huskertim

no flag on the coin toss, that's a good start

But we CAN serve 43? I try to approach most things logically as I picture Leonard Nimoy in a thought cloud over my right shoulder. But I'm still not sure why "Justice" is so dang important? Logically, justice is adherrance to a code of law, the very principle upon which our republic is formed. Without this foundation how can the edifice of our society stand? It may not seem important to you, but it is to society as a whole and after all do not the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one?

I don't think we can see the death penalty as vengance. When we serve vengence, how can we also serve justice. No one (or one society in this case) can serve two masters.

I could seriously see this, he hits consistently 40+ yards with above average hang time, if he could get a couple more tenths of hangtime on his punts he could be a serious dual threat K/P in the NFL. Anybody know if this has ever happened before and if so who was the last person to do it? Not entirely sure, but I think the last successful dual treat kicker in the NFL was Don Cockroft who played for the Browns for like a hundread years. I think he lasted until the early 80's. Dual threat was actually fairly common through the 60's and 70's..

The general will as expressed by polling data year after year not only strongly supports the use of the death penalty but in most polls a strong plaurallity and sometimes even a majority think it isn't used enough, I think this data alone is indicative of a system strikeing the delicate balance between mob rule and monarcial dismissal of the public will. Given his rejection of soveignty of the people through represenetative assembly (indirect mob rule if you will), I should think Rousseu would have been delighted with the controls imposed on our founding principles much of which was influenced by his very writings. Without which our revolution may well have followed the path of the French Revolution.

Why am I pictureing Kevin Bacon yelling "remain calm, all is well".

Anybody know what's the scoop on Spano?

Option 4 Cody Green and not the same game plan. Let this kid use that cannon hooked to his shoulder occassionally.

I can so relate. Every time I felt like I had to explain like the guy at the Bucky's really gives a crap. I miss my me time with a 6 pack and the ps2 after the kids went to school. I'm working normal people hours now and I just can't my sleep pattern right.

Naval Mobile Construction Battilion 23, Camp Covington Guam, Desert Sheild/Storm.

I can't buy the arguement that " life in prison is far worse than death". If this is so, than it shouldn't cost so much to try these cases. After all, if faced with a far worse penalty, wouldn't the offender wave his appeals. Obviously, to those committing capital offenses, three hot meals, a cot and cable TV sound better than old sparky. It seems these are exactly the guys we want to deter. Secondly, the expense is too great. I have to take the position that justice must prevail at all cost for injustice will cost us all. I could argue that the extraordinary measures taken to ensure one is not unjustly sentenced to death should be the same measures taken to ensure that one is not unjustly sentenced to life in prison, which we all know is far worse than death. Furthermore, the idea that any penalty doesn't deter crime is rediculous. I mostly comply with the speed limit don't you? I don't shoplift, do you? When I was in high school I smoked a lot of pot. The consequences at the time where mild and the chance of getting caught remote. Now, I have a good job and a family, so the consequences are far greater, thus, I don't imbibe. Frankly, if it were legal, I probably would. My drill instructor in boot camp loved to say, locks keep honest people honest. Some will always act regardless of consequence and others will be detered. It is for the others that most laws are written. Lastly, the death penalty isn't only about punishment. From a cold, logical point of view, simply removeing these people from the world makes sense as they can no longer serve any constructive purpose yet, under the right circumstances, they can cause destruction.

A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt

This is a perfect example of how government intrusion into the private sector screws the common man. The pot heads don't want it legal because taxes and gov't intrusion will make the prices higher and lessen the quality of pot. This should be a lesson to those who think that Obamacare will some how solve the medical/insurance situation in the US. Then again, if health insurance could cover "medical" mj then maybe big pharma will get this passed. After all even the mexican drug cartels can't out spend Merck Med.

My thinking is pretty simple on the matter. Government intervention into the natural corrective actions of the marketplace caused or at very least exacerbated this economic downturn and more intervention is not the solution. In any recession (panic or depression) the market has always found its own level and managed to climb out of the proverbial hole generally within 1-2 years (longer for the Great Depression but that's another discussion). Usually monetary manipulation has served only to reduce the impact of the immediate fallout but long term, the market ditates a recovery. Further, every economic downturn leads to an increse in worker productivity (as we are seeing now) which leads in turn to greater profitability, which leads to more fiscally fit industry, which leads to greater output, which leads to the need to expand and thus hireing begins. These corrections happen with regularity and are a natural part of the marketplace but can be thwarted by overzealous government actions such as QE2. Hopefully, we will see the Fed act to shore up an unstable dollar instead of further debaseing it.

This is kinda scary. Seriously, look at the history of this kind of thinking. Polling taxes and literacy tests where common instruments used to keep blacks from voteing in the earlier part last century. I fully support the idea of requireing some form of identification to prevent voter fraud, but the idea that any one group of people could possibly be both qualified to determine what standards would be applied and unbiased enough to not favor their own agenda in doing so is very naive. I find the whole conversation to be very egalitarian. After all, if I where to administer your polling test, are you sure you would pass? Stupid and immature people are still citizens like it or not, but I would contend that we all to often assess another's intellegence by their tendency to agree with our own views.

Nope. They're just as lily white as MSNBC now. Wow, how very progressive of them.

Prop 19 fails. I'm kinna suprised by that one. On the other hand. the aforementioned drug cartels should be able to continue to provide many living wage jobs.

I'm confused, didn't part of the mumification process involve the removal of all internal organs which where place in a jar not preserved with the mummy itself and wouldn't that alone preclude a large number of cancers from being detected? . I think the author vastly underestimates the effect of not being dead at 20 has on cancer statisics. Lastly, how did ancients report on cancer when they didn't know what it was and only the very richest of people ever had access to medical relief for anything. Never trust a "scientist" when he's seeking funds.

