Man United NSR Politics thread

[Achtung]

Careful. You don't want a fatwa about you.

Wouldn't mind his wife (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=padma+lakshmi&btnG=Google+Search), though. If that's what it takes, then fatwa me, baby.

[Howard Zinn]

Wouldn't mind his wife (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=padma+lakshmi&btnG=Google+Search), though. If that's what it takes, then fatwa me, baby.


I picked her up in the Hot Women draft. :D

[Sapphire]

Rushdie doesn't screw around either. He made his critique of Islam count. The Satanic Verses is HARSH. I mean, harsh harsh. The first time I read it, I knew very little about Islam or political Islamism, and I was like "damn" and shaking my head the whole time I was reading it. I mean, some parts of it are funny, but you feel seriously guilty about laughing, even if you've no connection to Islam. It makes you feel dirty, and not in a fun way. Haaaaarsh.

That being said, I love Midnight's Children. Which is also totally irreverant, but to Indian politics (well, and to just about every religious and cultural impulse in India as well). It's a cleverer novel, I think, and a better one. But, it didn't earn Rushdie a death sentence.

[prymetyme]

i just had to read the fvvcking communist manifesto for humanities homework written by marx and engles, man it took for evvvvver. they basically were like france monarchys sucks they seemed more like they wanted a democracy them what russia warped commusim into. it seemed like the early european democracy.

[Achtung]

i just had to read the fvvcking communist manifesto for humanities homework written by marx and engles, man it took for evvvvver. they basically were like france monarchys sucks they seemed more like they wanted a democracy them what russia warped commusim into. it seemed like the early european democracy.

Yeah, it continually amazes me how misunderstood Marx is in our society. He drew a lot of influences from many of the same philosophers and economists whose students now tend to reject Marx.

[yossarian]

Rushdie doesn't screw around either. He made his critique of Islam count. The Satanic Verses is HARSH. I mean, harsh harsh. The first time I read it, I knew very little about Islam or political Islamism, and I was like "damn" and shaking my head the whole time I was reading it. I mean, some parts of it are funny, but you feel seriously guilty about laughing, even if you've no connection to Islam. It makes you feel dirty, and not in a fun way. Haaaaarsh.

That being said, I love Midnight's Children. Which is also totally irreverant, but to Indian politics (well, and to just about every religious and cultural impulse in India as well). It's a cleverer novel, I think, and a better one. But, it didn't earn Rushdie a death sentence.

.....or his bashing of the Reagan-supported contras in "The Jaguar Smile" which is also a very good book.

[yossarian]

Also, this is probably one of the things I am conservative about. I don't mind the death penalty. I don't think we utilize it correctly in the United States and it doesn't have the desired affect. In that instance I think it should be abolished, but I think it could have been used to deterr crime. Of course that would require some interesting things and consequences..


Well, this paragraph just begs for further explanation....

[StrikerCW]

Well, I am half serious, but if I saw a dead guy on the side of the road with "armed robery" on his chest hanging from a pike, I would not even think about attempting armed robery. That may be a little extreme but you get what I am saying.

Right now it does nothing to prevent crime. They either should abolish it or start making statements with the death penalty. I know thats not going to happen, and everyone thinks it's inhuman and all, but if you really really wanted to lower the crime rate...

[yossarian]

Well, I am half serious, but if I saw a dead guy on the side of the road with "armed robery" on his chest hanging from a pike, I would not even think about attempting armed robery. That may be a little extreme but you get what I am saying.

Right now it does nothing to prevent crime. They either should abolish it or start making statements with the death penalty. I know thats not going to happen, and everyone thinks it's inhuman and all, but if you really really wanted to lower the crime rate...

Crime rates have been trending down since the mid-1990's in all categories, not just those where capital punishment is a possibility.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Are you suggesting that instituting capital punishment for armed robbery (the constitutional problems with such legislation notwithstanding) would even further hasten that trend?

[Vermont Red]

If you want to get away from crime, move to NYC, the safest big city in the country.

