Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
Murder rates for states with the death penalty vs. states without the death penalty:

States with the Death Penalty
Nevada - 9.0
Alabama - 8.3
Arizona - 7.5
Arkansas - 7.3
California - 6.8
Colorado - 3.3
Connecticut - 3.1
Delaware - 4.9
Florida - 6.2
Georgia - 6.4
Idaho - 6.1
Indiana - 5.8
Illinois - 6.1
Kansas - 4.6
Kentucky - 4.0
Louisiana - 12.4
Maryland - 9.7
Mississippi - 7.7
Missouri - 6.3
Montana - 1.8
Nebraska - 2.8
New Hampshire - 1.0
New Jersey - 4.9
New Mexico - 6.8
North Carolina - 6.1
Ohio - 4.7
Oregon - 2.3
Oklahoma - 5.8
Pennsylvania - 5.9
South Carolina - 8.3
South Dakota - 1.2
Tennessee - 6.8
Texas - 5.9
Utah - 1.8
Virgina - 5.2
Washington - 3.0
Wyoming 1.7

States Without the Death Penalty:
Alaska - 5.4
Hawaii - 1.6
Iowa - 1.8
Maine - 1.7
Massachusetts - 2.9
Michigan - 7.1
Minnesota - 2.4
North Dakota - 1.3
Rhode Island - 2.6
Vermont - 1.9
West Virginia - 4.1
Wisconsin - 3.0

New York (law declared unconstitutional in 2004) - 4.8

A different inference (from the one I assume you are trying to make) is that the states without the death penalty merely have fewer incidents of crime, and thus they have yet to feel the need to write it into law.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A different inference (from the one I assume you are trying to make) is that the states without the death penalty merely have fewer incidents of crime, and thus they have yet to feel the need to write it into law.

Is it even worth making an inference?
Half the states listed as having the death penalty haven't executed anyone in years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is it even worth making an inference?
Half the states listed as having the death penalty haven't executed anyone in years.

Clearly it's quite a deterrent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A different inference (from the one I assume you are trying to make) is that the states without the death penalty merely have fewer incidents of crime, and thus they have yet to feel the need to write it into law.

fuck. check us compared to the others w/o. we need to kill some folks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
self-interest is a good one though. I was watching the Ken Burns thing tonight. It was pretty interesting. we killed lots of French and Italian citizens to "liberate" them. We supposedly did bombings to German cities that were much worse than the blitz. In a sense wasn't that war just about self interest?

That's not an acceptable rationale. That's self interest, and yes, they are two different things.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It has nothing to do with morals, and I understand the argument of letting him hang himself. But unfortunately the Arab world does not live by the same belief system that we do, and I fear that the appearance will be used to prop him up and legitimize him in the Arab world in the same way that allowing him to visit the towers would have.

Were you in favor of allowing him to visit the towers?

Our stamp of indirect "acceptance" is not going to alter his stature.

Yes, he should have visited the towers's footprint.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's not an acceptable rationale. That's self interest, and yes, they are two different things.

we were allowed to kill Europeans Germany was not. Was there an "acceptable rationale" for us to fight the Nazis? If yes, please explain how it is different. Do you mean we have to wait until the first million Jews are dead?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we were allowed to kill Europeans Germany was not. Was there an "acceptable rationale" for us to fight the Nazis? If yes, please explain how it is different. Do you mean we have to wait until the first million Jews are dead?

Germany declared war on us, not vice versa. Why do you hate America?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Troops have opened fire on protesting monks in Burma. Good pictures of the protests here. Not a good sign, but not unexpected.

This article on the causes of the unrest was better than anything else I've seen:

• Burma’s generals do not seem to learn from history. In September 1987, Burma’s abrupt announcement that large banknotes were no longer valid currency wiped out the population’s savings, igniting a nationwide revolt against the regime and its economic bungling.
  
  Last month, the withdrawal without warning of fuel subsidies kicked off another flurry of small protests that have snowballed into the largest demonstrations since that uprising.
  
  The price of natural gas went up five-times. Prices of petrol and diesel doubled. The regime claimed ending fuel subsidies was necessary to eliminate an unsustainable fiscal burden but the subsequent doubling of bus fares meant many Burmese – who already spend nearly all their daily income on food – had to choose between eating and travelling to work.
  
  Yet the ruling generals made no attempt to cushion ordinary people from their brute version of economic reality, despite warnings that the fuel price rise could push many struggling families over the edge. “The generals make economic decisions as if they were commanding military operations,” said Zaw Oo, a Burmese economic analyst.
  
  Burma is one of the richest countries in Asia in terms of natural resources. In the 1950s, high society Thais flew to Rangoon, Burma’s capital at the time, for luxury shopping. Today, Burma’s population is deeply impoverished after decades under the thumb of soldiers with greater faith in astrologers than in economists and market forces. Western economic sanctions have bitten, too.
  
  About a third of Burma’s people live below the poverty line and 10 per cent of the population is unable to secure sufficient daily food, the United Nations says.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Our stamp of indirect "acceptance" is not going to alter his stature.

Yes, he should have visited the towers's footprint.

He should have just been ignored by the city. No fanfare, no police escorts, no explicit permission to do anything and no bans either. Let him stand in Times Square with a megaphone. Let him take the subway down to Century 21 and stand by the fence like everyone else. Don't return his calls at Columbia. He's an empty suit and all the loathing just builds him up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

John Derbyshire doesn't want to call Burma "Myanmar." And another thing:

• Damn whatever committee of the U.N. is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
John Derbyshire doesn't want to call Burma "Myanmar." And another thing:

• Damn whatever committee of the U.N. is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!

Who does he think he is? J. Peterman?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
John Derbyshire doesn't want to call Burma "Myanmar." And another thing:

• Damn whatever committee of the U.N. is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!

This may be the only thing I agree with that dude about. Add The Sudan and The Ukraine, the Northwest Territories, and Danzig to the list, among others that I have probably forgotten.

I will concede Istanbul to the Turks, although they really should have changed the name in 1453, not some 450 years later.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Danzig

What the world needs about now is a real Misfits reunion. I'd pay to see that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You do realize that Dresden is a real city and that it was actually firebombed in WWII, right? Thousands of innocent men, women, and children died there.

I'm not making any moral judgments here,

I will. It was immoral for the allies to firebomb Dresden.