cbacon

Secretary General’s message:

I'm more confused as to why Vince even bothers with the Cruiserweight division

How innovative

Destroyer's Rubies is pretty good upon first listen

This whole "Democracy in the Middle East" movement is proving to be quite the conundrum

Is next week suppose to be another re-run?

The theme for this month is "Midget Mania" On the plus side, they've officially reached the nWo era on Nitro, with Scott Hall's first apperance. Still pretty surreal watching it today.

The freedom to walk outside is a right restricted to protect the populace from dangerous offenders. Allowing prisoners to vote poses no harm. Where do you draw the line when it comes to restricting which rights to revoke? That's not an argument: There's no reason why they shouldn't have an Olympic-sized swimming pool, either, but we feel they don't deserve it. Just because it doesn't harm anyone does not mean that it is any more right. Prison isn't just for our safety; It's also meant to be a punishment. Prison is meant to punish you by restricting your access to society. Not only this, many rights are already sacrificed when it comes to prisoners: Privacy for one (I believe the SCOC recognizes this), and Search and Seizure for another. Restrictions the rights is something inherent in the entire concept of prisons, and the right to vote is something simple and fairly logical to restrict. If you're in prison, should you really get a vote to decide what happens to people who have been obeying the law? We're not talking about giving them a pool, we're talking about allowing them to keep the rights that every citizen, so long as its not infringing upon the safety of the general public. Regardless of your sentence, who gets voted in ultimately affects the lifestyle of inmates, even though their existence is reduced to a small room. One party would be for privatizing prisons, whereas other parties do not share the same ideas toward corrections. These sorts of decisions have huge effects on the rehabilitative capabilities of the institutions, the inmates themselves, as well as their overall success rate. In regards to your point about punishment, the primary purposes of prisons should be: 1. Rehabilitation within a time frame. Unfortunately, not all institutions abide by that cause, but i believe that giving them their right to vote ensures that they have a choice in their future, because most of them aren't going to be incarcerated forever. 2. Protecting the public, not punishment. Jail is punishment and in a sense, revenge. Depending on which prison, a lot of what goes on in some prisons is inhumane. Seeking revenge via punishment against offenders is barbaric, childish, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing (which is what makes capital punishment totally unjust). "Offenders should be encouraged to accept more responsibility for their future roles in the community. Voting promotes a sense of belonging and establishes a link between the offender and the community. Giving inmates the right to vote also demonstrates that as a society, we recognize that incarcerated individuals maintain responsibility during incarceration and after their release. Furthermore, voting privileges allow inmates to view themselves as participating members of society and not outcasts from it. After all, people are not sentenced to lack of citizenship." http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/ Essentially what your saying is that we live in a democratic society but only some of us are allowed to vote. That's not a democracy.

The freedom to walk outside is a right restricted to protect the populace from dangerous offenders. Allowing prisoners to vote poses no harm. Where do you draw the line when it comes to restricting which rights to revoke?

Because they are ultimately effected by who is in power, just like every other citizen. They deserve the right to vote just as anyone else. Can't live within the rules of society? That's why they're sent to jail, but that's no reason to deny them their basic rights as a citizen.

Henry and Daivari? Lame. I hate these non-sensical turns.

229. Broken Social Scene, January 31

Way to waste another gimmick match.

Why is this a big deal? Unnecessary maybe, but it shouldn't be any different than any other 'love triangle' angles.

I'd say just about half good. Juicebox and Razorblade being the stand out tracks.

One positive that came from Batista's injury is that the Rumble winner is no longer limited to Orton or Triple H as they were going to be challengers going to WrestleMania. So it's either Triple H on the Raw side and a few possibilities on Smackdown. I just hope to god Rey dosen't win this.

In addition to Wolf Parade, you should also check out The New Pornographers latest album, Twin Cinema

The Strokes - First Impressions of Earth Listened to half of it, reserving judgment for later. Is the Belle and Sebastian album any good? I've been meaning to check them out.

Jan 1-8: 1. Modest Mouse - 44 2. The New Pornographers - 34 3. Death Cab for Cutie - 29 4. Wolf Parade - 26 5. Jimmy Eat World - 25 6. Matthew Good Band - 16 7. Interpol - 13 7. Sufjan Stevens - 13 9. Broken Social Scene - 12 9. The Decemberists - 12

The ''terrorist" factions EXPLODE~! http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/guerrillas...om-cold-al.html

I never understood the appeal of these borderline snuff films.

King of the Hill is suppose to end next season, so it could easily take it's slot.

WrestleMania is always a guarantee buy for me, but i'm thinking that streak ends this year.

That's pretty messed up.