text:
The most profitable and paying HYIP program
Http://www.malaysian-inc.com/?ref=jonuchills Status: PAYING Payout Ratio : 120% PROFITABLE Payout Statistics !!! 1.62-2.95% daily 15-120 days launched: Feb 10th, 2013 Listed: Mar 14th, 2013 Support Rating: SignUp Bonus: No Minimal Spend: $5 Maximal Spend: No Limit Referral: 2-5% Withdrawal: Cashout Request CashOut: Daily. Available Balance Processed: 24 hrs Min Cashouts: No minimum Admin Fees: No fee Malaysian INC today operates under several areas. Our business lines in our core markets of Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand are organised primarily across the following areas as short-term lending market, trading on a stock exchange, equity trade, dividends reinvestment and note brokerage. Since February 2013, we are open to investors from around world. Now anyone can increase their capital by providing funds in management of our company. HYIP hosting and Host IP Information IP: 126.96.36.199


text:
Friday, May 30, 2008
Morality according to Sam Harris
Overall, the book was one of the most vitriolic defenses of atheism I have ever seen. Mr. Harris' recurring theme throughout his book is that his point of view is intuitively obvious and anyone who disagrees with him is intellectually bankrupt. Very often he makes conclusory statements without even attempting to provide any evidence for his conclusion. Again, the theme is that his perspective should be obviously true to anyone with even a bare modicum of common sense. Ironically, at one point in the book Mr. Harris calls Christians "arrogant" when the entirety of his book could the the poster child for intellectual arrogance. Mr. Harris makes no attempt to respect those who disagree with him. He makes no attempt to engage in a polite, respectful discussion of the issues. If you agree with him, you are a genius. If you disagree with him, your opinions do not even belong in the marketplace of ideas.
The one point I want to address here, though, deals with Harris' conception of morality. Without explicitly saying so, Harris firmly establishes himself as a utilitarian. He argues that all morality stems from concepts of suffering and pleasure. He then goes on to Christian morality, claiming that it disregards a large degree of suffering that its moral views cause.
Obviously, I disagree with Harris' description of Christian moral theory, but I will confine the remainder of this post to one simple point, and it is a criticism that could come from proponents of both Christian and other non-utilitarian moral theories. Mr. Harris ... if all morality is solely derived from suffering and pleasure, this would mean that an act that causes no suffering should be morally acceptable. So if you could painlessly euthanize a homeless person who has no family or friends to speak of to even notice he or she is gone, is that OK?
If Mr. Harris is correct and there is no God, no afterlife, simply our material world, then that homeless person will experience nothing after death, so there is no post-mortem suffering. The act of death itself is without suffering, and there is no one remaining behind who is suffering as a result of the death. So this should be perfectly permissible under Harris' formulation of morality.
I believe that it is reasonable to state that most people believe that cold-blooded murder is never morally acceptable, no matter who your victim may be. The morality of murder does not depend upon whether it can be carried out painlessly, or how big the victim's circle of friends may be. But these factors do weigh into Mr. Harris' moral theory.
At some point respect for human life must enter the picture, and not because of some imprecise concept of suffering, but because of the inherent value that life holds. An acceptable moral theory cannot hinge on suffering. Suffering can be one component (as I believe it is in Christian moral theory), but it cannot be the "be all and end all" of your theory. Without taking into account human dignity any moral theory, including Mr. Harris', will collapse.
7 comments:
Did we read the same book?
You said: "Mr. Harris' recurring theme throughout his book is that his point of view is intuitively obvious and anyone who disagrees with him is intellectually bankrupt."
The recurring theme is something different entirely. The book focuses on the dangers of religious belief. While he presents examples of real harm caused by religion, he never actually states that anyone who disagrees with him is "intellectually bankrupt." Your characterization is not accurate what so ever.
You said: "Very often he makes conclusory statements without even attempting to provide any evidence for his conclusion."
The book is less than 100 pages long. He does not take time to back up every statement, but he writes in an intelligent manner and supports his abstract statements with explanations and statistics or quotes.