[StrikerCW]

Crime rates have been trending down since the mid-1990's in all categories, not just those where capital punishment is a possibility.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Are you suggesting that instituting capital punishment for armed robbery (the constitutional problems with such legislation notwithstanding) would even further hasten that trend?
Well, actually I kind of mean in a more ideal world and from the beginning of the country. As of right now, if that happened then people would just get pissed and start revolting.. but I think that harsher punishments should be instituted for violent crimes, personally. Maybe not death for armed robery, but at least 20 years min. People (who actually do bad things..) should be made examples of. And if this had been from the beginning then people would know that thye will get punished harshly.

Ok, I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying. If you saw a head on a pike for gang violence, you would think that normal semi-intelligent people would say "oh shit, I don't want that to happen to me, I better set myself straight before I get tortured and head cut off".

[Motterman]

I was channel flipping last night and saw a report on "The Islamic Thinking Society" or something like that... they were protesting in NYC, burning flags and using a megaphone talking about how Islam will rule the world, etc. Really scary stuff.... :(

[johno]

Well, actually I kind of mean in a more ideal world and from the beginning of the country. As of right now, if that happened then people would just get pissed and start revolting.. but I think that harsher punishments should be instituted for violent crimes, personally. Maybe not death for armed robery, but at least 20 years min. People (who actually do bad things..) should be made examples of. And if this had been from the beginning then people would know that thye will get punished harshly.

Ok, I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying. If you saw a head on a pike for gang violence, you would think that normal semi-intelligent people would say "oh shit, I don't want that to happen to me, I better set myself straight before I get tortured and head cut off".

For me the big issue with capital punishment will always be what if they got the wrong guy? As corrupt as the police is, as racist as society is, instituting the death penalty for more crimes would just mean that a higher percentage of blacks arrested in the U.S. would get the death penalty, it wouldn't change very much in terms of who commits crimes or why.

Note that I'm NOT saying black people in the US commit the most crimes, I'm just saying they get caught more often and tend to get harsher sentences.

[Achtung]

Well there is the issue of false conviction, but for me I think that punishment in general isn't really going to be a deterrent. For the most part, people that commit violent crimes are in a desperate position and see no other way out than to do something extreme. I don't think armed robbers go in thinking, "even if I do get caught, its only a couple of years." They're pretty much already in a situation, either that they brought upon themselves or that they were born into, where they're ********ed and can't see much other way than to resort to violence.

I really think that the best deterrent to crime isn't to increase punishment, but to take away the motive. Getting jobs and training to those people would be far more effective and less draconian than some Saudi Arabian style of punishment.

[Motterman]

For me the big issue with capital punishment will always be what if they got the wrong guy?

See, I have a slight problem with this stance. I think it's a bit of a red herring argument thrown up by people who are just flat out against the death penalty because they are just that - against the death penalty - whether it be on religious, spiritual, moral grounds, etc. Don't misunderstand me - I totally respect that belief.

Now, that being said, I fully respect (and agree with) johno's point that there are serious problems with the way the death penalty has historically been (and currently is) being administered in this country. The problem is, there are many many many cases where they have the right person, it's stick on - he's undeniably guilty of a really really really bad crime. I'm not saying they are all stick on, and there's the rub, but there are cases where it's iron clad. If the law calls for them to be executed for their crime, do it within a few years tops - not 10, 15, 20 years later. If the way the system is set up now, it's always going to take that long, then we should do away with the death penalty today and revisit it in the future should the need arise.

I don't like killing anymore than the next person, but if the practice can be used to deter crime and/or give some sort of comfort or satisfaction for the victims' family, then it probably should be an option.

Like I said though, all bets are off if there's a shred of doubt...

EDIT: I'm not going to comment on the racial part of Johno's post, because I think the issue should be color blind, however unrealistic it is to try to separate them currently.

[Sapphire]

Well, I think prisons need to figure out what the hell they're for first of all. Are they for vengeance, rehabilitation, deterrence, isolation?? They certainly don't know. Also, they don't seem effective at any of the above, for the most part. And I don't know what's best either -- any sociologists around, anyone??

My instinct tells me really tough laws are not a great answer though. I wouldn't want to live my life in fear of committing some minor crime or being wrongly thought to have done the same, and losing so much in my life. I think you'd really have to prove that severe sentences deter crime, and that laws are applied evenly and fairly to people (which they're obviously not now) to institute severe punishments. In other words, we should not see it in the US anytime soon because the system is so messed up.

