Retribution

[font=Arial]I think Americans, and humans generally, have always acted this way. I don't really see the economy impacting social relations... if anything, this crisis has made people pull together. I think most hardships do that to people. Think post-9/11.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]But I do get the "wishing hangovers onto people" thing. When my roommate got sick/was sitting in the restroom for the first time I was still mildly drunk and kept on saying stuff like "IT'S A LIFE LESSOONNN" and "THIS IS A GOOD THING, YOU KNOW?" [/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Call me crazy, but I sometimes enjoy a hangover if there's nothing I have to do for the day. It's an excuse to sit around, watch TV, and shirk your duties -- the almighty excuse is **** that, I'm hungover."[/font][COLOR="Indigo"][SIZE="1"][INDENT]Don't bypass the swear filter Retri. ~Indi[/INDENT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]So with that in mind, my favorite drink is water. Because then you are sober for things like this:[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Well played. Very well played. PS: I'm pretty sure a bottle of wine doesn't hold a candle to 3 beers and 4.5 shots in terms of alcohol content.[/font]

[quote name='chibi-master']I've got no experience in this because I'm underaged[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]This sentence makes no sense. :p I'm only 19, but I still get lost in the sauce on weekends. [QUOTE]How much have you had to drink in one sitting? What are your favorite drinks?[/QUOTE] Maximum in one sitting I think was 13 shots. Never again. As for favorite drink, a gin & tonic with a lime slice is on the top of my list.[/font]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Forgive my impolite disbelief in your apparent [I]inability[/I] to grasp that not all members of any religion or state think or teach the same. The pushes were not enough? Uh, blacks [I]were[/I] granted the right to hold positions of authority in the Church in 1978. That is the point really. Obviously we still have a ways to go, but I find it kind of tiresome that you're dismissing the involvement of whites who actually fought for black rights. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]My point was that if the religion formally did not give blacks equal rights until 1978, it stands to reason there was still academic discrimination long after they were granted formal equality. So yes, the religion did leap forward, but there still exists a massive chasm in terms of equality of histories. Yes, we are all formally, legally equal, but academic discrimination is still alive and well. It is still in our schools, despite however 'equal' we all are. Along this line, I find it difficult to believe the climate she lived it was progressive enough to teach African history when religion was still discriminatory, the nation was still discriminatory, and academia was still discriminatory. She asserts the trend of history was progressiveness TO historical degradation. This is the opposite of how things work - as time passes, society becomes more progressive not the other way around. When I say "these pushes were not enough," I'm talking more broadly than just LDS. I'm talking about equality across the board. I do not personally believe there is total equality today, and I brought up academia is an example of how there still exists discrimination and bias, and how we've got a ways to go.[/font]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]The thing that annoys me the most about this, is you're making absoutely no allowances for religion or other factors that could have played into why her education, or anyone else from that time frame, was different from what you seem to think [I]all[/I] Americans got. This was back during the huge push to end discrimination against Blacks within the Mormon Religion that Aaryanna_Mom is a member of. Everyone likes to paint all Southern states or even Religious ones as being indifferent against blacks when it's far from it.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Ref: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement[/url] The problem here is that this point has nothing to do with religion. Unless the religion taught about black history, I'm not really sure where it would factor into this equation. I mean, maybe this happened for her, but she said she learned about it in high school so I assume she meant non-religion education. Interestingly enough, your mention of religion serves to underscore my original point - academic and historical discrimination is a systemic problem. Even a cursory reading of the aforementioned link will show you LDS was an extraordinarily racist group for years. And yes, like you mentioned, it only stopped in 1978. So why would I believe her for telling me she learned about African history in an extraordinarily racist state, under a discriminatory religion, in a time of division, schism, and turmoil? Forgive my impolite disbelief. I'm not denying there were historical pushes for equality. Indeed, without these heroic movements the world would be a fundamentally different place. However these pushes, while great, have been insufficient. Academia is still a heavily eurocentric realm, African history is still overlooked as irrelevant or nonexistent, and kids never learn anything about Africa aside from "we took slaves from there." I think most of us witnessed this firsthand in elementary school, and hell, even in college. To tie this all back (so I don't seem like an unrepentant troll), I feel Black History Month is a mechanism of empowerment for the black community. Because black history is so absent in the traditional classroom, I think it critically important we acknowledge it for at least a month. I think BHM is definitely weak and unimportant in it's current state. I think it only teaches MLK and Malcolm without examining history past these icons. I believe that if properly utilized, BHM could be a very powerful tool to counter academic eurocentrism. Therefore I support it's improvement and modification, not it's destruction. To entirely remove BHM would take away any semblance of academic equality of histories, and fail to provide a means of educating the population about black achievement.[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I was born and raised in Texas, not Utah, I didn't move here until after I got married [...][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Then it gets even better! You were in [i]Texas[/i] of all places - I'm certain it was quite a progressive, forward-looking place in the 60s. And I would guess a state as racially welcoming would have definitely taught all this. I mean, if you had said Massachusetts or something I would've been more obliged to believe.[/font]