You said: "Mr. Harris makes no attempt to respect those who disagree with him. He makes no attempt to engage in a polite, respectful discussion of the issues."
Actually he does the exact opposite of what you claim. He has written a book that attempts to discuss important issues concerning religion. The fact that he wants to have a discussion about religion meant that he does have respect for those who disagree with him. If he didn't care about what religious believers think than he never would have written the book. The fact is that Mr. Harris respects Christians enough to make this appeal to them. He cares enough to take the time to write to you. Just like you take time to write in your blog and preach to others. While a lot of the content of his book may be offensive to a Christian, his aim is never to offend, but to discuss real issues. You couldn't be more wrong in this case.
Clearly you have mischaracterized this book. Your issue with Mr. Harris' concept of morality is important, but Mr. Harris spent little time fleshing out his concept of morality in this book. He spends more time pointing out real examples of harm caused by religion; choosing not to focus on semantics as much as the real problems we face.
- Sat Jun 28, 01:13:00 AM EST
- Ten Minas Ministries said...
Thank you for your comments. By way of reminder to anyone else joining us, my comments that you appear to disagree with were as follows:
"Overall, the book was one of the most vitriolic defenses of atheism I have ever seen. Mr. Harris' recurring theme throughout his book is that his point of view is intuitively obvious and anyone who disagrees with him is intellectually bankrupt. Very often he makes conclusory statements without even attempting to provide any evidence for his conclusion. Again, the theme is that his perspective should be obviously true to anyone with even a bare modicum of common sense. Ironically, at one point in the book Mr. Harris calls Christians "arrogant" when the entirety of his book could be the poster child for intellectual arrogance. Mr. Harris makes no attempt to respect those who disagree with him. He makes no attempt to engage in a polite, respectful discussion of the issues. If you agree with him, you are a genius. If you disagree with him, your opinions do not even belong in the marketplace of ideas."
Keep in mind that you are defending a book that proudly displays on its front cover the description given by the New York Times as "A breath of fresh fire." But I will leave that aside. It is possible that Mr. Harris had nothing to do with the cover.
Rather than write out a detailed response in my own words, I prefer to let Mr. Harris do the talking for me. I ask you and anyone else reading this to try to objectively step back, regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Harris or not, and ask whether or not I am correct in arguing that Mr. Harris believes his position to be intuitively obvious. Ask whether he really sounds respectful to the opposition when he is describing their position. If you want to have a bit of fun, try counting all the times Mr. Harris uses the word "obvious" or some form thereof to describe his own position. To make it even more interesting, you could add in all the references to reasonableness or intellectual honesty.
Now allow me to let Mr. Harris speak for himself:
"The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn't it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically? Isn't it obvious that the doctrine of Islam represents a near-perfect barrier to honest inquiry? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions." Page 7
"There are obvious biological reasons why people tend to treat their parents well, and to think badly of murderers, adulterers, thieves, and liars." Page 21
"One of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality of human and animal suffering." Page 25
"...relieving suffering seems to rank rather low on your list of priorities." Page 26
(Both of these last two comments, by the way, show that Mr. Harris has a woefully inadequate grasp of Christian moral theory)
"Your qualms about embryonic stem-cell research are similarly obscene." Page 28
(Since when is calling your opponent's position "pernicious" or "obscene" considered a respectful dialogue?)
"The choice before us is simple: we can either have a twenty-first century conversation about morality and human well-being - a conversation in which we avail ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last two thousand years of human discourse - or we can confine ourselves to a first-century conversation as it is preserved in the Bible. Why would anyone want to take the latter approach?" Page 50
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious." Page 51
"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." Page 51
When speaking of people praying during disasters, Harris says:
"Do you have the courage to admit the obvious? These poor people died talking to an imaginary friend." Page 52
"There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction, like Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods whom most sane human beings now ignore." Pages 55-56
"It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn't. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies." Pages 64-65.
