[Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Wed Mar 17 15:21:02 PDT 2010
By the way, you never clarified your own inconsistency. You called me
out for not proving my on-line accusations about your "friend" Dale
but said NOTHING about his unsupported rumors -- which (unlike mine)
turned out to be false. Now I know why you didn't call Dale out --
look what happened to Metzler when he publically questioned Wilson. So
I'm not asking for the impossible.
But either you agree with Dale that rumor is enough for proof of
accusations -- in which case your criticism of me was bogus -- OR you
think that spreading unsupported rumors is wrong and thus Dale is as
wrong as I was and should appologize. Which is it? Liar or coward?
Best, Joe
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:32 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
wrote:
> Wow, that was perhaps the rudest and most dismissive reply I think
> I've ever read on this forum and that's saying quite a bit.
>
> Bravo!
>
> I realize perfectly well that my opinion means little to those of
> you going back and forth on this topic and that my lack of formal
> instruction in seraphic pin prancing leaves me ill prepared for the
> rarified realms this topic aspires to, however I do agree with Mr.
> Fox that there is a place in the world for a death penalty even if
> we would likely disagree with its application. I would definately
> not apply such a sentance for larcenous greed no matter how extreme.
> I believe a more fitting punishment would be six months amongst the
> general population of a maximum security federal penitentiary
> followed by a parole which stipulates prompt and total restitution
> and payment of burdensome fine at a vigorous pace. ANY lollygagging
> in making said restitution being grounds for reincarceration. I
> suspect that Mr. Antonucci would be quite diligent in working to
> keep his tender backside from having to endure a return to sharing a
> cell block at Florence ADX or Tamms.
>
> On the other hand, I very much agree that Joseph Duncan IS the
> perfect justification for the existance of a death penalty. Heinous
> crime, unquestioned guilt, total lack of remorse, extreme likelyhood
> of being an ongoing danger to other prisoners, gaurds, and the
> general public, all combined with a total disregard for his own life
> should all combine to make him the modern poster child for the
> necessity of capital punishment.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: Art Deco
> Cc: Vision 2020
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> Forget it. I don't have time to read this more carefully. Joe
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:30 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Before you waste time commenting on something I didn't say, please
>> take the time to read very carefully what I did say.
>>
>> W.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Campbell
>> To: Art Deco
>> Cc: Vision 2020
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>>
>> It might be a while before I get to this but until I do I just want
>> to point out that putting something in boldface and asserting that
>> it is a FACT and not a philosophical point does not MAKE it an
>> empirical fact. It might still be a philosophical point. In my
>> experience, most people who criticize philosophy HAVE a philosophy.
>> What they are really criticizing is OTHER philosophies than there
>> own. If you are going to dogmatically assert that empiricism is
>> true and that it can be SHOWN to be true by empirical methods all I
>> can do is laugh and note that you are begging the question.
>>
>> Consider this. I'm a rationalist, that is, I think that SOME claims
>> are established by a priori insight or something like that. Others
>> think that some knowledge is gained by faith. I'm not trying to
>> convince you of these views. I'm just noting that there are views
>> that are contrary to yours. And how do we decide which is correct?
>> Obviously if we prejudge that are method is to be
>> empiricism, your view will emerge as the victor. But I hope you can
>> see that this begs the question. Note that I didn't say you
>> couldn't tell a fancy story to support your view I only claimed in
>> the end it would beg the question.
>>
>> Now on the face of it, this looks like a philosophical dispute. You
>> claim that all knowledge comes from experience (or mathematical
>> proof), I claim some knowledge is a product of rational insight,
>> and others that some knowledge is a product of faith. And there
>> doesn't appear to be a way of settling the issue without begging
>> the question. Which was what I said.
>>
>> I'll comment on the specifics later.
>>
>> Thanks! Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe, (& Andreas, Sunil),
>>>
>>> I have included Joe's second post below so that I can respond to
>>> both posts at the same time. I hope that others not interested in
>>> a technical discussion will not be too bored, or if so, they will
>>> find other things to do which they will find a more productive use
>>> of their time.
