I haven’t heard anyone comment on the Norway murderer being clean cut and handsome. I find it comment-worthy because its more disturbing when a murderer is attractive. Look at all the support Casey Anthony got just a month ago. Think anyone would care if she were fatter or fuglier in the face? This dude is gonna be big pimpin in his college dorm style prison cell during his 21 year sentence and it’s disgusting. He should be executed.
The dude in Norway who murdered 70+ people for no reason will be spending 21 years in jail instead of life and instead of getting executed. Naturally this has sparked debate over capital punishment, and even though I’m not thrilled with the death penalty as a policy, I absolutely have no problem with it on a basis of morality. I genuinely don’t understand the people who do, actually. I always ask them, but never get much insight into what moral basis exactly there is for keeping all murderers alive – which is what being anti-death penalty means despite the reverse not being true. Same as being anti-war vs the “pro” position which is favoring it in some cases: the “anti” side is against it in all cases and the pro side is only in favor of it on a case by case. same with abortion – the pro side is case by case and the anti side says its immoral no matter what.
In response to my search for insight on the matter, I usually just get stupid bumper sticker phrases like a sarcastic “lets kill killers to show that killing is wrong!”. When I correct them however that no one smart thinks “killing” is wrong – it’s “murder” that is wrong and they don’t really believe themselves the philosophy behind the argument of capital punishment being hypocritical because they don’t apply the same standard to other crimes. People who say that are not against kidnapping kidnappers or confiscating property from a thief, yet their logic dictates that if killing murderers is hypocrisy then jailing kidnappers is hypocrisy. And that’s where they stop responding… every time.
But another often used argument is that life in prison is a fate worse than death. Which is really odd since they’re going from “capital punishment is too cruel” to “I want them to have an even MORE cruel punishment”, but rendered complete nonsense considering no killer ever chooses death. They all want to live. Desperately. They make plea bargains and cooperate with the prosecution so they can avoid the death penalty. Killing these people doesn’t make them martyrs, it makes them go away. They get forgotten. They get prevented from killing again either within prison or getting released from it.
As for those hellish prison cells that capital punishment abolitionists claim is a worse punishment than being put to death (even though no one convicted of murder ever thinks so), here are some torture chamber one-person-per-cell examples in Norway (Bastoey Prison, courtesy of this Daily Mail article from 2010):
Each inmate gets a private cell with mini-fridge, flat-screen TV and even a private en-suite bathroom and barless windows – because they let in more sunlight.
Then for every 12 to 15 rooms there is a top-notch kitchen with stainless steel work tops and lounge areas complete with IKEA-style sofas and coffee tables.
To cap-off their stay at Halden, the pampered prisoners can even enjoy a gym – complete with rock-climbing wall – a music studio and luxury library.
Allegedly an even nicer prison exists there where hardcore felons “have an island where the they work on a farm and live in cottages., In summer, they can improve their backhand on the tennis court, ride a horse in the forest and hit the beach for a swim. In winter, they can go cross-country skiing or participate in the prison’s ski-jumping competition.”
Sounds like a fate worse than death to ME, right?
UPDATE: While looking for a picture of a cell in the prison the shooter is going to (cuz who knows, maybe they’re not ALL like this, right?) I finally found one and as you can see, it is a significant downgrade: the television is not a flat screen! *GASP*
although, idk what Rihannas wardrobe change is about.
Glenn Beck is best known for his chalkboard writing Professor imitating monologues/speeches/sermons/whatever you want to call them, explaining political ideology and their representation in history and current events. Evidently though, he needs to send one of his writers for his news website The Blaze, Jonathon M. Seidl a few of his courses.
In a post titled Is the Oslo Gunman Really Right-Wing?, Seidl contests the claim by pointing to a Daily Mail article which opens its profile on Anders Behring Breivik with some information that allegedly “would seem to shake up any simple explanation of who he is or what he believed”:
The man responsible for the massacre in Norway was a member of a Swedish nazi forum which encourages attacks on government buildings.