When speaking of a Catholic conference on the doctrine of "limbo", Harris states:
"How can any educated person think this anything but a hilarious, terrifying and unconscionable waste of time?" Page 66
"While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society." Page 67
"Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists." Page 74
"There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer." Page 74
"An average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse." Pages 74-75.
And finally...
"We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith." Page 87
I see no point to trying to back up my arguments when Mr. Harris has done such an admirable job for me. This is just a small sampling that I managed to come up with by scanning through the book for about 20 minutes after reading your comment. I am certain I did not catch them all. But to look at this sampling, it seems "obvious" to me that Mr. Harris believes his position is intellectually obvious, and anyone who disagrees with him (i.e., religious believers) are not being reasonable or intellectually honest. I will leave it to others to review the above comments and arrive at their own conclusions.
You state, "The fact that he wants to have a discussion about religion meant that he does have respect for those who disagree with him." Also, "If he didn't care about what religious believers think than he never would have written the book."
1 Peter 3:15 teaches Christians to be prepared to give an answer for what they believe, but to do so with "gentleness and respect." The reason for this is quite simple. You will catch more bees with honey, etc. I guess only Mr. Harris will know if he truly wrote this book out of concern for Christians or whether it was simply another avenue to rally like-minded people around him. I will not presume to answer that for him. But if he is truly concerned for Christians, perhaps next time he should avoid describing them as "pernicious", "obscene", "reprehensible", "arrogant", "odious", "unconscionable", mad, stupid, unreasonable, intellectually dishonest, and denying the obvious.
Thank you for your comments.
- Tue Jul 01, 10:23:00 PM EST
- DagoodS said...
Ten Minas Ministries,
I see this a bit of "whose ox is being gored." The first disclaimer I should note is that I have not read Harris' book. Too many other books to read. The second item I must note is that I agree with you. Words such as "odious," or "intellectually honest" do not foster good conversation, but rather cause the conversation to become antagonistic, and the other person to become more agitated an defensive.
However, such words do sell books. Sadly, we have become a society of hyperbole, overreaching, and flamboyance. Scary movies in which only one person dies ("The Shining") are passé—who is scared by that? Now we must have multiple deaths, and more and more gore.
In the same way, books that take on opposing theistic beliefs do not sell with rationale, quiet argument of the lines "We each have good arguments, here is why I think mine are a bit better." The de rigueur has become accusations, name-calling and exaggeration. Don't say, "You know, it might be better to give your children a broad religious education, including non-theistic beliefs." That doesn't sell. "If you teach your children to follow your religion, this is akin to child abuse." That will get the books flying off the shelf.
This is not limited to the non-theist side. Ravi Zacharias suggests I, as an atheist, am best served by killing myself. D'Souza considers me to be an enemy of America. Bush, Sr. figures I am not entitled to be an American citizen. And on a more personal note, I recall you using the phrase "intellectually honest" when questioning how someone could judge God. None of us are above tossing a phrase or two.
Probably the hardest word to wrestle with is "obvious." At one time, it was "obvious" to me there was a god. To think otherwise was as ludicrous as contemplating gravity doesn't happen, or there is no such thing as daylight. My mind couldn't even begin to grasp the inkling of the possibility of the concept of anything else.
I could easily see, at that point in my life, talking to an atheist and saying, "Isn't it obvious there is a God? See the world? See the logical consistency of Christianity? See the historicity of the Resurrection? Obvious."
Times change. Despite having believed in a God once, I could not now. Not if my life depended on it. While I empathize with such a belief, and would not necessarily say it is "obvious" there is no god, there are certain facets or claims about a God I could see myself saying the word "obvious." Perhaps the best example, in line with Mr. Harris, is that it is "obvious" to me prayer provides the same supernatural results as non-prayer. None. (There are some beneficial therapeutic results for the person.)
I do understand what is "obvious" to me may not be "obvious" to you and vice versa. So I tend to ignore the word when written; finding it a character of speech. Like "surely." Just cause you say it, doesn't make it "sure."
When Christians tell non-theists they are missing the obvious, or imply they are intellectually dishonest, the non-theist cries, "Foul! Not right!" Yet when the non-theist does the same to the Christian, the same cries are heard. Like I said, a question of whose ox is being gored.