>>>
>>> To avoid repeating material, here are two comments which I will
>>> refer to by names, below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pigtails: A statement of the form "All X is Y" is refuted by
>>> finding a single X that is not Y.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> To refute the statement: "All pigs have curly tails" all that is
>>> necessary is a single counterexample like pointing to pig whose
>>> tail sticks straight out like a certain part of the anatomy of a
>>> certain church elder does at a certain topless/bottomless
>>> bar.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter if there are a billion pigs with curly tails and
>>> only one with a straight tail, the exception refutes the truth of
>>> the general statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stones: Dick and Jane are in the middle of a football field.
>>> Jane is a carrying a 100 pound stone. Jane asserts: "If I throw
>>> this stone, it will land on the football field." Dick disagrees.
>>> What method do you use to determine the truth of the knowledge
>>> claim at issue? Obviously, let Jane throw the stone, an empirical
>>> method where observation will determine if the knowledge claim is
>>> true. Also note that the probability that the stone will land in
>>> the football field is infinitesimally close to 1.00.
>>>
>>> I hope that neither Joe, Andreas, nor Sunil will be in
>>> disagreement with the above. If either are, then the argument can
>>> proceed no further.
>>>
>>>
>>> Knowledge Claims
>>>
>>> From my perspective statements of the form "X is Y" are generally
>>> knowledge claims. There are some instances of such statements in
>>> poetry, for example, that are not. However, statements like the
>>> following are knowledge claims:
>>>
>>> 1. "The Klein-4 group is an Abelian group."
>>>
>>> 2. "The current through a conductor between two points is
>>> directly proportional to the potential difference or voltage
>>> across the two points, and inversely proportional to the
>>> resistance between them, provided that the temperature remains
>>> constant."
>>>
>>> 3. "Sheep reproduce asexually."
>>>
>>> 4. "Bartok is the greatest composer ever."
>>>
>>> 5. "You should never kill another human being."
>>>
>>> 6. "Every human being is more valuable than every other animal."
>>>
>>> Given that statements of the form "X is Y" are knowledge claims,
>>> the problem then becomes what agreed upon methods can be
>>> successfully used to determine the truth of the various kinds of
>>> knowledge claims.
>>>
>>> Statement 1. above is a statement is an axiomatic system called
>>> Group Theory. It's truth is determined by logical/deductive
>>> methods. However, the axioms of the system were not chosen
>>> blindly, but were chosen to be true of certain aspects of the
>>> language that is used to describe the physical world, hence the
>>> truth of the axioms is a matter of observation.
>>>
>>> Logical methods are used to determine the truth of such
>>> mathematical statements given the truth of the axioms. This is
>>> not an infallible method, however. In the 19th Century, George
>>> Boole found an error in the up-to-that-point-thought-infallible
>>> system of Aristotelian Logic. The advent in the 19th Century of
>>> Non-Euclidean Geometry(s) and the subsequent theories of Einstein
>>> (now partially confirmed) showed that at least one of
>>> once-worshiped-as-irrevocably-true axioms of Euclidean Geometry
>>> were not true of the universe writ in large.
>>>
>>> Statements 2. and 3. are knowledge claims whose truth or falsity
>>> are determined by empirical methods -- combinations of logical and
>>> observation methods. Using such methods, humankind has sent
>>> persons to the moon and back while transmitting parts of this
>>> event in real-time to millions of people. The empirical method
>>> succeeds in part because precise definitions are required.
>>>
>>> Empirical methods are not infallible either. Mistakes can be made
>>> -- many of which are self-correcting in time; some problems at
>>> present are not completely amenable to empirical methods because
>>> of their practical complexity -- issues in the social sciences,
>>> for example. The best that can be said that knowledge claims that
>>> can be tested empirically is that they have truth that is at best
>>> probable, not absolute. Some of the probabilities are
>>> infinitesimally close to 1.00 such as Ohm's Law, at least in the
>>> terrestrial environment, but there is always that possibility of a
>>> counterexample being discovered.
>>>
>>> It is a fact, not a philosophical position, that certain kinds of
>>> knowledge claims are successfully resolved by empirical methods,
>>> notwithstanding the problem of induction.