It was also revealed by local police that he had extreme right wing views who hated Muslims.
According to Swedish website Expo Anders Behring Breivik is a member of ‘Nordisk’ which has 22,000 members and focuses on political terrorism.
[…]
[His Facebook profile] also listed interests such as body-building and freemasonry.[Emphasis added]
Okay? Despite lefties liking to call people on the right Nazi’s or claim that Hitler and the National Socialist (Nazi) movement movement was a right wing movement, the truth is that elements of both were involved
Next in the list the Blaze posted from the Daily Mail is uncited “right wing views” and Muslim hatred, where again – bigotry is not a qualifier anywhere on the political spectrum. After that is membership of a group that “focuses on political terrorism”. Again, not an ideology factor. True, it is more common on the left (presidential assassination, animal liberation, eco terrorism) than the right (the only conservative terrorism I can think of are the 8 or 9 people who have attempted or succeeded in abortion shootings or bombings) but “what is more frequent within” is not the same as what “is” or what defines an ideology.
And lastly, The Blaze puts in bold his activity in freemasonry, which is a culty conspiracy kindov thing often associated with Nazi’s. In fact, Hitler included in his declaration of war against America that FDR was allegedly a Freemason.
So far, that doesn’t add up to anything. Nazi + anti-Muslim + Nordisk + freemasonry adds up to kook. not right or left wing kook. So to decipher whether he is right or left in his belief system (which I acknowledge is a completely academic pursuit anyway, having no actual value), you have to go outside of these examples.
The Blaze however, does not. The Blaze says immediately after the list above (emphasis mine):
That’s certainly a mixed bag. And some of that information would seem to hint at a possible extreme leftist position, perhaps anarchism, would it not? It certainly doesn’t reflect the views of a conservative Christian, as he claimed to be.
The last part is right – he clearly wasn’t a “conservative Christian” even if he thought he was, but that isn’t what is being alleged. The allegation is that he was a far right wing extremist and anarchy is a far right extreme, not left. The far left extreme is Communism.
The error caught my interest only because Beck himself is so passionate about these differences. For someone who takes such care and effort to broadcast the differences between right and left, having the opposite of those definitions on your truth-news website is kindov a big deal.
For future reference, I’ll text-map the left/right divide for you (start in the middle and go left for more state control over the individual and right for more personal freedom):
Communism <– Socialism <– Liberalism <– POPULIST –> Conservatism –> Libertarianism –> Anarchism
Wait…this isnt the kitchen…my bad! *tiptoes out*
Is anyone tricked into using narcotic substances? Especially celebrities? Is anyone ever handed something and told it’s sugar and then BAM – addicted for life? Or does everyone choose to have this burden on them out of pure selfishness with no regard to for, obviously themselves, but more importantly: the people around them?
If the cause of death is what we all expect it to be, people should be more angry than they are sad. When you are a public figure with fans, you owe it to they who gave you your lifestyle and livelihood to not destroy yourself.
Is it in bad taste to talk badly about someones drug related death? To their mom, yes. To your own friends or others not personally involved? eff no. The facebook friend above continued to say that derogatory comments about Winehouse are “just rude and bad manners. And it speaks to your character.”, but I dont see how speaking of someones bad character speaks badly of your character. if thats the case then you have bad character for speaking about the bad character of the people speaking about Winehouses bad character. it never ends…
The series of choices it takes to get yourself addicted to deadly drugs is worthy of scorn and ridicule. especially when youre a public figure because you’re breaking that many more hearts by destroying yourself. fuck Winehouse.
Idk anything about Harry Potter, but this is still funny:
Hear me now, Internet: I vow. on this day. from now on. I. WILL. NOT. REST…until I have one of these in my possession…
ug…
George C Scott aka Patton is not a fan of Adam Sandler comedies…
Coastal California stays under 90 degrees. The Valley is a notorious hotbox, but even on the other side of the Malibu Mountains here in Thousand Oaks where I am its 67 degrees all week.