- Wed Jul 02, 08:22:00 AM EST
- Ten Minas Ministries said...
Hello again DagoodS! Sorry I've been off the radar screen for a while. I've had too many other commitments lately (including helping to find a new pastor for our church and the Disaster Relief Project), so blogging has fallen by the wayside. I've only had time to respond to this latest comment, frankly, because I have been home sick this week with a throat infection. Can't work, can't talk. About the only thing I can do is type!
I appreciate your comments, and you are right. Reflecting back on my own past, I have been known to use the phrase "intellectually honest" before (or its converse), and to that extent I was wrong.
My problem with Mr. Harris is that he does this, combined with not backing up many of his propositions. Don't get me wrong. It is nto universal. Several of his comments he does try to back up. But many he does not. He just relies on belittling his opponent and saying how obvious his position is.
Its what I refer to as the schoolyard bully approach to argumentation. Most of us probably, when we were growing up, saw a bully picking on someone else. In those circumstances, many children are far more likely to try to befriend the bully than the victim. Why? Because they don't want to be the next victim. It has nothing to do with the bully actually being right.
This type of argumentation, when it is not supported by anything, tends to make people think that the bully's opponent is ridiculous (without any factual basis for that belief) and they do not want to be considered ridiculous too. So they just side with the bully. But if you rationally examine it at the end, the bully hasn't really said anything of substance.
This is why I always enjoy our conversations, because you try to give reasons why people should believe you, not just attacking your opponent. In many instances, Harris doesn't. That's the meat of my objection.
Yes, you are right, that is what sells books. If it didn't, they wouldn't describe it as a "breath of fresh fire" on the cover. Sometimes I just wish it were otherwise, because I really do not believe that does the marketplace of ideas any favors.
By the way, could you give me a reference to what you are referring to regarding Ravi Zacharias? I've seen many Christians engage in this inappropriate argumentation, but he has not been one I would typically place in that category. However, if you can point me to an example, I will be the first one to admit to being wrong. Thanks.
- Wed Jul 02, 09:53:00 AM EST
- DagoodS said...
Can Man Live without God? Pages 50-51.
Ravi Zacharias suggests the logical conclusion of atheism is suicide. (A bit of projection from his own life, perhaps?) In looking for the exact reference, I see Francis Schaffer suggested the same.
(I admit I was curious whether the recent change in the PC-USA would bring out a blog entry.)
- Wed Jul 02, 10:39:00 AM EST
- Ten Minas Ministries said...
Thanks for the Zacharias reference. I have many of his books, but unfortunately that is not one of them. If I get the chance I will check it out.
It seems to me that atheism is completely inconsistent with suicide, at least from a logical standpoint. On first blush anyway, it seems impossible to say that death, under an atheistic worldview, is "preferable" to life, no matter how much suffering you are undergoing. After all, if there is nothing but oblivion after death, then it is impossible to "prefer" anything in that state. How can you say it will be "better" after you die when there is quite literally no referent after death to compare to your current state of existence?
Admittedly, this is a logical analysis, not an emotional one, and I am not saying that people cannot make an emotional choice for suicide. But I am assuming that Dr. Zacharias was making a logical statement, as in "Given the atheistic worldview, it logically follows that atheists should opt for suicide", or something to that effect. If that is the essence of what he said, I disagree.
As for the recent PCUSA happenings, I will blog about it shortly, but frankly it may not be all you are expecting, as I don't see the point to revisiting the underlying issue that I have already addressed time and time again.
- Thu Jul 03, 03:07:00 PM EST
- Ten Minas Ministries said...
You may not even be checking this anymore, but I thought I'd post something for you just in case. I still haven't read "Can Man Live Without God?", but I did just finish Zacharias' book "The End of Reason" in which he hits on this same topic (i.e., suicide). In that book he does not seem to be saying that suicide is the logical outworking of atheism in the sense that you are "best served" by killing yourself, but rather that atheism CAN lead to a loss of hope for some people (as it did him) with suicide as the result. At least in this latest book he never said that atheists would be "best served" by killing themselves.