And even if you have a raping murdering horror of a human being confirmed by DNA evidence and fifty eye-witnesses, I'm still against the death penalty. As a human being, I feel that it's wrong to kill another human being, and a state doing it on my behalf is no better. It's very simple for me in that way, but I do try to respect other opinions on the matter.

[johno]

See, I have a slight problem with this stance. I think it's a bit of a red herring argument thrown up by people who are just flat out against the death penalty because they are just that - against the death penalty - whether it be on religious, spiritual, moral grounds, etc. Don't misunderstand me - I totally respect that belief.

Now, that being said, I fully respect (and agree with) johno's point that there are serious problems with the way the death penalty has historically been (and currently is) being administered in this country. The problem is, there are many many many cases where they have the right person, it's stick on - he's undeniably guilty of a really really really bad crime. I'm not saying they are all stick on, and there's the rub, but there are cases where it's iron clad. If the law calls for them to be executed for their crime, do it within a few years tops - not 10, 15, 20 years later. If the way the system is set up now, it's always going to take that long, then we should do away with the death penalty today and revisit it in the future should the need arise.

I don't like killing anymore than the next person, but if the practice can be used to deter crime and/or give some sort of comfort or satisfaction for the victims' family, then it probably should be an option.

Like I said though, all bets are off if there's a shred of doubt...

EDIT: I'm not going to comment on the racial part of Johno's post, because I think the issue should be color blind, however unrealistic it is to try to separate them currently.


I understand the red-herring bit, seriously. You sound like a joke if you say "what if you get the wrong guy." However, what if the wrong guy is you, or your cousin, or your brother? Life is waaay to precious man. I had a friend who found life was too much to handle recently because he got passed over for a job that he should have had. You had to know Chuck the way I did (DFR also knew him, we all went to college together) and he was depressed because he'd been arrested and charged but not convicted and he wasn't guilty, of drug trafficking. Chuck didn't even do drugs, but the moment he was wrongly accused of a crime his life damn near ended. He was doing his masters and had to stop, got passed over for jobs he should have had and it really affected him.

The thing with the death penalty is that the Legal system is flawed, its good, but its flawed and as such in my mind it shouldn't have absolute power over life and death until its absolutely accurate.

I can understand not wanting to discuss the race issue so I won't even bother going there.

[Motterman]

And even if you have a raping murdering horror of a human being confirmed by DNA evidence and fifty eye-witnesses, I'm still against the death penalty. As a human being, I KNOW that it's wrong to kill another human being, and a state doing it on my behalf is no better. It's very simple for me in that way, but I do try to respect other opinions on the matter.

Yeah, I would rather have these decisions made at a more local level - State/County/City etc. - so these actions can be supported (or not supported) easier by private citizens. This is a really big problem, because not everybody has the options to move away if they don't agree. But we have democracy for a reason, and majority (of electoral college votes) rules at the moment...

Ideally, I'd rather not have the need for such a thing, so we don't even have to consider the death penalty anymore. I think Achtung touched upon the socio-economics, but there's got to be something to say for tossing these cold blooded murderers out of the gene pool.

[johno]

Ideally, I'd rather not have the need for such a thing, so we don't even have to consider the death penalty anymore. I think Achtung touched upon the socio-economics, but there's got to be something to say for tossing these cold blooded murderers out of the gene pool.

I agree with you. Perhaps I just don't like the way its done now. Perhaps if Juries would convict, then a panel of judges could sentence. However something has to be done, because there are alot of problems with who gets executed.

[Motterman]

The thing with the death penalty is that the Legal system is flawed, its good, but its flawed and as such in my mind it shouldn't have absolute power over life and death until its absolutely accurate.

This is why I think we should suspend the death penalty, until these real issues can be addressed. Things are broken, and they need fixing. I also think it should remain on the table for future consideration if we ever get to that point, though.

Odds are that we'll have no need for it anymore anyways if we can get past most of the pettiness in regards to racism, sexism, etc. - and I'd take that any day.