>>>
>>> Statements 4., 5., and 6. are commonly called value statements.
>>>
>>> The three that were chosen each illustrate that in our present
>>> state of knowledge there is not a generally accepted method to
>>> establish their truth. It is not a simple matter like the stones
>>> example above. The phrase "in our present state of knowledge" is
>>> included so as to not preclude the discovery of such a method in
>>> the future.
>>>
>>> Musicians, musicologists, ordinary people argue, so far without
>>> resolution, about who is the greatest composer. Even expertly
>>> trained musicians who are thoroughly knowledgeable about all
>>> factual matters with respect to a composition's structure and live
>>> sound, and agree upon such, will still disagree about who is the
>>> greatest composer.
>>>
>>> There are many who assert quite apodictically that it is never
>>> justified to kill another human being even in self-defense. The
>>> truth of these kind of assertions are not demonstrable by
>>> empirical methods like the in stones example. One cannot produce
>>> observations that demonstrate the truth of such a knowledge claim.
>>>
>>> That is not to say that facts or probabilities established by
>>> empirical methods are not useful or necessary in resolving certain
>>> value or ethical disputes. They are very important; but not
>>> completely definitive. Further, many of us reject as fanciful,
>>> unsupported speculation the use of alleged supernatural beings and
>>> their alleged dicta as relevant in such resolutions.
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, if we want to establish the truth of a knowledge
>>> claim then first we must define the terms of that claim
>>> unambiguously; then we must agree upon a method to test its
>>> truth. So far, in our present state of Knowledge we have not
>>> established a generally agreed upon method to establish the truth
>>> of knowledge claims which are value statements of the kind given
>>> as examples (4. - 6.) above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Applications
>>>
>>> Restating the argument against capital punishment given by Andreas/
>>> Joe:
>>>
>>> 1. There is no situation where the judicially-sanctioned murder
>>> of an innocent person is justified.
>>> 2. Regimes which allow the death penalty result in the
>>> execution of innocent people.
>>> __________________________________________________________________________________
>>> 3. Therefore, the death penalty is never justified.
>>>
>>> Premise 2. is highly likely true at this time. There probably
>>> isn't a regime with the death penalty the result of whose judicial
>>> system hasn't caused the execution of an innocent person. This
>>> premise is not a value knowledge claim, but a matter that can be
>>> determined to be true by empirical methods.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, premise 1. is a knowledge claim about values. Notice
>>> that it is a "all X is Y" statement. Hence, referring to the
>>> pigtails example above, it is only necessary to find one
>>> counterexample that at least some observers might cite.
>>>
>>> During WWI and WWII when very strategic ground battles were to be
>>> fought with the expectation of very high casualties and there were
>>> the probabilities of massive troop desertions, the following has
>>> been alleged: An officer would chose a particularly inept
>>> soldier, one whose ineptness threatened harm to the unit, and
>>> accuse him of being caught deserting. A summary court-martial
>>> would held, the accused though innocent would be convicted, and
>>> then executed.
>>>
>>> The argument of the upper command was this: executing what the
>>> other troops saw as a deserter would prevent some of the other
>>> potential deserters from deserting and thus increase the
>>> probability of a military victory of sorts in the oncoming
>>> battle. The argument was that by killing one innocent person,
>>> many other lives would be saved in battle, and perhaps the course
>>> of the war changed so that millions of lives would be saved.
>>>
>>> The ethical principle invoked was that saving many lives justified
>>> killing one innocent person. Notice the context is a judicial
>>> system, albeit a military one.
>>>
>>> Obviously, many would find this alleged principle repugnant;
>>> others would agree with the principle. By what generally accepted
>>> method would you resolve this dispute? I do not know of one.
>>> Hence, this example certainly seems to raise a legitimate question
>>> about the truth of premise 1. above.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the knowledge claim is that there is not a single case where
>>> capital punishment is justified, therefore capital punishment
>>> ought be abolished, then referring to the pigtails example above
>>> there is another counterexample, as mentioned earlier: The cases
>>> where the evidence is overwhelming, a confession is made and is
>>> overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and the convicted demands to
>>> be executed. The issue of executing an innocent man does not
>>> arise here.