[font=Arial]I'll try to be brief; I get the funny feeling no one really wants to hear me. :p [quote name='Rachmaninoff']You need to re-read the thread. Aaryanna Mom was in favor of replacing the current curriculum not the actual teachers. She's rightfully questioning why you're being a jackass to her when [U][I][B]I'm[/B][/I] the one who suggested replacing teachers not Aaryanna Mom[/U] I think even you should be smart enough to grasp that teaching was different when she was in High School. Which was before most of us were even born.[/QUOTE] No, I do understand who said what. My comment was originally to you, she interjected, and in my following response I simultaneously addressed the both of you. I didn't really think this was very cryptic or complex - obviously when two sources need to be addressed, I'll do it in the same post. Sorry if it seemed like I mixed up posters. Furthermore, all this semantic hoopla has failed to address my points. Everyone got mad at me and didn't respond to my points, choosing instead to yell about my comment. The best part of your comment is about how teaching "was different" in the 60s. I find this hilarious, because yes, it was indeed quite different. Teaching in the 60s was [i]even more eurocentric, biased, whitewashed, and ignorant of African achievement[/i]. It stands to reason that, if most kids haven't learned about it in 2009, how the hell would they have heard about it in the bitterly violent, racialized times of the 60s? And in the midwest? I'm pretty sure she's from Utah, which would be even more homogenized than the rest of the nation. To assert she got this education in this environment is hilarious. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Actually I'd say that describing the problem as racism is really a mischaracterization. The American education system is renouned globally for largely ignoring anything that isn't American.[/font][/QUOTE] Well, I didn't assert it was a problem of racism. But I also find the claim that the issue is "American" or "non-American" to be wrong. Blacks have been American and quite intimately linked to America for hundreds of years, so to say curricula ignore only the non-American is problematic. I'd say it's just simple eurocentrism - in American academic institutions, higher and lower, the "great works" are generally European or American and are studied in great depth. Other histories are summarily dismissed for whatever reason. [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I'm well aware of this. And yet I did point out that perhaps my history teacher was better since we're talking about High School kids from over thirty years ago. I haven't had a world history class since back in the late sixties early seventies.[/QUOTE] Here's the thing. I posed rhetorical questions to get at a larger point - that western education ignores other great civilizations. I'll go out on a limb and say 80 to 90% of the members here had no idea what Songhai or Mali were. But rather than acknowledge the greater point I was making about biased western education, you chose to answer these questions. And now you're claiming you learned about them in a high school world history class you took 30 to 40 years ago. I bet most people in this thread forgot the vast majority of what they learned last year, let alone decades ago. I bet most people haven't studied Africa outside of it's relation to the west via slavery. And I bet, considering all this, you looked up all this information to look smart and cute, to overlook the most important point I was making a page ago. For all your indignation about me not "paying attention," you sure as hell haven't paid attention to the point I originally made. And look, I'll be honest. It doesn't take a genius to look up Mali and Songhai on Wikipedia, read the summary paragraph at the beginning of each article, and post it here. If you care to look on those respective pages, the information you gleaned is in those paragraphs. This entire thing is hilarious. You claim to have learned (ABOUT AFRICA) something in a time where America was horrendously divided by race, where white superiority was asserted across the nation, and black achievement was massively undermined by these dynamics. Pardon me for not taking your original "knowledge" seriously.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial][COLOR="DarkRed"]Retribution[/COLOR], learn to hold your tongue.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I called her on it, and now she's indignant. Further, she chose to overlook the relatively elementary point that [i]education in the US is heavily eurocentric and fails to teach "black history" outside of slavery and MLK.[/i] It was a rhetorical exercise to drive home the point our education problem is not only massively biased, it's systemically problematic. We've passed the point where we can just hire new teachers - it would require an almost entire recall on teachers nationwide.[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']What did you want to know about Songhai other than it was one of the largest African empires in history? What did you want to know about Rome other than it is considered one of the founding cities of Western Civilization and one of the few major European cities that escaped World War II with little to no damage? What did you want to know about Mali other than it was once part of three African empires that controlled trade and that in the 1800?s it fell under French control? What did you want to know about Greece other than it fought against the Ottoman Empire to gain independence back in the 1800?s?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I guess Google really is magic.