This has been more of my experience with Zacharias' position on this matter, but he admittedly may have said something different in "Can Man Live Without God?" I'm sure I'll get to it eventually.
- Fri Jan 02, 10:47:00 AM EST

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Restorative Justice in Cases of Domestic Violence
Best practice examples between increasing mutual understanding and awareness of specific protection needs.
(JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/4587) WS1. Comparative Report, January 2015
Written and compiled by:
Lisanne Drost
Birgitt Haller
Veronika Hofinger
Tinka van der Kooij
Katinka Lünnemann
Annemieke Wolthuis
Country reports have been prepared by:
Austria Institute of Conflict Research (IKF) &
Institute for the Sociology of Law and Criminology (IRKS)
Denmark National Organisation of Women's Shelters in Denmark (LOKK)
Finland Department of Criminal Policy of the Ministry of Justice (MJF)
Greece European Public Law Organization (EPLO)
The Netherlands Verwey-Jonker Institute (VJI)
United Kingdom Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS)


text:
Statistiques de Houle pour Copper Mine Bay, Août: Toutes Houles – Tous Vents
The rose diagram shows the combination of swells directed at Copper Mine Bay over a normal August. It is based on 2976 NWW3 model predictions since 2006 (values every 3 hours). The wave model does not forecast wind or surf right at the coast so we have chosen the optimum grid node based on what we know about Copper Mine Bay. In this particular case the best grid node is 10 km away (6 miles).
The rose diagram shows the distribution of swell sizes and swell direction, while the graph at the bottom shows the same thing without direction information. Five colours illustrate increasing wave sizes. Blue shows the smallest swells, less that 0.5m (1.5 feet) high. These happened only 26% of the time. Green and yellow show increasing swell sizes and red represents the biggest swells, greater than >3m (>10ft). In each graph, the area of any colour is proportional to how often that size swell occurs.
The diagram indicates that the dominant swell direction, shown by the longest spokes, was E (which was the same as the prevailing wind direction). Because the wave model grid is out to sea, sometimes a strong offshore wind blows largest waves away from Copper Mine Bay and offshore. We group these with the no surf category of the bar chart. To keep it simple we don't show these in the rose plot. Because wind determines whether or not waves are clean enough to surf at Copper Mine Bay, you can load a different image that shows only the swells that were expected to coincide with glassy or offshore wind conditions. During a typical August, swells large enough to cause surfable waves at Copper Mine Bay run for about 74% of the time.
IMPORTANT: Beta version feature! Swell heights are open water values from NWW3. There is no attempt to model near-shore effects. Coastal wave heights will generally be less, especially if the break does not have unobstructed exposure to the open ocean.


text:
Tison v. Arizona
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Tison v. Arizona
|Argued November 3, 1986
Decided April 21, 1987
|Full case name
|Raymond and Ricky Tison v. State of Arizona
|481 U.S. 137 (more)
107 S. Ct. 1676; 95 L. Ed. 2d 127; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1808
|Prior history
|Convictions affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arizona, 633 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1981), and denial of post-conviction relief affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arizona, 690 P.2d 747 (Ariz. 1984); cert. granted, 475 U.S. 1010 (1986).
|The death penalty may be imposed on a felony-murder defendant who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibits extreme indifference to human life.
|Court membership
|Case opinions
|O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Powell, Scalia
|Brennan, joined by Marshall; Blackmun, Stevens (parts I, II, III, IV-A)
|Laws applied
|U.S. Const. amend. VIII
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court qualified the rule it set forth in Enmund v. Florida (1982). Just as in Enmund, in Tison the Court applied the proportionality principle to conclude that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life.
