eym_sirius

It's a question about morality. I think that it's a significant statement of our present level of morality when people condone or even dismiss individual acts of immorality. You see, when you don't take a moral stand that defines your morality - then pretty much anything goes. If you're okay with peeing on the dead - Are you okay with sexually defiling the dead? Where do you draw the line, if not with the morality that comes from our common humanity? I say these things while acknowledging the reality that what should be valuable commentary on morality is completely lost on the immoral.

I'd like for them to be cleared by professionals before being turned loose on American streets. I do judge them just as I'd judge them if they desecrated them by sexually defiling them. The story can't be told both ways to put these soldiers in a more positive light. If WAR does this to ground troops, then we should reconsider war. Also, if WAR does this to ground troops, then there's a lot of messed up people who will be walking our streets soon. If WAR doesn't do this to ground troops and this is isolated, then they should all be punished for increasing the amount of anti-American sentiment

BS - I guess I need to point out the obvious to you. When you have KILLED the enemy, you've pretty much taken the fight out of him. What happens after that speaks to your psychological state, if you're the one standing over him. Again -- this is about DESECRATION, not about fighting. Unless you want to make a case for fighting people already dead..... There's nothing pro-American about peeing on dead people. It's sick. There's a sickness of the mind and soul of the people who do it and their apologists.

There's a heck of a lot people excusing corpse desecration here. This isn't war. After you have killed the enemy -- that war is over. Desecration isn't about this person having been an enemy -- that has been taken care of. Desecration is solely about the person doing the desecrating. There simply are no mitigating circumstances. Anyone arguing that the person who is doing this is somehow a victim of his having served in the military, there are two points to be made. One is that this should be evidence that we should only go into military conflict to defend our homeland because of the h

Biz Members can just post it -- or do you need someone to write it up for you? Just go to Business News, click on "Post New Topic", add whatever attachments you need to and hit "submit".

That's it! I knew it was something!! I tried putting in a picture from when I was younger and it wouldn't scan. Too faded, I suppose.....

I thought that you might have heard Kathy Griffin.

It depends on which picture you use. The one that I used said that I resembled Paris Hilton 82%! It should be a straight-on shot and it needs to show your whole head. You've seen me, so I thought that you'd appreciate how far off the celebrity lookalike generator is!!

I just came across this by chance and thought y'all would like to see this - Admittedly these are mostly terrible pictures vs cover shots, but still...... http://prince.org/msg/8/371181?

Mark I think that when somebody says that you resemble someone else, it's not meant to be a slam. Geez, I've gotten some really bizarre ones, from Garth Brooks to (((Rodney Dangerfield)))) to Vincent D'Onofrio. I think that facial hair has something to do with it. If you have it, you'll be compared to someone else who has it, don't you think? Jim Seals

I tthink that you're right. Sometimes a mediator has to use "shuttle diplomacy" to strike a deal. Other times, if the situation is not especially contentious and the two just want to reach an equitable solution, they'll sit at a table and go through a series of 'would you be willing to" and "does this sound fair" etc.

But they PROMISED when they were paroled that they had turned their life over to jesus!! 75 percent of 'em reoffend and end up back in the slammer or on probation for sumpin' else! The "study" on desistance that BL provided shows how far we have to go in the field of reform. ["The study of desistance has mainly looked at high volume ("prolific") offending such as burglary, drug sales, and low‐level violence. There has been less study of desistance from more serious crimes such as sexual offending6 and organised violence.7 Some research suggests that many of the same factors may app

[GROAN] {Sigh} I suppose that I need to point out the difference - See, back BEFORE slavery was outlawed -- IT WAS LEGAL!!! Now, it is ILLEGAL!!!. We have cold blooded murders today, too. But they are -- are you ready for this key word here -- ILLEGAL!!!! I understand that some people are conceptually challenged, but if you can't understand that our country's shame came from having LEGAL slaves, not from individuals flauting the laws of the land and holding people against their will ILLEGALLY --- If you can't understand the difference, then no amount of explaining will be sufficient. I s