[/font]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Care to back that with something? I'm just curious about that. In the end, if people are unaware, that seems more like a failure on the schools or teachers than anything else. If someone isn't coving that kind of history, or rather all of it. It seems that replacing them with someone who will is a better solution. I mean we never really focused on the Black History deal and yet it was still covered, just like the rest of it.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Tell me something about Songhai you learned in school. Now tell me something you learned about ancient Rome. Tell me something about Mali you learned in school. Now tell me something you learned about ancient Greece. This is just a cursory example of what schools neglect to teach. I'm actually a bit surprised you don't readily acknowledge the academic bias that exists for pro-West history and the strange disappearance of most other histories. I bet you can label a map of western Europe correctly, but not of sub-Saharan or west Africa. It's no poor reflection on [i]you[/i], but on the systemic problem that exists in schools and America at large. It's a problem that transcends individual teachers, because this problem is nationwide. It's not a few select racist teachers or anything. It's not a few mean people. It's just everyone doesn't bother with African history for whatever reason. So to suggest we "replace them with someone else" is a suggestion that misses the enormity of the problem. Rather, we have to change the academic curricula that exist in schools across the nation. Since none of that is happening, or will happen in the foreseeable future, I support Black History Month.[/font]

[font=Arial]I support Black History Month. The existence of BHM is not a "we're better than you" statement. Rather, it is a federal acknowledgment of the legacy of blacks that has been historically neglected, overlooked, or shelved in favor of more Eurocentric history. When BHM was created, blacks were taught (in public schools) they had no significant contributions to history or world progress. All history that was taught was simply white history. This had a profoundly degrading impact on the black psyche -- it was demoralizing to hear they were essentially a worthless, inferior race that had achieved nothing. Therefore in an attempt to subvert this academic (and social) racism, BHM was created. It was essentially a time of year that acknowledged the frequently overlooked struggles of blacks, as well as the enormous contributions they have made to American society. In an attempt to reverse a heavily biased curriculum that, generally speaking, only focused on white achievement, BHM was instated. Unfortunately, public school curricula still frequently overlook black achievement and history. Blacks still have only a vague idea of what their forefathers accomplished, suffered through, and contributed to this nation. So as a counter to these tragic circumstances, I still support the existence of Black History Month.[/font]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]Kicking off the proceedings I need help finding the first reference to the [B]Otaku Rangers[/B] created by Shinmaru (I think). I remember the thread dealt with a member who'd stolen a phone from someone he didn't like and the Rangers were born out of our combined desire for great justice.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I can't be arsed to actually search for the thread, but I know the offender was user DaSilva and it was a big hoopla about a Razr. Recalling the entire shebang makes me hella nostalgic... Good luck with the keywords, and sorry I'm so lazy. :([/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]...have you ever considered it might be your jealousy souring your attitude, and not their ostentation?[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]This is probably the best call of the entire thread. Win. I'm personally willing to admit I'm jealous of couples doing their thing. But I guess I don't mind PDA enough to really fuss about it. The only thing that gets me annoyed is being single on Valentine's Day.[/font]

[font=Arial]I think this specific instance is of concern because Israel did not let in [i]any[/i] foreign journalists to cover an extremely pressing and controversial military operation... this really hasn't been done by the west in the recent past. Sure, nations may pressure journalists to omit certain things, or try to steer them, but the fact remains they were still given the ability to even have access to the conflict zone.[/font]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I'm surprised that you're taking someone's personal blog as a legitimate source of information. I tried looking through that and other than to link back to themselves, nothing led to any outside sources of information. There wasn't anything to back up what any of the snippets said.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Even though a blog is by no means a veritable source, what he says is correct. [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/gaza-israel-reporters-foreign-journalists[/url] I remember reading about it on BBC, but couldn't find the article in an abbreviated search, so I settled for this instead.[/font]

[font=Arial]I don't know how to say this any other way. I acknowledge that I'm making a generalization when I say "the wronged party does not behave dispassionately" and thus is more predisposed to seek the death penalty. Of course it's not true in 100% of cases, but for the vast majority I would say it holds. You'll always be able to find a few exceptions to the rule, however in large part, victimized parties in the US seek death. I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is indeed killing for revenge. It's a very basal practice that fails to transcend our primal urges to exact an eye for an eye. The vast majority of the developed world (read: the west) has done away with it, and the fact that America still clings to it is bizarre. Our country is perhaps the most resistant to progress in the west. After a brief search, I happened upon [url=http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions][b]this site[/b][/url], and I couldn't help but notice what sort of company our nation was enjoying on the graph. Forgive me for disparaging the death penalty and those who support it, but it appears the US is once again holding tight to a measure most of our peer nations have moved past. I suppose my view is that progress is a trend that moves to the left, and the death penalty is a vestige of rightist governance. Cheers on a rigorous discussion, but I'm willing to accept our differing worldviews.[/font]

