<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You are confusing two different incidents and
vastly different circumstances. I believe that in answer to a question by local
law enforcement of "can you think of anyone who has anything aginst you" during
an investigation of some petty vandalism at his home, Hanson's name came up
along with several others. All of which had a demonstrated animosity for team
Wilson. What is it you would have me condemn? Was he incorrect in his apprasial
of Hanson's outlook? If so, how?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe
Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>"><vision2020@moscow.com></A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:02
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Crabtree dilemma
(was...)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'll give you another chance. Your criticism of me applies equally well
to Wilson, who included names of Tom and others on a POLICE report after
"Hitler youth" was written in chalk near NSA. So here's another chance to be
consistent and condemn the Master. Can you do it? <BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Joe<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:29 PM, "the lockshop" <<A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>"><<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>></A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:21
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Crabtree dilemma
(was...)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best, Joe <BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:32 PM, "the lockshop" <<A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bravo!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision
2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17, 2010
10:55 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Another
good argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Forget it. I don't have time to read this more carefully.
Joe</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:30 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Before you waste time commenting on something I
didn't say, please take the time to read very carefully what I did
say.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17,
2010 5:12 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Another good argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'll comment on the specifics later. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks! Joe <BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe, (& Andreas, Sunil),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To avoid repeating material, here are two
comments which I will refer to by names, below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Pigtails: </STRONG>A statement
of the form "All X is Y" is refuted by finding a single X that
is not Y.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Stones:</STRONG> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Knowledge Claims</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. "The Klein-4 group is an
Abelian group."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. "The </FONT><A
title="Electric current"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>current</FONT></A><FONT size=2> through a
conductor between two points is directly </FONT><A
title="Proportionality (mathematics)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>proportional</FONT></A><FONT size=2> to the
</FONT><A class=mw-redirect title="Potential difference"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_difference"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>potential difference</FONT></A><FONT
size=2> or </FONT><A title=Voltage
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage"><FONT color=#000000
size=2>voltage</FONT></A><FONT size=2> across the two points,
and inversely proportional to the </FONT><A
title="Electrical resistance"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>resistance</FONT></A><FONT size=2> between
them, provided that the temperature remains
constant."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>3. "Sheep reproduce
asexually."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>4. "Bartok is the greatest
composer ever."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>5. "You should never kill
another human being."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>6. "Every human being is
more valuable than every other animal."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It is a fact, not a philosophical position,
that certain kinds of knowledge claims <STRONG>are</STRONG>
successfully resolved by empirical methods, notwithstanding the
problem of induction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Statements 4., 5., and 6. are commonly called
value statements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The three that were chosen each illustrate
that <STRONG>in our present state of knowledge</STRONG> there is
not a generally accepted method to establish their truth.
It is not a simple matter like the stones example above.
The phrase <STRONG>"in our present state of knowledge"</STRONG>
is included so as to not preclude the discovery of such a method
in the future.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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, <STRONG>in our present state of
Knowledge</STRONG> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Applications</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Restating the argument against capital
punishment given by Andreas/Joe:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. There is no situation
where the judicially-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is
justified.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. Regimes which allow the
death penalty result in the execution of innocent
people.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>__________________________________________________________________________________<BR>3.
Therefore, the death penalty is never
justified.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Obviously, many would find this alleged
principle repugnant; others would agree with the
principle. By what <STRONG>generally accepted
method</STRONG> 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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 <EM>per
se</EM>. 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 <EM>ad nauseam</EM> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If you have an
adventurous/curious/not-easily-shocked mind venture onto <A
href="http://www.collarme.com"></A><A
href="http://www.collarme.com"></A><A
href="http://www.collarme.com"></A><A
href="http://www.collarme.com"><A
href="http://www.collarme.com">www.collarme.com</A></A>.