Factual background[edit]
This case stems from an infamous prison break during the summer of 1978. Gary Tison was serving a life sentence at the Arizona State Prison in Florence for killing a prison guard. His three sons, Donald, Ricky, and Raymond, plotted to break him and his cellmate, Randy Greenawalt, out of prison. On July 30, 1978, the sons entered the prison for a visit, taking advantage of a policy that allowed an informal picnic setting for weekend family visits, carrying an ice chest packed with revolvers and sawed-off shotguns.[1] One of them aimed a sawed-off shotgun at a lobby guard. Greenawalt helped in the escape by cutting off telephones and alarm systems.[2]
They escaped in Donald Tison's 1969 Lincoln Continental, but the next day, one of the Lincoln's tires blew out on a stretch of road not far from the California border, near Quartzsite. Marine Sgt. John Lyons, 24, of Yuma, traveling with his wife, son, and niece, on his way to visit family in Nebraska, stopped to help. Five days later, his body was found along with those of his wife, Donnelda, 23, his 22-month-old son Christopher, and his 15-year-old niece, Theresa Tyson.[1]
While Raymond Tison was showing John Lyons the flat tire, the other escapees emerged from the brush. Raymond forced the Lyonses into the Lincoln, and then he and Donald drove the Lincoln down a service road. Meanwhile, the other Tisons transferred their belongings into the Lyonses' car, keeping the Lyonses' money and guns. Gary Tison shot out the radiator on the Lincoln and forced the Lyonses out. John Lyons began begging Gary Tison for his life; Gary Tison remarked that he was "thinking about" killing the Lyonses. Gary told Raymond and Ricky to go back to the Lyonses' car and get some water. According to Raymond, while they were gone, Gary started shooting the Lyonses; according to Ricky, the shooting began once they returned with the water. The two agreed that they had returned in time to watch the elder Tison and Greenawalt kill the Lyonses.
Then, in Colorado, police believe that on August 8 the gang murdered James Judge Jr. and his new wife, Margene. The Amarillo, Texas couple were honeymooning in southwestern Colorado at the time. (Their bodies were not found until November 1978, at a campsite near Pagosa Springs, Colorado.) The gang returned to Arizona, driving the Judges' van on Interstate 10, when they encountered a police roadblock.[1][2] They ran the roadblock, and a shootout took place at a second roadblock, south of Casa Grande, Arizona.[3]
Donald Tison, who was driving the van, was killed at the scene; the others fled on foot. Raymond, Ricky, and Greenawalt were quickly caught, but Gary Tison escaped into the desert. Over 300 police officers and hundreds of volunteers searched for him, but he eluded them. He did not elude the August desert — he died of exposure.[2] His body was found eleven days after the shootout.[1]
Greenawalt and the surviving Tisons were charged with 92 crimes, including four counts of murder. (No charges were brought for the murder of the Judges, and Colorado authorities closed the cases when the surviving gang members were convicted in Arizona.)[1]
Criminal proceedings[edit]
The two remaining Tison brothers were tried individually for capital murder in the deaths of the Lyonses. The murder charges were predicated on Arizona's felony-murder statute, which provided that killings that occurred during a robbery or kidnapping were first-degree, death-eligible murder. The Tison brothers were convicted. At a separate sentencing hearing, three aggravating factors were proved: the Tisons had created a grave risk of death to others, the murders were committed for pecuniary gain, and the murders were especially heinous, cruel, or depraved. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the death sentences. In the intervening years, the Supreme Court decided Enmund v. Florida, leading the Tison brothers to bring a collateral attack on their sentences, claiming that Enmund required their death sentences to be struck down. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected this argument, asserting that the dictates of Enmund had been satisfied because the intent requirement of that case could be inferred from the fact that death was a foreseeable result of participating in a dangerous felony.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, concluded that the death penalty would be appropriate for a murder like the ones the Tisons had been convicted of if it could be shown that the defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony and had acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Later, the death penalties of Ricky and Raymond Tison were reduced to life sentences because they were both under 20 at the time of the crimes. Greenawalt was executed in 1997.
