[Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Wed Mar 17 19:09:16 PDT 2010
Look, I have wondered if the words we read these days from Donovan Arnold are, in fact, those of the Donovan J. Arnold with whom I sparred continuously and at enormous length during the 2005 bond campaign. I hope they are; it would be very wrong for someone to usurp his name without his OK, and incomprehensible to me that he'd let them do it to him. Either way, for someone to hide behind a pseudonym on this forum is, I believe, fundamentally dishonest and much worse than that if they commandeer someone's name without their approval.
But we don't know that that's happening here. And one of many things I've learned this week is that it's better to discuss what we KNOW rather than what we don't. Yeah, we know of certain misdeeds on the part of a lot of people -- my own from Monday comes to mind here -- and if they were public in nature, then I say to call 'em out. I don't intend to pull my punches when I think Wilson or any of his allies does, says, or writes something bad. But since we don't know for sure that Donovan isn't Donovan, it seems unwise to conclude that it IS for a fact some other person whose identity we think we know.
I can't tell you how much I regret the mudslinging that I started here, and I wish we'd stick to what we know. I don't mind one bit the abuse I've taken for my opinions and analysis -- but I deserve shit if I go public with what isn't, or claim to know something about someone that I maybe don't.
Call me sanctimonious, call me a bitch, but please . . . let's move on.
Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:20:37 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)
Once again, you seem to be all over the place. I'll
try to play along.
"I am not the
only one to realize that Donovan is Dale, or Doug, or
whomever."
Because someone else shares your speculation, it
must therefor be correct?
"I'm not the only one to notice a sudden difference in style and
content"
Therefore, the only other person it could be
is Courtney?
"There is a lot more proof of this than most of the negative claims you've
made about me."
Then why is it you can't provide us with any? The
only negative claim I've ever made about you is that you're an emotional dish
rag, flapping in the breeze of the topic de jour. This requires no proof on my
part as its plain to see every time you elect to inject yourself into a topic on
which I post.
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
Joe
Campbell
To: the lockshop
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:48
PM
Subject: Re: Crabtree dilemma
(was...)
Coward it is!
Nothing to back it up? I am not the only one to realize that Donovan is
Dale, or Doug, or whomever. I'm not the only one to notice a sudden difference
in style and content. There is a lot more proof of this than most of the
negative claims you've made about me. You're standards seem to
shift.
And you cherry picked the claims I made. Notice you didn't ask for proof
that Doug Wilson tried to get two people FIRED for their CRITICISM of his
pro-slavery book. That letter has been on Tom's website for years. One claim I
made I can't back up -- because victims don't want their cars smeared with
feces again! Note also that neither you nor Dale DENIED any of the
allegations. That is odd.
Best, Joe
On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:29 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
wrote:
Or a third thing completely. Spreading
malicious rumors of wrong doing with absolutely nothing to back up the
accusation than your fevered imagination is contemptible.
To speculate as to whether a candidate will
re-run for office is the workaday, run of the mill grist for op-ed pages and
blogs everywhere with a local example being Vera White and her Inkster
coloum in the Daily News. Speculation becomes even more valid when, as Ms.
Ringo attested, there were legitimate health issues which are recently
and happily, resolved.
The first is vicious rumor, stated as
fact, that was designed to smear the reputation of a private person or group
with no basis in reality whatever.
The second is valid speculation, stated as
such, about the intentions of a public figure based on real and valid
concerns. A couple of prime examples of this would be the sorts of comments
that were all too common around 5 years ago concerning Dick
Cheney and whether a man with his heart problems would be on the ticket
again as GWB's second or, considering McCains bouts with melanoma, could be
possibly consider a run as CIC? Was discussion of those
concerns fair game or vicious rumor mongering?
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
Joe Campbell
To: the lockshop
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:21
PM
Subject: Crabtree dilemma
(was...)
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
=======================================================
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
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
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100317/786c431c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list