>>>
>>> I chose statement 6. ("Every human being is more valuable than
>>> every other animal.") above for a purpose. I have a good friend
>>> who is vehemently against capital punishment when we discuss it as
>>> a subject per se. However, when we discuss people who poison pets
>>> or off-roaders who chase/harass wildlife, this friend asserts that
>>> they would have no hesitation in shooting these offenders, dead.
>>>
>>> Joe argues that convictions are only probabilities.
>>> Almost all knowledge claims are only probabilities, even Ohm's
>>> Law, for example. It is the strength of the probability that
>>> counts. The very, very high probability of the guilt and the
>>> enormity of the crime of Joseph Duncan justify his execution for
>>> me; obviously it does not for Sunil, Andreas, and Joe. I
>>> am always open to advances in methods of determining the truth of
>>> value knowledge claims and open to hearing persuasive arguments on
>>> ethical matters. At one time I too was against the death
>>> penalty. But facts learned and very serious consideration changed
>>> my mind, as it has, and continues to do on an assortment of
>>> ethical issues.
>>>
>>> This whole dispute is about determining the truth of knowledge
>>> claims. If there is a generally accepted method of determining
>>> the truth of knowledge claims about values with the same degree of
>>> certainty in the stones example above, it has escaped the notice
>>> of most of the world's population so far. If either Joe or
>>> Andreas is claiming that there is such a method, perhaps they
>>> could submit persuasive evidence of such. The problem as has been
>>> discussed ad nauseam by philosophers is that value knowledge
>>> claims include an emotive element which depends on an individual's
>>> inner mental/physical sate, not just on exterior reality.
>>>
>>> There is hardly an ethical principle that is agreed upon
>>> universally. If there were presently such a method of determining
>>> the truth of value knowledge claims, one would expect
>>> substantial agreement on many such principles.
>>>
>>> Joe claims that he knows that slavery is always wrong. Some
>>> people disagree. For example, they cite the results of some slave
>>> efforts to justify the slavery that produced them -- the seven
>>> wonders of the world, for example.
>>>
>>> In the early to middle part of the 20th century in some areas of
>>> the west able-bodied men were forced at gunpoint, threat of great
>>> bodily harm, or imprisonment to help fight a flood or forest fire
>>> threatening a town. This was involuntary servitude or slavery.
>>> The authorities invoked the principle that the short sentence of
>>> slavery (they called it helping your neighbors) was justified by
>>> the circumstances -- saving the town. What generally accepted
>>> method is there to resolve the truth of the value knowledge claims
>>> here?
>>>
>>> If you have an adventurous/curious/not-easily-shocked mind venture
>>> onto www.collarme.com. You will find that slavery is alive and
>>> well today, even in Idaho, and that there are slaves that appear
>>> to thrive in that environment, and are at least as happy or
>>> happier in that environment as any other.
>>>
>>> As Joe is a professional philosopher who has studied ethics and
>>> probably taught it, he knows in his heart-of-hearts that there is
>>> no agreement today among all professional philosophers of a single
>>> non-metalinguistic ethical principle, or of a system/method to
>>> produce such.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some may rue this situation. It would be nice to have ethical
>>> principles clearly and irrevocably established whose truth could
>>> be demonstrated in a manner like in the stones example above.
>>> Such is not the case. If, or until such a method is discovered,
>>> we will have inevitable conflict like we have had since the
>>> beginning of humankind over these matters.
>>>
>>> W.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>> To: Art Deco
>>> Cc: Vision 2020
>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:05 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the
>>> death penalty
>>>
>>> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about
>>> ethics below is a BAD argument.
>>>
>>> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through empirical
>>> test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should be just as
>>> unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The view is self-
>>> refuting.
>>>
>>> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as empirical
>>> claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I am that my hand
>>> exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery is wrong but
>>> it can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong" is unknowable.