[quote name='SunfallE']Your reasoning is flawed. You've made the faulty assumption that once wronged, people somehow lose any from of rationality when that's far from the truth.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]The entire reason we have a legal system is so that it can act as an impartial third party arbiter in disputes. The philosophy behind this is the notion that people do not act dispassionately or rationally when they are the ones wronged -- if you and I are in disagreement, you might think I deserve punishment X when in reality I deserve a less harsh punishment. But because you have such immediate proximity to the event (i.e. it happened to you), you're not able to displace yourself from it and make a fair and balanced decision. The courts do that for us, so that there's no question of if the judgement handed down is from an uninvolved, dispassionate party. You'll probably make the point that if the court system gives a verdict, then it must be fair (i.e. since the court sentences someone to death, they were dispassionate and balanced in their ruling). This argument would have great merit were it not for the fact America has a disproportionately high level of persons executed annually. This means that, aside from being in the league of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, we're simply more predisposed to condemn someone to death. Our courts and our people favor death to other punishment. It's just insane. [QUOTE]It's not about making anyone pay, it's about making sure no one else has to suffer the same thing. It is true that some people falsely believe this, and it is also why the law is there to make sure things are not done out of emotions caused by the event.[/QUOTE] You can send the person to jail for life without parole. This is probably the safest of all options, because if later down the line new evidence surfaces that exonerates the prisoner, they can be free and have a second shot at life. The invention of DNA techniques is a prime example of evidence showing up later. If you just execute them, there's no second shot. There's no possibility of giving back that person their life if they were really innocent. You've just killed someone. [QUOTE]But again, your giving all victims of this crime the same sweeping generalized reputation of being mindless fools after revenge.[/QUOTE] Looking at the numbers, that's what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a nation that executes as many people as fundamentalist countries in the Middle East. Forgive me for assuming people here are a little less than sensible when they've been heavily wronged. As a side note, Aaryanna - the plaintiff does not have to seek the death penalty, they can opt for life without parole. The prosecutor takes into consideration the wishes of the wronged party.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph']Never fear! Captain Verbosity to the rescue![/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Yeah, you sure ain't kidding. [QUOTE]And upon reading this research, I am forced to conclude that simply stating death penalty trials cost taxpayers more money, while undeniably true, is [I][U]grossly[/U] [U]misleading[/U][/I]. It is an appeal to the pocketbook instead of the conscience?the implication being that the result is not worth the expenditure, regardless of the "morality" of the result. I find that this concept completely trivialises the overwhelming seriousness of the death penalty. And I support the consarned thing. :p[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to appeal to one thing or another - someone said something fallacious (execution is cheaper) and I corrected them. And no matter which way you slice it, my statement is absolutely true. [QUOTE]The linked research refers to Maryland's legal procedures, so my (and their) statements cannot be applied universally without slight concessions, but as I understand the research, the inflated costs are all in place to 1) ensure that such a serious action is even warranted, 2) to take as many measures as possible against mistrials and biased verdicts, and 3) to ensure that the defendant has a voice during the proceedings . . . which, really, could be looked at as part of the second, there. Essentially, we spend more money to make as certain as possible that execution is the correct way to go, and [I]not[/I] simply because we're looking to kill someone.[/QUOTE] And I'm glad we do so. To execute without being certain (which happens quite often) is quite sad. Indeed, the very existence of the death penalty is responsible for its exorbitant cost. It's got only itself to blame. [QUOTE]Costs may rise even in the pretrial section of the proceedings, mostly during the process of selecting a jury (vore dire). In order to even be a juror for a death-penalty case, the potential must be willing to deal the penalty out, meaning that a person who will never apply it [I]and[/I] who will always apply it cannot be allowed. Beyond that, the prosecution is allowed to strike ten jurors, and the defense twenty (biased in favor of the life of the defendant, here), which makes the selection process quite complicated. The more time state-appointed attorneys spend here, the more money the State has to pay them. (Roman, et al 11)[/QUOTE] Fun fact! [QUOTE]Trials in which the death penalty is sought tend to be longer and involve more resources than those in which it is not, most simply because the weight of the guilty verdict is so heavy. Obviously such trials will cost more money, if only because the jury must spend so much time secluded during the longer deliberations. Additionally, a defendant in a capital case is granted two attorneys instead of the customary one, so more money there. If a guilty verdict is reached, a [I]second[/I] trial is had to determine if the death sentence will be given. This additional session is necessary for determining if there are more mitigating or aggravating circumstances involved in the murder, and which weigh more. Again, more time, more money. (Roman, et al 13)[/QUOTE] It keeps on coming, folks. [QUOTE]The appellate stage is interesting to me because cases where death is [I]not[/I] sought have the potential to incur more costs than cases in which it is. Non-death verdicts are routed through an additional appellate circuit (in Maryland), while death verdicts are taken straight to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Still with the "time/money" bit, but now the coin is reversed. Also, the appeal to the State is automatic in death sentence cases, so the step here is unavoidable, whereas non-death cases may cost more, but they do not always have to be appealed.