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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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
<STRONG>today</STRONG> among all professional philosophers of a
single non-metalinguistic ethical principle, or of a
system/method to produce such.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 15,
2010 11:05 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Another good argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the
argument about ethics below is a BAD argument. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.) </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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! </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.226562); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.226562)"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)">Best,
Joe</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)">
<DIV>I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the
argument about ethics below is a BAD argument. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.) </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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! </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.226562); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.226562)"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)">Best,
Joe</SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)"></SPAN><BR>On
Mar 15, 2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV>Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be
resolved given our current state of knowledge:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In order to refute the statement "There is not a single
case where capital punishment is justified." only a single
case need be shown.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a
counter-example (<A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III</A></A>)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>"Joseph Edward Duncan</STRONG> (born February
25, 1963) is an American convicted <A title="Serial killer"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer">serial
killer</A> and <A title="Sex offender"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender">sex
offender</A> who received national attention after being
arrested in connection with the <A title=Kidnapping
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping">kidnapping</A>
of Shasta Groene,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-0"><SPAN>[</SPAN>1<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
aged 8, and her brother Dylan,<SUP class=reference
id=cite_ref-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-1"><SPAN>[</SPAN>2<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
9, and being featured on <I><A title="America's Most Wanted"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Most_Wanted">America's
Most Wanted</A></I>.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-2"><SPAN>[</SPAN>3<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
He pled guilty in December 2007 to 10 federal counts
involving the kidnapping and <A title=Torture
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture">torture</A> of
the children and the murder of Dylan at a remote campsite
west of the <A
title="Rocky Mountain Front"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Front">Rocky
Mountain Front</A>, and was <A
title="Capital punishment"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment">sentenced
to death</A> under <I>federal</I> 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."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic, sickening
more.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I could have also cited a number of confessed serial
murderers or used those old favorites Hitler and Saddam
Hussein.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Until there is a method to establish the truth
of general ethical principles</STRONG> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil
Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March
15, 2010 7:15 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Not even him, and you want to kill for less
than that.<BR><BR>
<HR>
From: <A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A><BR>To:
<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700<BR>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty<BR><BR>
<STYLE>.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
.ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<DIV>
<H1 class=ecxfirstHeading id=ecxfirstHeading>Joseph E.
Duncan III</H1></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message
----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil
Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March
15, 2010 6:41 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I've never seen a good argument for the
death penalty from you, Wayne. <BR><BR>Sunil<BR><BR>
<HR>
From: <A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A><BR>To:
<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700<BR>Subject: [Vision2020]
Another good argument for the death penalty<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4><STRONG>Another good
argument for the death penalty:</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<P class=ecxecxpublish-date>Updated March 15, 2010</P>
<H1 id=ecxecxstory-title>Ex-Bank President Arrested for
Allegedly Lying to Get TARP Money</H1>
<P class=ecxecxauthor></P>
<P class=ecxecxsource>AP </P>
<P class=ecxecxdeck id=ecxecxstory-dek><SPAN
class=ecxecxdateline></SPAN></P>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.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class="ecxecxbodytext ecxecxsmalltext">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.<BR>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.<BR>Authorities said the rip-off
targeted the New York State Banking Department, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Troubled Asset
Relief Program.<BR>Antonucci resigned last year as
president of The Park Avenue Bank, which is
headquartered in Manhattan with four retail branches in
Manhattan and Brooklyn.<BR>Among other allegations,
Antonucci was accused of using false information to
request $11 million from the federal government's TARP
bank bailout program.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>Antonucci's lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he
had just gotten a copy of the charges. He declined
immediate
comment.<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet,
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet,
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net"></A><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet,
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net"></A><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A href="http://www.fsr.net"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>=======================================================
<P></P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG
- <A href="http://www.avg.com"><A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A></A> <BR>Version: 9.0.791 /
Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date: 03/17/10
00:33:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet, </SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving
the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A> <BR>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus
Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date: 03/17/10
00:33:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release
Date: 03/17/10 00:33:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>