In popular media[edit]
The 1978 escape has been the subject of two films:
- A Killer in the Family, a 1983 TV movie starring Robert Mitchum as Gary Tison and James Spader as his oldest son Donny
- Last Rampage, a 2017 film starring Robert Patrick as Gary Tison and Heather Graham as his wife Dorothy based on the book Last Rampage: The Escape of Gary Tison by James W. Clarke
- ^ a b c d e "Member of infamous Tison gang in line for execution in Arizona". Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Associated Press. January 20, 1997. Retrieved May 28, 2013.
- ^ a b c "Nation: Death in the Desert". Time. September 4, 1978. Retrieved May 28, 2013.
- ^ "Randy Greenawalt". The Arizona Republic. June 22, 2004.
External links[edit]
- Text of Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)


text:
Anyway, May You Be The Mother of a Hundred Sons explores women's issues in India. I'm only half way, but she's already talked about daily life for women in India, bride burnings over dowries and female infanticide. Hardly a light read.
Most of the time, I'm very quick to judge people, their actions, beliefs, moral integrity, logic/reason. I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right to believe that infanticide is wrong, but I'm wrong when I judge without even hearing the whole story. The whole story might not change my opinion that sin is sin, but I might learn why these parents thought it was the right thing to do at the time. I might understand that they are hurt by their decision; that they didn't selfishly hate the baby for being female; that as impoverished women, these mothers believed they were protecting their daughters from the life they live. Maybe the whole story is more involved than I see on the surface.
I know this is a dark topic for a Tuesday, but it's what's on my heart right now.


text:
- You are here:
- Home
- Government
- Community Services
- Community Resources
Community Resources
Linn County Community Services - Core Services organizes and participates in many community human services activities and collaboratives. One of those collaboraitves is the Community Resources Committee, which engages more than 30 different organizations, annually reviews and updates 23 different community resource sheets listed below.
Resource Sheets
NACo Resources The Linn County Board of Supervisors has partnered with the National Association of Counties (NACo) to offer Linn County residents two discount programs to assist with prescriptions and dental work.
Prescription Discount Card Program
The NACo Dental Discount Card Program is designed to help uninsured and under-insured county residents save money on their dental service expenses. The program complements health insurance plans and works in conjunction with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts
Dental Discount Program
Program costs:
- $59 per year or $6.95 per month for individuals
- $69 per year or $8.95 per month for families
For more information or to see if your dental provider participates in the program, visit the NACo Dental Discount Program website.
Other Helpful Resources
Transportation Resources for Medicaid Appointments


text:
"I'll tell you how to be a witness for Christ! You need to be filled with the Spirit!" Mike Schadt's voice rose with passion and conviction as he spoke. Except for a smattering of 'Amens,' the room was pin-drop-silent.
He read the 23rd Psalm according to couch potatoes. 'The TV is my shepherd, I shall not want…' Many squirmed. It's hard to be in the world but not of it. I struggle with it everyday. He continued.
The congregation listened as Mike described how a man from Honduras became a follower of Christ. Once a voo-doo-witch doctor, he planned to execute the missionaries from SOS Ministries. When he tried, he couldn't. The man realized that his god, Satan was no match for the One True God. The Great I Am.
The new convert lives in a mud hut, and asks God each day to keep him safe from those who would now assassinate him because he now serves The Living God.
Mike took us to the book of Acts, where time after time, Luke describes someone as being 'filled with the spirit.' I listened with a gut-wrenching, stomach-twisting desire to be like that. But how?
Of course, it starts with prayer. The desire. That is all the Lord needs. He knows that we are but dust. He gives us strength. He gives us wisdom. He gives us courage. He gives us opportunity. He even gives us His Words so we don't mess it all up.
Our job is to listen and to obey. Kind of hard to hear him with the TV blaring, the microwave beeping, and the phone ringing.
At the end of his message, he asked if any would stand and show that they are committed to living a sold-out-life to Christ. Without hesitation, I stood. My husband did, too. I'm glad he did but I didn't care if he did. I don't know what others did around me. That was between them and God. I just knew that burning desire to make a difference. To share the Good News of Jesus Christ.
My heart's desire is to be a light for Christ. My flesh wants to live for self. It's a good thing that God knows we are just dust. He can do a lot with dust—take Adam and Eve, for instance.