[/QUOTE] And generally they aren't nearly as costly. So yes, the potential for greater cost exists, but is usually absent in practice. [QUOTE]This step may cost more because the State Appellate has the right to expand the jurisdiction of their case if they feel that doing so may (ironically) prevent further appeals. Beyond that, appeals to US District courts or the Supreme Court are only taken if "...claims ... are federal or constitutional in nature." (Roman, et al 14) In other words, the costs are on average greater to seek the death sentence simply because the measures in place in our (or Maryland's, here) legal system exist because we recognise the sheer magnitude of taking a life at all. It could be a lot simpler?i.e., you kill a guy, you die, end of story, sucks to be you?but instead the system takes greater care in these situations to ensure that justice is truly done.[/QUOTE] Whew. [QUOTE]One can say "if it costs more, why not do away with it entirely", but I feel that that ignores the tremendous seriousness the topic is given by the legal system. I have said previously that the Law required death for murder; the system here is the human attempt to balance the Law's callous impartiality and our sense of mercy and understanding.[/QUOTE] No, the appellate process exists to make sure the Law is exercised on the right individual, not out of mercy. It's a process based in rationality and for good reason - it's effectively the only check against sentencing a totally innocent man to the electric chair. [QUOTE]No, not bloodthirsty. (It only feels that way because there is, unfortunately, blood involved.) Just impartial. Unfeeling. Emotionless. There's a reason the statue of Justice has a blindfold on.[/QUOTE] Who passed the legislation for a death penalty? Surely not an impartial, blinded two dimensional character that supposedly represents "the law" and "justice." No, it was passed by people who see the only way to make moral amends with a murder is to keep the blood flowing. And it's actively supported by conservatives who believe the same thing. Don't confuse a philosophical notion of "impartial justice" with the actual agents. You might be surprised to learn those executing the law aren't as impartial. [QUOTE]And there's a reason we don't. We have the ability (and the charge, really) to temper that impartiality. Just because the Law demands it, we are not necessarily forced to mete it out. That's partially why these cases take so freaking long. :p[/QUOTE] Are you serious? Impartiality under law is one of our most important philosophical principles. To "temper that impartiality" is another way of saying "make it less unprejudiced." [QUOTE](Irony, thy name is . . . thy username.)[/QUOTE] Retribution is not solely execution. This is a mistake people make. Lifelong imprisonment is also a form of punishment. (but you're funny, I'll give you that :p ) [QUOTE]Generally speaking, however, murderers are not executed to make the victimised party feel any better.[/QUOTE] I disagree - I think most people who support the death penalty do so because it satisfied some visceral, primal urge to retaliate an eye for an eye. And of course, you as a Christian would understand [i]that[/i] reference... [QUOTE]The Law exists to maintain order and justice, not to make people feel better about being wronged.[/QUOTE] Again I think you're failing to acknowledge the fact that the law is created and executed by [i]people[/i]. So perhaps on its face, the law exists to "maintain order and justice," but what does that even mean when those who created those laws were not dispassionate agents? [QUOTE]And to my mind, if someone dear to you is killed and the only thing you can think of is that the person who killed them must die, then that person's death will not appease you. Such a mindset is incredibly destructive. And you [I]certainly[/I] have no place at the court proceedings if you feel that way.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately that's the way most people feel. Most people seeking the death penalty do so for some sort of satisfaction or "closure." People who have been wronged are not and cannot be dispassionate or entirely rational. They've suffered a massive loss, and they want to make the offender "pay for it." [QUOTE]An appeal cap would essentially say "we're willing to accommodate you so far in your quest to prove yourself, but after that we're not going to listen to you any longer". Appeals are one thing, for they allow for examination of details that might have been swept under the rug in an attempt to hasten the death verdict (which is unfairly biased). But endless appeals are a waste of time.[/QUOTE] I guess this is where we simply have different worldviews and neither one of us will be swayed. But I believe if you truly understand the enormity of taking a human life and the lack of any margin of error, you would not support an appeal cap. Appeals are the only check against executing an innocent person, and the possibility looms large that there was a mistake made. Perhaps evidence doesn't surface until much later. Perhaps there was a poor defense provided for the alleged killer. [QUOTE]However, I have to question the reason for your statement there. Didn't you just say that execution doesn't make the victimised party feel any better? And yet you're using here a victimised party who needs definite closure via execution.