>>> It is a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY evidence
>>> can be rejected if one is willing to accept the consequences and
>>> revise enough of their beliefs. If you think that dispute means
>>> lack of knowledge it is easy to show that no one knows anything.
>>>
>>> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
>>> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What
>>> you can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe it
>>> (given it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical
>>> claims. Or so I think.
>>>
>>> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your
>>> argument asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But
>>> this won't even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once
>>> you show me why it is that you are entitled to believe that you
>>> have a hand, I'm pretty confident I can duplicate the story for at
>>> least one moral claim. Again, if you push the view you are
>>> holding, skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no
>>> longer unique.
>>>
>>> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is really
>>> something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the abortion
>>> issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent persons.
>>> They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what is a
>>> person? (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the point.)
>>>
>>> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are irresolveable
>>> and, for that reason there will always be disagreement about
>>> abortion. But you should be careful about drawing similar
>>> conclusions about ethics.
>>>
>>> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
>>> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
>>> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
>>> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn
>>> from this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>>>
>>> Best, Joe
>>>
>>> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about
>>> ethics below is a BAD argument.
>>>
>>> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through empirical
>>> test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should be just as
>>> unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The view is self-
>>> refuting.
>>>
>>> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as empirical
>>> claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I am that my hand
>>> exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery is wrong but
>>> it can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong" is unknowable.
>>> It is a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY evidence
>>> can be rejected if one is willing to accept the consequences and
>>> revise enough of their beliefs. If you think that dispute means
>>> lack of knowledge it is easy to show that no one knows anything.
>>>
>>> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
>>> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What
>>> you can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe it
>>> (given it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical
>>> claims. Or so I think.
>>>
>>> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your
>>> argument asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But
>>> this won't even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once
>>> you show me why it is that you are entitled to believe that you
>>> have a hand, I'm pretty confident I can duplicate the story for at
>>> least one moral claim. Again, if you push the view you are
>>> holding, skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no
>>> longer unique.
>>>
>>> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is really
>>> something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the abortion
>>> issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent persons.
>>> They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what is a
>>> person? (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the point.)
>>>
>>> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are irresolveable
>>> and, for that reason there will always be disagreement about
>>> abortion. But you should be careful about drawing similar
>>> conclusions about ethics.
>>>
>>> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
>>> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
>>> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
>>> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn
>>> from this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>>>
>>> Best, Joe
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be resolved
>>>> given our current state of knowledge:
>>>>
>>>> Ethical principles are not completely amenable to resolution by
>>>> evidence or testing. If they were, we wouldn't have such a wide
>>>> diversity of opinion on ethical matters held by decent,
>>>> reasonable people. It's not like establishing Ohm's law or the
>>>> Theory of Conditioned Reflexes. Facts count, but even when
>>>> people agree on the facts, they may not agree on an underlying
>>>> ethical principle.
>>>>
>>>> It appears you are arguing for the principle that capital is
>>>> never justified, or equivalently there is not a single case where
>>>> capital punishment is justified.
>>>>
>>>> How would you empirically establish the truth of such a broad
>>>> statement? What observations would render the probability of
>>>> such a statement being 1.00?
>>>>
>>>> The best we can do in our current state of knowledge (the absence
>>>> of an agreed method to establish ethical principles without
>>>> doubt) is to attempt to persuade others by citing facts or other
>>>> ethical principles which they may agree upon.
>>>>
>>>> In order to refute the statement "There is not a single case
>>>> where capital punishment is justified." only a single case need
>>>> be shown.
>>>>
>>>> I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a counter-example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> "Joseph Edward Duncan (born February 25, 1963) is an American
>>>> convicted serial killer and sex offender who received national
>>>> attention after being arrested in connection with the kidnapping
>>>> of Shasta Groene,[1] aged 8, and her brother Dylan,[2] 9, and
>>>> being featured on America's Most Wanted.[3] He pled guilty in
>>>> December 2007 to 10 federal counts involving the kidnapping and
>>>> torture of the children and the murder of Dylan at a remote
>>>> campsite west of the Rocky Mountain Front, and was sentenced to
>>>> death under federal laws for kidnapping resulting in death (he
>>>> had already pleaded guilty in state court) on August 27, 2008. As
>>>> of October 27, 2009, Duncan was being tried in Riverside County,
>>>> California for the 1997 murder of Anthony Michael Martinez."