So this pile of dust is thanking the Lord for men like Mike Schadt. God puts people like him to speak forth His Word to dusty people like you and like me.
I'm glad.


text: Today I traveled around to many of the schools where I teach Released Time Bible Classes to deliver permission slips for the classes. I had some nice conversations with many secretaries and a principal or two as well. Please pray for these schools as they begin the new school year. I also ask that you would pray that many students will bring back signed permission slips so they can attend Released Time Bible Classes this year.


text:
Samsung is reportedly working on a whole bunch of low to mid-end smartphones for various important markets and major US carriers, at least one of which will offer a so-called "Infinity Display" on a tight budget.
Significantly tighter than both the Galaxy A6 (2018) and A6+ (2018), rumor has it, with one mystery source claiming the Galaxy J6 could cost as little as $205 in India. That's Rs. 13,990, to be specific, which doesn't beat the affordability of some of Xiaomi's hugely popular Android mid-rangers or the OPPO-designed Realme 1, but it's still low by Samsung's profit-hungry standards.
Of course, if you want an extra gig of RAM over the entry-level 3GB configuration and twice the 32GB internal storage space, you'll supposedly have to cough up 16,490 rupees, or $245.
Similar in design language and purportedly identical in screen size and resolution to the recently unveiled A6, the Samsung Galaxy J6 is today pictured out in the real world for the first time.
A leaked batch of unusually sharp hands-on images confirms the presence of a single rear-facing camera and single front shooter, which are expected to feature 13 and 8MP sensors, along with LED flash on each side.
A fingerprint reader is also mounted on a plastic-made backplate, which unfortunately holds the 3000mAh battery firmly in place. The bezels are… pretty generous for an "Infinity" screen, but the 5.6-incher does sport one of those trendy 18.5:9 aspect ratios. May 25 could be the phone's official release date in India, although it's unclear if the J6 will follow the J7 Duo in specifically targeting the world's second-largest smartphone market.


text:
South Boulder seals Eritrean potash joint venture
PERTH (miningweekly.com) – Potash developer South Boulder has signed a joint venture (JV) agreement with the Eritrean National Mining Corporation (Enamco) to develop the Colluli potash project.Under the terms of the agreement, both parties would hold a 50% stake in the project through a newly formed company called Colluli Mining Share Company.
The new company would have five board members, including two representatives from Enamco, while the Eritrean firm would provide a stabilisation agreement under which it would bear the risk of adverse changes in the Eritrean fiscal regime for ten years from first production.
It was proposed that the Colluli project would be funded through 70% debt and 30% equity. If third-party debt was not available, South Boulder would be required to provide the debt to the JV company.
The project equity would also be funded by South Boulder, which would be entitled to recoup 50% of this equity as a preferential payment from 50% of the project cash flows, which would have otherwise been available to all equity holders.
This would result in South Boulder receiving 75% of all free cash flows, after debt service obligations, until such time as 50% of the equity contributed by the company is repaid. "The signing of a binding term sheet with Enamco is a significant milestone for South Boulder," said CEO Paul Donaldson on Tuesday.
"The agreement establishes clear terms for a partnership with the Eritrean government through Enamco, clearly aligns South Boulder and Enamco's interest in moving the project forward with project development, and provides certainty, which will facilitate interaction with potential financiers and strategic investors."
Earlier this year, South Boulder announced the results of a staged development model for the Colluli project, which examined the potential economics of starting production at a rate of one-million tons a year and expanding to two-million tons a year after five years.
At a potash price of $450/t, the staged development would have a net present value of $1.3-billion, at a discount rate of 7%, and an internal rate of return of 15.1%.
Total capital for exploration would amount to some $1.2-billion, which was significantly lower than the two-million-ton-a-year scoping study estimate of $1.5-billion.
The staged development model pegged the start of construction for 2014, with expansion capital only required by 2017, if potash production started in 2016. The project was expected to reach a steady-state production of two-million tons a year by 2020.
Edited by: Mariaan Webb