[/QUOTE] That's the thing. People [i]think[/i] they're going to find closure when the person in question is executed, so they doggedly seek that measure. That's because they're emotional and impassioned. The entire process is an emotional roller coaster. And once the guy makes it to the chair, they find no peace or closure. [QUOTE]The "hope the offender will be executed" and the "unnecessary . . . when the defendant is almost certainly going to live" seem to have you contradicting your own views. Will execution make them feel better or will it not?[/QUOTE] The victimized party contradicts themselves, and no one else. They are irrational, angry, bitter, and hurt. They think execution will bring closure, but it never does.[/font]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden'] That brings me to your third point, which basically says to me that we should spend OUR tax dollars to keep the prisoners in solitary confinment for the rest of their lives?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Fun fact of the day: It costs taxpayers [i][b]more[/b][/i] money to give someone the death penalty than it does to imprison them for life. The death penalty is an attempt to balance the moral books. It has been said that when one person kills another, they too must die to "pay for it" or to "make it equal." I personally find this point of view disturbingly bloodthirsty. Generally speaking, executing a murderer [i]does not[/i] make the victimized party feel any better. Furthermore, many states have the death penalty on the books but haven't executed a prisoner for decades. What this does is unnecessarily torment the victimized party by giving them a false hope the offender will be executed. The appeals process does indeed tear families apart emotionally, make no mistake about it. It's an unnecessary emotional roller-coaster to ride when the defendant is almost certainly going to live.[/font]

[quote name='Esther'][/COLOR] [SIZE="1"][FONT="Verdana"]Excuse me? I'm afraid you've been spoon fed too much propaganda from Hamas television. Watching a bit too much of that terrorist Mickey Mouse, huh? You've got it completely twisted -- Hamas is the group that's listed as a terrorist organization by nearly westernized and civilized nations. Palestine themselves have declared Hamas a dangerously militant group. [/FONT][/SIZE] [/COLOR] [FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="1"]Oh please. Israel doesn't bring out tanks and rockets just for the lulz. Israel brings out the heavy artillery whenever they feel they're in danger; which they have the right to feel seeing the area they live in is full of barbarian terrorists. Poor Israelis having to live in such a crappy area thanks to..[/SIZE][/FONT] [/COLOR] [FONT="Verdana"]Do you [I]honestly[/I] believe that Hamas would uphold that resolution? That's like asking al-Qaeda to shake hands with the US miltary and calling a truce. It will NEVER happen. Hamas is such a radical group, it's like a horse gone wild -- there's no stopping it. It wouldn't be long before Hamas decided to shoot a couple of rockets into Sderot to provoke Israeli action then cry to the rest of the world how their people are suffering.[/FONT] [/COLOR] [FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="1"]Tell that to Hamas. I still find it hilarious you're portraying Hamas like the nice guy here. Knee-slapper.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/COLOR] [FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="1"]And Islamic radicals have been planning the complete annihilation of the Jewish people for hundreds of years. They're even preparing their children by telling them that strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing yourself up is an honorable thing to do! Going to school? Getting an education, a career? Raising a family? Nah. Those all take back seat to suicide bombings. What a great way to raise a kid! Israel is 100% justified in their Gazan offensive, as I've already stated before. Hamas, and every Muslim extremist group for that matter, must be EXTERMINATED. If Israel is going to combat terrorism and protect the people of the free world, then I would expect EVERYONE to stand up and support them. Shame on Palestine for not recognizing that Israel is trying to free them from the evil grips of Hamas.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Are you absolutely insane? Have you lost your mind? I can't even begin to defuse the demagoguery you've shamelessly employed in your post. I'll try to pick out a few specific quotes an explain myself. [QUOTE]Hamas is the group that's listed as a terrorist organization by nearly [b]westernized and civilized nations.[/b][/QUOTE] I can't help but notice how you pair "western" and "civilized" nations to side with Israel. It's especially strange you mention the West when their response to this unfolding crisis has been [I]to denounce the scale of Israel's reaction[/I] as unnecessarily violent. Furthermore, what do you mean by "civilized"? I have a hunch you just mean "westernized" which is equally disturbing. To call something "civilized" is subjective - I'm sure Palestinian civilians getting shelled day and night consider the Israelis the "uncivilized" ones. [QUOTE]Israel brings out the heavy artillery whenever they feel they're in danger...[/QUOTE] Sure, but Chabi's original point still stands - the possibility looms large that Israel has been launching such a violent offensive because of the approaching elections. [QUOTE]...which they have the right to feel seeing the area they live in is full of [B]barbarian terrorists[/B]. Poor Israelis having to live in such a crappy area thanks to..[/QUOTE] So you call them "barbarians"? Maybe Hamas is viewed as a "freedom fighter" force. These terms of "civilized" and "barbarian" are loaded and unhelpful terms when trying to have a serious conversation about the issues. Additionally, whose fault is it that Israel is in the area it's in? Oh, right, the "civilized" West. