Richards

I don't think it can be simplified down to rightwing bloodlust. I personally feel safer if we reduce crime. As this law holds all parties equally responsible then in effect we are taking a larger number of criminals off the street for a longer period of time. Furthermore if you know that by helping me commit a crime, you will be held accountable for anything I do in that crime, you will be less inclined to help me. If your issue is with the death penalty then have it abolished. But then the driver should get whatever the shooter gets (hopefully life without parole). My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I have heard this argument before but has there really been an extensive study on it? I have heard other "facts" that have stated the opposite of what you just said. How do we know there isn't another factor that is outweighing the effect of the deterence which if removed would allow the deterence to work? Granted there are some that will be bad regardless of what deterents there are but, there must also be a certain percentage of the population that will be detered. I have seen this happen in an area that I used to live in when the police finally decided to crack-down on drug dealers. They were using old school methods that social workers have claimed are "proven not to work" yet I myself noticed that in fact the area did clean up. Many studies have indicated for example that DUI is on the decline. Can you honestly say that changing it from a minor crime (fine, impounding) to a felony that could destroy your life, while throwing in random roadblocks that popped up by surprise did not influence this? I have heard more people state " you could get arrested and lose your career" as a deterence than "gosh DUI is just immoral" Either way, even if it will not deter them, it will guarantee that at least one willing accomplice will never be able to be an accomplice again. If it seems cruel and unusual, well....too bad. Society will not be worse off for his demise. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I would say so, yes. What I say next may sound hypocritical but here I go.........I do not think that I am reponsible for saving people from themselves so if I am a bartender or I have a party at my house (neither act being illegal) I am not responsible for what that person does when they leave. If I get into a car with that person (knowing he is drunk) I am taking part in the DUI then I am at fault too if he hits someone. You know when you take part in armed robbery that murder is a possibility. If we are willing to hold all parties equally responsible we will provide a deterrent for accomplices. If you knew that by assisting me in a crime you could be held accountable for my all my actions including ones that went beyond your expected level of participation, would that not affect your decision to assist me in a crime? If it would then I would have a hard time finding accomplices, and crime would be reduced. If he had not participated, the killer would not have been able to kill his victim. Holding accomplices accountable to the fullest extent will make other potential "drivers" find excuses not to participate. I have no sympathy for the man and think that this law serves society's best interest. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Not sure. If you have signed a donor card then they should not need to ask the NOK. By default I would still think that without prior consent by the deceased, it should be a no. It would be fine however if they asked the family if there was any written consent that the hospital was not aware of (like in a will). My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

For how long? Their last ruinion lasted almost a day My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Like what? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So, next time a friend of yours downs a few beers with you, drives home and gets busted for a DUI or kills someone, then you'll have no problem going to jail and sharing a manslaughter charge with him? If you took part in the DUI then sure but otherwise no. Having beer with him does not make you party to the DUI and since beer in itself is not a crime, you are not an accomplice My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

We could have use guys like you on Libby's jury, or better yet, the Iran/Contra investigation!!!! Guilt through association! Fuck 'em all!!!! I'll remember this the next time you try to defend.....oh......anyone. He was not saying guilt by asociation. If the guy was willingly participating in a crime, it is fair that he be held accountable for however far the crime may go. I think that law makes sense. If I am crazier than you, you will not want to commit a crime with me because I may go too far and you will be screwed. If you won't come with me, then I will not have backup and may not have the guts to commit the crime in the first place. The law may seem archaic but it does appear to have a logic to it. It has tremendous deterrent effect. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I wish you lived in my old neighborhood. It could have used someone like you My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I think you misunderstood the meaning of my message. I do not in any way think that any one group will be bad for society (nor do I think that muslims will bring terrorism). In fact my own wife is mexican and I am quite fond of latin culture. I realise that with newcomers we have cultural additions to our society and this contributes to our long term well being. My point was that any group that comes in large numbers will assimilate slower than groups who come as one small part of the immigration intake. For example here in Canada, 75% of our immigration intake comes from China, India and Pakistan. Many Canadians are open to newcomers but it is natural for newcomers to stick to their own if they can (I imagine if large numbers of Canadians immigrated to India they would cling). This does not help matters. There are schools in toronto and vancouver that are so heavily populated with Chinese or indian immigrants that they are failing to learn the language fast enough to succeed in our english based education system and our ESL system cannot accomodate this. This is why when english canadians go to french imersion they are forbidden from speaking english, because it is critical that you have to not just practice the language in a classroom but rather make it your lifestyle to communicate. This is also why non-bilingual RCMP officers are not only given french language training, but sent to spend some time in quebec so they are forced to become familiar with french. If a chinese immigrant is at elementary school and the other 10 immigrants each come from other backgrounds (german, thai, russian, pakistani..etc) he and they are forced to become familiar with the language quicker since they will have nobody to talk to otherwise. The way it works here is that the chinese immigrants hang with the chinese, the indians with the indians, the pakistanis with the pakistanis and all three groups do not mingle with the canadian kids. Subsequently outside of the classroom (and in their ethnic enclave) they are immersed in their own language and have no english reinforcement. As a result they do poorly in english (and in courses that are taught in english) and cannot get the grades to get into university. This perpetuates the cycle of immigrant poverty in the immigrant enclaves and further fuels resentment amongst them towards us and adds to the division amngst cultures. We can make quotas to get a certain amount of them in university even if they lack the english skills but again we are now simply passing the problem along the line and now they will face challenges there. It is the great "unsaid truth" amongst university ESL instructors. They all know it but cannot say it officially. We will do a lot to speed up the process of assimilation if for each chinese guy (or in the case of the US for each mexican guy) there is one japanese, one russian, one welsh, one thai, one australian, one jamaican...etc. It has nothing to do with resenting outsiders, and each of these groups can still market parts of their culture as Adolph Busch did. They do not have to come in a homogeneus wave, but in a mixed bundle. You can still derive the benefits of outside ideas without the major culture clash and the inevitable language gaps. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I think much of the culture clash would be avoided if there was an attempt to diversify the intake. In the case of germans I suspect that it was not predominately germans but europeans of all descent (I could be wrong). If the majority of immigrants to a region are from one nation, then there will be assimilation difficulties (language, culture..etc), which will lead to more friction. If a new immigrant is not amongst numerous people from his/her homeland but rather amongst 4th generation americans and immigrants from a variety of places he/she will be more likely to assimilate and become an american than if he/she can move to little italy, chinatown, ...etc. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