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic, sickening more.
>>>>
>>>> I could have also cited a number of confessed serial murderers or
>>>> used those old favorites Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
>>>>
>>>> Given your belief in the statement "There is not a single case
>>>> where capital punishment is justified." such counterexamples
>>>> would not be persuasive to you. You would still hold the above
>>>> ethical principle to be true despite the lack of a method to
>>>> demonstrate it's truth. However, some people might be persuaded
>>>> that Duncan should be executed and make his case an exception to
>>>> their general opposition to capital punishment. In fact, I know
>>>> of at least one such person.
>>>>
>>>> Until there is a method to establish the truth of general ethical
>>>> principles differences of opinion like ours are not likely to be
>>>> resolved. We may persuade each other about certain cases or
>>>> classes of cases (like those where guilt is questionable), but in
>>>> general we have no way to come to agreement like we might if we
>>>> were arguing about the cause of diabetes or whether syphilis is
>>>> caused by urinating in the moonlight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> W.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
>>>> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:15 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>> penalty
>>>>
>>>> Not even him, and you want to kill for less than that.
>>>>
>>>> From: deco at moscow.com
>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>> penalty
>>>>
>>>> Joseph E. Duncan III
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
>>>> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:41 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>> penalty
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty from you,
>>>> Wayne.
>>>>
>>>> Sunil
>>>>
>>>> From: deco at moscow.com
>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700
>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>>>>
>>>> Another good argument for the death penalty:
>>>>
>>>> Updated March 15, 2010
>>>>
>>>> Ex-Bank President Arrested for Allegedly Lying to Get TARP Money
>>>>
>>>> AP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The former president of a small community bank was arrested on
>>>> charges that he lied to the federal government to get a piece of
>>>> the bailout program, authorities said Monday.
>>>> NEW YORK -- The former president of a small community bank was
>>>> arrested on charges that he lied to the federal government to get
>>>> a piece of the bailout program, authorities said Monday.
>>>> Charles Antonucci Sr. was charged in a criminal complaint filed
>>>> in U.S. District Court in Manhattan with self-dealing, bank
>>>> bribery, embezzlement and fraud.
>>>> Authorities said the rip-off targeted the New York State Banking
>>>> Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Troubled
>>>> Asset Relief Program.
>>>> Antonucci resigned last year as president of The Park Avenue
>>>> Bank, which is headquartered in Manhattan with four retail
>>>> branches in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
>>>> Among other allegations, Antonucci was accused of using false
>>>> information to request $11 million from the
>>>> federal government's TARP bank bailout program.
>>>> The complaint accused him of lying to banking authorities in late
>>>> 2008 and early 2009 to make them believe he had invested $6.5
>>>> million of his own money in the bank when the money actually
>>>> belonged to the bank.
>>>> After the application for TARP money was rejected, Antonucci did
>>>> a media interview in which he said the bank withdrew its
>>>> application because of "issues" with the TARP program and a
>>>> desire to avoid "market perception" that bad banks take TARP
>>>> money, the complaint said.
>>>> Federal authorities say Antonucci actually wanted to obtain
>>>> millions of dollars for his own use, in part so he could obtain a
>>>> controlling interest in the bank.
>>>> They said he also permitted a former administrative assistant to
>>>> obtain $400,000 of loans the assistant was not qualified for. The
>>>> complaint said the former assistant is now cooperating.
>>>> The complaint alleged that Antonucci later used the former bank
>>>> employee's private plane on 10 or more occasions, including trips
>>>> to Phoenix to attend the Super Bowl, to Augusta, Ga., to watch
>>>> the Master's golf tournament, a flight to Florida to visit a
>>>> relative and a flight to Panama.
>>>> Antonucci's lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a
>>>> copy of the charges. He declined immediate comment.
>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date:
> 03/17/10 00:33:00
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100317/b68d7d96/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list