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, folks. [QUOTE]And Islamic radicals have been planning the complete annihilation of the Jewish people for hundreds of years. They're even preparing their children by telling them that strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing yourself up is an honorable thing to do! Going to school? Getting an education, a career? Raising a family? Nah. Those all take back seat to suicide bombings. What a great way to raise a kid! Israel is 100% justified in their Gazan offensive, as I've already stated before. Hamas, and every Muslim extremist group for that matter, must be EXTERMINATED. If Israel is going to combat terrorism and protect the people of the free world, then I would expect EVERYONE to stand up and support them. Shame on Palestine for not recognizing that Israel is trying to free them from the evil grips of Hamas.[/QUOTE] I'll be totally serious with you. You sound ridiculous. You sound uninformed, biased, and quite smitten with the propaganda you so thoroughly denounce. This portion of your post is not just insane and unfair, it's quite frankly offensive to any Muslim. Hell, it should be offensive to anyone with a sensible bone in their body. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']So what you are basically saying is that this entire post is spam. I'll be clear here. If you can't be [I]bothered[/I] to do your opponent the courtesy of actually responding to their points ([SIZE="1"]as in explaining why they are wrong[/SIZE]), other than to call them [I]garbage[/I] then don't reply at all.[/QUOTE] To be honest, it's pretty d@mn close to spam. I understand Chabi's frustration - someone made an offensive, flagrantly incorrect post. I've tried to explain the roots of (perhaps) why she's so pissed, and hopefully I've articulated the reasons why I take so much offense with Esther's words.[/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Now Obama's "Inaguration" read: Canonization, is costing three times as much and that number just keeps climbing. And as far as accessability, they've decided to provide a grand total of 5,000 porta-johns which will not be enough for the how many million people? Also they'll keep bars open until 4 or 5 am, which will be good for promoting public drunkenness, and also strollers are banned. No strollers, no baby bags [might contain bad things], no flags over a certain size, and no jackets held over the arm [might hide handgun].[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I can't believe you're serious. President-elect Obama has received an unprecedented amount of death-threats because of his race. This is obvious - it was deemed necessary that he accept Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate. Naturally, security is a great concern for this inauguration, especially when a record number (millions) of people are projected to descend upon the capital to see this man. The entire event is a terrorist attack waiting to happen, a security nightmare of sorts. I thought it would be clear that A) these security measures will be especially stringent considering the heightened threat and B) these measures are also designed to lower the number of people coming to make the event run smoother. So yes, accessibility is to a minimum on purpose, to reduce the possibility of assassination. And obviously the bars will be open - I thought you supported the free market? If millions of people will be milling about in the city all day, isn't it clear they'll want to get lost in the sauce for a bit? Is "public drunkenness" threatening enough to force these stores to close? Jeez.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I think you mean, "this was one of the few posts I agreed with in this thread". :catgirl:[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]More importantly, he was the first (only?) person to bring up causal reasons for this conflict outside of the immediate tense (i.e. Hamas lobbed rockets). No one aside from him ventured to ask "[i]why[/i] are people lobbing rockets" - it was simply assumed as a given precondition for Israel's action. The question never ventured past "why is Israel attacking Palestine". [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]I mean, there were a couple of worthwhile elements there, but calling rocket attacks "silly"? Seriously, [i]that[/i] is "disproportionate".[/font][/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with 100% of his statements, but I think many of his were on the money (IMO). [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]This is an incredibly cynical way to view such a serious issue, don't you think? An election is looming, but are you aware that there are significant segments of the Israeli community who are opposed to any further confrontations in Gaza? Such groups would be more likely to vote against the ruling party than in support. So far, neither side has been willing to strike an agreement over a cease-fire. I did read about a figure within Hamas (not the senior-most figure, though) who recently said that they want to negotiate the terms of a possible cease-fire, which, if accurate, would be a great step. On the other hand, Hamas is known for not honoring cease-fires. So it's difficult to say the least.[/font][/QUOTE] I'm surprised how you turned a statement about Israel's elections to a statement on Hamas honoring cease-fires. I do think the looming elections are an important consideration in thinking about what has pushed Israel to such an extent. This is, after all, the same party that invaded Lebanon and lost the PR war that was in the aftermath. That military incursion is largely regarded as a failure. Therefore it makes sense that the party is looking to mend the image of strength, especially when the vast majority of Israelis support military actions against aggressors. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]What bothers me the most about all of this is that Israel is largely held responsible not just for this recent action, but for all Palestinean suffering. They have become a catch-all for the Palestinean plight. And yet, there's very [i]little[/i] outrage from the same circles about Hamas and its criminal negligence, corruption and disregard for its own people. It's similar to the Iraq war, in the sense that the largest protests involved the American presidence in Iraq. And yet there were comparitively [i]no[/i] protests about Saddam Hussein and his very deliberate attempts to eliminate large sections of his own community. It's almost like a weird kind of politically-correct racism. It's one that says "we'll worry about them when a familiar element is involved, but when it comes to their own internal affairs, they're just not worth as much".