I'm eager to see the new stats because they'll likely include a larger sample. Hopefully the scanning tools will reveal all of that information on a statistical sampling basis, of course. It's one of the really big issues that keeps getting swept under the rug, but with recidivism rates as they are, we are not going to be able to ignore this forever! If 74 percent reoffend during the first three years and are arrested for a new crime, this means that 3 out of 4 go back to jail, not to just serve time on the new conviction, but also to serve the remainder of the prior sentence if they had b

Prisons keep offenders off the streets for a period of time. The recidivism rates tell the story of a broken system, if once they are released, they don't mind going right back in! A new report from the DOJ comes out sometime this year. The stats are regarding people released in 1994, so the stats are dated and the new data will likely be worse, but it will be interesting to see. I ran a general scan of individuals, didn't discriminate regarding crimes. I was curious as to how many people who served time in STATE prison (not just local jails) reoffended and were put back into the syste

You're right here, TC. We have evolved as a society, leaving particular things behind in the dust of history for a reason. There is wisdom in progressing in this way and returning to the things that have been properly left behind would be unwise. There are people with "good hearts" who mean well, but have no idea of how bad of an idea regression is in its application to a society with hundreds of millions of people. People have to understand that they can exercise PERSONAL freedoms, but they can't impose their PERSONAL choices on other people. Women's issues Prayer in schools Gay marri

Then after getting their religion in prison they are redeemed! Until there's no one looking. Hence, the recidivism rate.

How about this - When it comes to money and making more and more profits - Some people have no morals at all! And this somehow mitigates the shameful chapter in American History? Thanks for your input. Don't know why it is that you do this. If it's something that people want to discuss, what is your interest in the matter? Discuss or get to steppin'!

Why don't you share your perspective? I'm interested to know if my perception is accurate or not. It's my perception that people come into prison with a basic knowledge of religion, they get "prison religion", pretend to start acting better with the hopes of taking this new life to a parole board and maybe getting time shaved off the sentence. I point to recidivism rates to bolster my point that they didn't really change. Others say that prison religion is real, that it's not done for show. So what do you say?

I think that people are really out of touch with just what it means to have owned slaves. Forcibly removed from their homeland and shackled, whipped, crammed into tight quarters on a ship like animals sold on an auction block many times split up from the rest of the family, and forced to work 16 hours a day for no wages -- There is no good spin to put on this. There is no equivalent or comparison in today's world. And that's why there simply is no good reason to teach the lessons of slavery in any class but history. Revisiting it except through an historical perspective should be too painful f

And some people say "motorsicle"

You think that the stock market is manipulated by the government. And you think that people with a family history of no education have an equal chance with people with a family history of higher education? Is it possible that you have a family history of refuse-to-admit-when-you're-wrong? Can people rise above their circumstances? Sure, but it's the IMPEDIMENTS, the HURDLES, the BARRIERS that one group has to get over, get by or get through that the other does NOT have to get over, get by or get through that makes the situations UNEQUAL!!!!

I'm not sure what the point of that lesson would be either. "Look kids - ON THE AVERAGE not that many people had slaves. Less than two percent of white Americans owned slaves!" However, in Mississippi, slaves accounted for 55 percent of the total state population! More than half of the people in the state were slaves! What would be the point of bringing up the small percentage number except to make slavery seem not as bad as it really was? It probably didn't matter what the pecentages were -- to the slaves!!

The key word here is "Illegal". Paying workers less than minimum wage and failing to report it at the state and federal levels -- That's illegal too! But you're right. Just like slavery is illegal, so is failing to properly report payroll illegal.

Pretend you're a teacher. The parents want to talk to you about this lesson. They have concerns that the lesson is racist. Making a technical distinction of bigoted vs. racist would probably not satisfy them. "Racist", by the way, implies a suggestion of racial superiority while bigotry connotes a strong feeling that usually implies a prejudice. I think you'd have a difficult time defending a lesson that details racial superiority without it appearing racist, by definition. Bottom line - there's no upside to a lesson that combines math and slavery.