In a case like this you have only seen a tiny segment of the entire event and none of the factors leading up to the police use of force. Without the full video it is a bit premature to jump on the cops for that one My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Again I see a distinct difference between banning something and alocating space for it in a publicly funded library Fine. I have no strong opinion on this one way or the other; I simply wanted to get a feel for the general mood on this one. Agreed My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

For the most part I agree. Provided the material was not pornographic, there is no reason not to put it in a library ( unless you will create an adults only room). Merely being objectionable would not be good enough reason to stop it. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Just to play devils advocate, even if we recognise an individuals freedom to express themselves in literature, or the freedom of a store owner to sell objectionable material, does that mean that the taxpayers have to subsidize that expression. We can allow it but do we have to use publicly funded space for that expression. Taxpayers who pay for the public library may want to have a say as to what goes into the library their taxes pay for. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I am not sure but I suspect that your commentary was directed as much at me as it was the mayor. Listen, I do not have a strong point of view on this and was throwing it out there for some perspective. I am in no way homophobic and actually am quite supportive of gay rights. I simply was trying to make the point that if (and I emphasise the word if ) members of the gay community were disproportionately engaging in a public behaviour that would be deemed inapropriate for straight or gay people then the issue would have been a fair one to address. He should have put less of an anti-gay tilt on his comment and just said people having sex in public bathrooms instead of gays, particularly since I would rather not have one of my kids see such behaviour beteen a man/man or man/woman. Obviously his prior commentary makes his motive suspect, but I was more looking at whether or not there was an issue to be adressed or if this was one of those mountain/molehill things. I still do not know yet if the library issue was one of banning all gay/lesbian literature or if the literature in question was unduly graphic and not appropriate for a public library. Do you have a take on that? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Hopefully you are right. It's not that I advocate rampant vigilanteism, but I do beleive there should be certain lines that should never be crossed. How can we truly feel safe if even after someone has breached the sanctuary of our own home, we still owe this person a standard of care that balances his rights against ours. Once you enter a persons home, that persons rights should trump yours. If he makes it out alive and you still chase him that is different, but so long as an intruder is within the perimeter of my sanctuary I should basically own his life so long as he remains within. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/08/fort.lauderdale.mayor/index.html Does anyone know any more about this? The mayor has made some unpopular remarks and is now being accused of homo-phobia. I cannot comment until I know more about the 2 key issues; 1: Is homosexual activity in public bathrooms really a common occerence? 2: Did the gay/lesbian literature differ from non gay/lesbian literature specifically in terms of the adult content (was it needlessly graphic compared to non-gay/lesbian literature), or was it just because it was gay/lesbian literature. If gay men are unique in making it a habit to use bathrooms for sex then I think his comment was fair. Are straight people also using public bathrooms for sex? Also if the literature he tried to block was blatant smut then again I would agree with his decision. I am curious to see what others may think of this article My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Gotta love those priorities. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I agree that there is really no good reason not to, but the choice should still be the individuals, and the default answer should be no. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

The idea that the police would even put forth a serious effort into investigating this baffles me. Demonstrating indifference to this might send a message to other criminals that invading a persons home is never acceptable, and that the authorities care little about what consequences befall you if you do. This might make some of these clowns think twice before doing such a thing. I realise that you cannot stop crime but penetrating the sanctuary of a persons home (last refuge) crosses the line. If the guy was in fact pushed, the homeowner was probably terrified and sent the intruder out the nearest exit which in this case was the window. Why make an issue of this. If the intruder dies, his passing will be of no consequence to society. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

THIS GUY HAS SET IT UP SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS YOU! HE WAS DELIBERATELY MAKING YOU THE FALL GUY IN THE EVENT THE POLICE CAME KNOCKING!! YOU OWE HIM NOTHING BUT A PHONE CALL TO THE POLICE, SO HE CAN FACE THE MUSIC FOR HIS CRIME Realistically you should be willing to rat him out just for doing it and if it was my roommate I would. If someone tried to make me the fall guy, I would not only make sure to call the police, I would call them when he had family visiting so he would endure the humiliation of being busted for that filth in front of his family. If you had been arrested this guy would have shut his mouth and let you get arrested, humiliated (because everyone you know would find out, including family freinds and co-workers), and get a criminal record and your life destroyed. Heck I don't even know you and I am pissed off about what this idiot tried to do to you. Make the call because; A: Right now in the eyes of the law you are the guilty party if the police drop in B: That POS deserves it not only for being a pedofilth but for what he tried to do to you. And you should feel no guilt whatsoever, because he would have felt nothing if your were destroyed for his crime! Editted to add: I missed the follow up about your uncertainty. If you are not sure then I can appreciate your concern about jumping the gun. If you are sure, then I stand by my original statement My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I guess you owe the guy some beers My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Shit. You should play the lottery My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

The Conservative government has already discussed dismantling it. It remains to be seen if this is something they will follow through on or if it is just an empty promise. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.