelling statement about the life of disconnection and violence he led prior to his incarceration," Hallett said. "He also spoke directly and honestly about the importance of the openness of Glen Mitchell and other community members have been for his rehabilitation and future plans.

"As long as communities want to shut their eyes to the fact that ex-offenders return to their communities, recidivism will remain at over the 70 percent rate it stands at the moment," Hallett said.

Curry is on conditional release until Oct. 31, 2008, according to the Florida Department of Corrections, meaning he can be returned to prison if he uses drugs, misses his 7 p.m. curfew or violates other rules. According to DOC records, he has no violations.

Curry was raised by a single mother, a pastor, but he does not blame her or the lack a father in his home for his "gangsta" lifestyle. At the time of the killing, he was not in school and spent his days playing video games, hanging out with his friends and sometimes committing crimes.

"I wish somebody would have told on us. Yes, I would have been mad, but Jeff would still be alive.""

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/15476323.htm

Daisy

September 13, 2006 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
“You continue to insist that evolution is more than science…”

No once again you got everything backwards I said science is more than the theory of evolution and technology is not make through evolution. It is designed.

Beyer “ …That racists and bigots and sexists and the like misconstrued the philosophical underpinnings of the biological theory of evolution is irrelevant to this discussion.”…

It was the champions of evolution that were the racists bigots and sexists and they did not misconstrue the theory as a mater of fact they created the eugenics movement that gave birth to plan parenthood for the purpose of controlling minority populations. Blacks in particular. This has been documented in thousands of articles. If one is inclined to just look.

Beyer “…That's a distinct issue from the science. Nuclear physics is reality, a part of the physical world, jsut as evolutionary biology is part of the biological world….”

Nuclear physics and biology are powerful concepts that were created by man the ideas and conclusions are mans alone they did not exist before man created them. The world was around long before man or his thoughts. His wonderment of the universe or his attempts to explain it. Birds and bees do not need are science and do not care about it. The universe feels the same. If one could ask it. And like everything else man created it can be wrong.

September 13, 2006 8:45 PM  
Anonymous Tom said...

"Nuclear physics and biology are powerful concepts that were created by man the ideas and conclusions are mans alone they did not exist before man created them."

The same could be said of the many religions believers choose to follow. They did not exist before man created the ideas and conclusions on which each religion is based.

September 14, 2006 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom said...
The same could be said of the many religions believers choose to follow. They did not exist before man created the ideas and conclusions on which each religion is based.
So now you are arguing that evolution is only a faith based belief. I have a new convert.

September 14, 2006 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Tom said...

Only in your narrow mind did I argue any such thing.

The ideas and conclusions of various fields of scientific inquiry all share characteristics that religious ideas and conclusions do not. Scientific theories are based on observation and can be tested empirically. The ideas and conclusions of science have changed over time as empirical studies have warranted. For example once mankind achieved the technology necessary to make certain observations it couldn't before, the theory that the world is flat was found to be incorrect and was changed to reflect the new data that proves the world is actually round.

September 15, 2006 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow tom you just found out that the world is not flat. Nice straw man argument. But it you seem to have lost the just of the conversation. “If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe in science.” Was Beyers statement that I was challenging? Name an empirical test that proves evolution. Name empirical studies? How about some simple proof of evolution like changing one into spices. How many generations does it take to change from one species to another? Is there any empirical proof of this any ware by anyone? How about an empirical study that proves life was created by a spontaneous random accordance got anything on that? What about a sound definition of evolution that we can devise tests to prove or disprove. You know one that is not dogmatic.

September 17, 2006 2:04 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you nutmeg, the literature is peppered with sage examples of changing one into spices.

By the way, you are confusing "empirical" with "experimental."

Many scientific facts are impervious to experimental verification. For instance, very little of astronomy has been tested experimentally.

There is no doubt in science about evolution -- discussion about the mechanisms, of course, for instance about the relative importanace of various evolutionary operators, but the fact of evolution is established. It is one of science's greatest insights into understand how life works, and how we got the way we are.

JimK

September 17, 2006 2:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home