[/font][/QUOTE] The reason people protest these specific issues is because they relate directly with [I]Western involvement in non-Western nations[/I]. When the non-West is involved with only itself, outrage is not nearly as vocal. It's sort of a guilt complex - when your nation has the blood on its hands, citizens want to withdraw from the oppressive (or violent) dynamic. However when it involves solely the non-West, there's much less outcry because there is less direct Western guilt felt. I think that basically stands for each nation as it relates to its own affairs - each nation generally cares about itself more than another nation. So (pardon the rambling) the reason people protest Israel and not Hamas, despite its dubious stance towards Israel and peace in general is because Israel is a Western establishment. Hamas is thus seen as a reaction to the West. Whether this is actually the case or not is not relevant. It's just the way it works.[/font]

[quote name='Tophel']Israel cannot win here. There is no military solution to the Palestinian issue. The only way Israel will get any peace is if it makes peace. But peace is hard. War is easy. So war is being waged. As for the OP question about breaking international laws, etc. Well few people actually care about that. The US breaks those laws all the time. In this particular case, Israel is breaking the law, both the letter and the spirit. Every country is allowed to defend itself but its actions must be PROPORTIONAL to the threat. In 7 or 8 years of pestering Israel with its pathetic rockets, Hamas has killed about 7 people in those attacks. In over a week of operations, Israel has slaughtered over 500 so far, and counting. The numbers don't add up. Hamas is really not a threat to Israel or its citizens. The rockets are more a nuisance than anything else. More people die on the roads in Israel each month alone than have died in 7 years of rocket fire. No the 'reason' for the war lies elsewhere. Israel wants to change the ground situation before Obama takes office (because Israel knows that Bush will gladly follow Israel to the gates of Hell). There is also an election in Israel coming up next month and no Israeli politician has suffered by being 'too hard' on Hamas. What is ironic is that Bush talks about democracy in the Middle East (or he used to). They had democracy, the people elected Hamas. But the US and Israel cannot accept the Palestinian peoples' choice so they tried to stage a coup (the US and Israel supported Fatah in its attemppts to overthrow Hamas in the Gaza). The coup failed, Hamas' control strengthened. So they tried to starve Hamas by punishing the entire 1.5 million people in Gaza, i.e. closing the borders, basically like a medieval siege. That has been going on for months, actually over a year now. And now they take it a step further and wage a war. The irony? The US wants democracy but only when the people elect the government the US likes. :rolleyes: Why was Hamas peppering Israel with these silly rockets? Precisely to draw this kind of reaction. Hamas can then get an excellent PR deal, and afterwards they can always claim victory. There is no downside for them because this is a political and not a military problem. Hamas WANTS Israel to overreact. So why does Israel fall for this ruse? Because there is no downside for the Israeli politicians by being 'hard' on Hamas. Everybody gets what they want. Except the thousands of civilians getting caught in the crossfire.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]This is one of the more informed, sensible posts in this thread. Pretty good (for a newb, ha). My problem with Israel is not retaliation to Palestine (I mean, they launched rockets) but to the proportionality and scope of the retaliatory offensive. Israel is simply trying to make a point in this military conflict, and not primarily with Hamas, but with it's own citizens. Yes, elections are coming up quite soon and the incumbent party does not want to look soft on Hamas. This is of particular concern because the challenging party is ideologically farther to the right. In order to appear competent and forceful to its citizens (who will be voting soon), the Israeli government has rejected cease-fire agreements. As for the actual origins of this new spat of violence -- it's not as one-sided as everyone might think. Hamas recommenced rocket launches into the south of Israel as a response to Israel assassinating members of its governmental leadership (among many other alleged failures from Israel in honoring the prior cease-fire's terms). Israel claims Hamas "started it" by smuggling in more rockets (also forbidden in the cease-fire's terms). So what this boils down to is who to believe. Personally I think both sides failed to honestly uphold their respective terms. So let me be clear - I think Israel was justified in invading Gaza. The Israeli government exists to protect its citizens, so it's only to be expected when they respond to these rocket launches. However I think the problem developed when the invasion turned into a humanitarian crisis, with food and medical supplies becoming pitifully scarce and Palestinian civilian casualties climbing daily. The military response was not only asymmetrical and disturbingly disproportionate, it was irresponsible in that it destroyed vast swaths of Gazan civilian infrastructure. ([url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7812295.stm[/url])[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]Does anyone know if Midori is commonly sold at places?[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Yes, at liquor stores. As for drinks that aren't terrible on the way down: smirnoff ice, bacardi breezer, bacardi silver, mike's hard lemonade, white russians, amaretto sours are all good bets. If you don't feel like doing all that specialty shopping just for a nice drink, just mix your drinks with less alcohol, and use powerful-tasting mixer (such as cranberry juice, or lemon/lime juice for an accent). And honestly, chase your shots you big ninny :p[/font]