I kind of liked Juan on NPR. I really don't think his firing had much to do with this more or less benign comment. Sounds like NPR has been pretty bent about his affiliation with fox for awhile and this just provided an excuse. Sorros aside, most of NPR's support comes from a predominantly libral listenership (and yes I listen but let's call a spade a spade here). I suspect that, had this conversation occured on Anderson Cooper, it would have been deemed insightful and worthy of further discussion. Just my opion. Just an aside, are there any african ameicans left at NPR now?

See, repulicans know how to party. It's about time at least one state got around to putting this on the ballot, and not as some fraudelent panacea for all that ills you but for what if is a recreational drug for adults just like alcohol, nicotine or caffine. Hopefully this will lead to the same action in other states soon.

Sorry, I haven't quite figured out how to use that partial quote thing yet. Given my disdain for all this technical crap, I'll have to ask my teenager to show me how it's done.

Actually, the correct statement is that the government cannot regulate a citizen based only on his or her intentions. Put another way, the government regulates intention when paired with action. As an example, if you fire a gun in the woods and kill someone, the government regulates that conduct - but it does so after determining intent. If you intended to kill the person, it becomes a murder charge. If you didn't, it becomes manslaughter or other lesser crime. Yes, but intent is never the crime, it is the action. (I guess maybe consirisy would negate that statement) The gun must be fired, the shout must be shouted, then intent can be established, not before. Yes, the speech was given, now if religious instruction didn't occur, as most the quotes seem to suggest, than how do you impune intent without action. . If the school district adopted a policy or practice to promote some kind of anti-drug or alcohol program, why utilize a foundation who's avowed purpose is to promote Christianity when non-religious alternatives exist? The school recognized that the program promoted a particular fairth; if not, why did the school provide, as noted in the article, a study hall for students that did not want to attend? Why indeed? If the program has been shown to be effective and the stated purpose of the program is not of a religious nature then I submit that seeking groups specifically to avoid any religious affiliation is bias against this group based on thier religious beliefs which is the whole point of the sepation of church and state to begin with. As to why offer alternatives (study hall)? I would suggest that would be to avoid the apperance of inpropriety that might trigger a sue happy parent or obtrusive political union to explore costly litigation. Frankly, I would have avoided this group altogether for that very reason. 2. Again, the school seemed to be aware that the program was designed to promote a particular religion, else it would not have provided an alternative to the program. If the program did not promote a particular religion, the school could have made attendance mandatory. If the intention of the policy or practice was to instruct students in the danger of drugs and alcohol, then it could have easily found a program that did not promote a particular religion and then made attendance mandatory. By particular religion, are l you suggesting that general religious expression and instruction would be acceptable? Isn't that kind what the message was? Where does one draw that line? 3. Again, the school district recognized the intent of the presentation, which is why it offered an alternative. Continuing to offer the presentation, with that knowledge, constitutes endorsement, which in turn constitutes an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Excessive entanglement could be interpeted to mean passing association by this broad of a standard, after all Lemon did not strike down or invalidate Zorach v Clauson and it didn't criminalize religious interaction with th community at large, even the school system. As much as we are lead to belive that absolute separation is the only acceptable measure to the courts, they still use religious programs for deversion. If this isn't the very heart of the legal system endorseing religion, then certainly an anti drug program put on by a religious oganization must at least be considered on the merit of it's message and not on the beliefs that organization may hold. They were very careful not to cross that line.

Gotta disagree with you AR. The government cannot regulate a citizens intention only his actions. To invoke restriction in this manner would constitute a "govenment hostility to religion or religious teachings" a violation of both the first and fourteenth amendment . To qoute Justice Hugo Black "For the First amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and govenment can best work to acheive their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere" (majority opion McCollum v Board of Education 1948). This is clearly a two way street. Mere use of a public school facility does not constitute an endorsement of a religion any more than the Gay Lebian Allience meeting at Central High School is an endorsement of homosexuallity or the needle exchange program in San Francisco is an endorsement of drug abuse. (see Zorach v Clauson 1952 [or am I being to anecdotal]).

That's exactly what I thought too. That was only one I missed so now I feel a little better. I suspect that if this survey where given world wide, you'd end up with much the same result. We tend to use the eurocentric, America is an idiot model when in reality, idiots are everywhere. Most people know only what they find interest in or are forced to deal with in their daily lives. X, you and I are interested in the persuit of knowledge in many areas, but I would presume there are areas you have no interest in and thus limited knowledge of. I for instance have absolutely no interest in celeberty worship so when my wife mentions that some hollywood a-hole is banging some other a-hole my brain just comes up with the old 404 file not found error, and to be fair, when I talk about the third string QB and why the right tackle released his block prematurely, I'm sure that blank look I get from her is much the same response. I suspect that most people feel this way about politics and religion. The fact that we are on this board, and in this section, would seem evidence that we are interested.

Well stated, as usual. I must take some exception with the idea though that freedom of religion is freedom from religion. In the way you surely mean it ( the right to practice any religion or non at all), I agree, but what I think dizzturbed is pointing out is the propensity of so many to overreact to the mere mention of christianity or the reasonalbe examination of this particular religion. If for instance my daughters social studies class where to explain the five pillars of Islam during a lesson, most would see it as purley educational. Conversely, to discrbe the triune nature of God as expressed is Christianity would almost surely raise the hackles of many students who have been conditioned to fear any mention of Christ in the classroom. Brown is proletizeing and freely admits it. This has no place in the classroom except as a voluntary activity, but the notion that all measure must be employed to prevent a child from hearing his pitch is simply not a part of free speech. If the first amendment is only to protect speech that doesn't offend, then what need have we of it?