WrestleZone Forums - The WrestleZone Symposium http://forums.wrestlezone.com en Sun, 26 May 2013 08:19:04 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/images/bigred/misc/rss.jpg WrestleZone Forums - The WrestleZone Symposium http://forums.wrestlezone.com <![CDATA["Terrorists" In Woolwich Attack Three Men, One Dead.]]> http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=255267&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 20:06:40 GMT Today, in Woolwich, supposed Terrorists attacked three men, killing one of them. The man that was killed was first ran over, then stabbed to death in... Today, in Woolwich, supposed Terrorists attacked three men, killing one of them. The man that was killed was first ran over, then stabbed to death in a brutal attack. The other two men were shot and luckily, are still alive. The attackers attempted to film themselves while the attack happened, as well as telling people around them to both video record and take photos of the chaos.

The image below surface on ITV News, of one of the attackers, his hands covered in blood, one of them holding a meat cleaver. (WARNING: Graphic)

Click for Spoiler:


The attack has shook the United Kingdom and is being reported on every major news station over here. Apparently, the attackers were of the Muslim faith and were shouting out certain things related to Allah during/post the attack itself. This brings me onto another thing;

As bad as the attack was and as disgusting the actions of the two attackers were, people have come out with racist quote after racist quote, demonising the entire Muslim race, calling all of them "terrorists" and using every obscenity under the sun, before people finally say they should all "be sent back home". What I'm seeing here, is unneeded racism, especially in these circumstances.

Yes, we know that what has happened was caused by two Muslim men, but attacking an entire race is 1) Only going to blow up this entire argument even more and 2) It's only going to make you sound a lot worse than you should. The two men responsible for this horrible act should be "sent back home" or even put to the death sentence, should they be caught. But the British public should not be racially abusing every Muslim that's in the UK because that's just not how it works. I get that people may be upset about this, I know I am, but I'm not sitting here being racist about it. This is why I'm attempting to refrain talking to any particular person about the incident, in case I blow up at them for saying something out of line.

I bring the following questions to you though;

Your thoughts on the attack?

Is there any point in the British's Public's racist reactions?

How would you react to this? Would you be angry about the attack & the people who done it or angry about an entire race?

RIP to the man who died today, coincidentally, wearing a "Help For Heroes" T-Shirt AND a Soldier. ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium Thrash http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=255267 Would you give up your career... http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=255259&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 18:09:06 GMT For your spouse? Carrie Underwood would.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3017738.html

Quote:
"If Mike ever told me he needed me to quit, I'd quit. When you make that promise to somebody, and you stand before God and your family and friends, you've got to do everything that you possibly can to make that work."
Carrie Underwood is a Grammy winning country music superstar married to professional hockey player Mike Fisher, who is a marginal talent. Safe to say, Carrie is much more popular then Fisher will ever be, and makes far more money as well. Yet, as shown above in an interview with People magazine, she would be willing to "throw it all away" if Fisher asked her to.

I struggle with this one greatly. I don't want to look at this as a male/female dynamic, but it's so often the case. Women give up their careers for their husbands in order to raise their children, or they take a job that's less rewarding then the one they had in order to do so. This isn't just about children, it's the 'traditional' role. Although it's evolved, the role generally means that the man is the breadwinner, and the woman the homemaker.

But flipping it around, most of us on this site are males. In the short lived TV show 'Up All Night', Will Arnett's character stayed at home with their baby while Christina Applegate's character worked. Arnett didn't have a marginal job, he was a successful lawyer. Yet he gave his career up so his wife could continue with hers, essentially flopping the traditonal role on it's head.

I wonder if I could do it. Both myself and my wife work, and we both enjoy greatly what we do. If my wife was satisfied in her career and didn't want to quit in order to raise children or keep a house, I wouldn't ask. Neither would she, but I wonder what my response would be if she did. If there was an extreme situation such as a death or an illness, I would do it, but those are extenuating circumstances. I couldn't take the Underwood approach of "If he asked me to, I'd do it", I know that for sure. As someone who's a workaholic, I've cut back on my work schedule in order to appease my wife, and that alone was hard, to be honest. Since I couldn't ask her to quit the job she loves, I don't believe I could acquiesce if she asked me to. Sometimes, in the case of political ambitions, wives and husbands are essentially forced to give up their jobs to go on the road and campaign with their spouses. I, selfish or not, couldn't be that person. I love my wife more then my job, but unless my job was damaging to our relationship, I couldn't do it.

Are there circumstances that would make you quit a job you loved for the person you love? If so, what are they?

Is it selfish of one partner to ask another to do so?

Is it selfish to say no if they do?

All other thoughts on this are welcomed and encouraged. ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium LSN80 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=255259 Prostitution....with a twist http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=255091&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 19:14:40 GMT This was originally from the Greensburg Tribune Review, but I'll be damned if I can't find it online to present the story. I'll do my best to summarize:

*Mandy Sarinson* is a 34 old mother of two. The decisions she made leading up to her situation are irrelevant, it's what happened after that's important.

*Sarinson* was married for 10 years, when her husband suddenly split. Not only split, but disappeared. She, at her husband Michael's insistence, had been a stay-at-home mother, and while he did fairly well, money doesn't last. What did Sarinson turn to for cash? Prostitution. Right or wrong, she found she could make a living that allowed her to keep her house and provide for her kids.

18 months ago, *Sarinson* was arrested for prostitution. She was dead to rights. The arresting officer paid her for sex, then promptly arrested her. But he offered to drop the charges if....she threw five freebies his way.

Initially, *Sarinson* was repulsed, but she considered it. By blind luck, I suppose, she came to my practice and wound up as my client. I don't usually give advice, but I was strongly against it. I encouraged her to go to the police, alleging extortion, but she said, as I knew, it would his word against hers. Plus, as a prostitute, how believable did that make her? Not very, she argued, and I knew. Besides, what would happen if it went to trial, or she settled for a plea bargain? She'ld certainly go to jail, and where would that leave her kids? Not only while she was in jail, but following?

In the end, *Sarinson* decided to initially throw him freebies. But after two, she got smart, and recorded the conversations regarding the matter while they were 'together'. She passed the information on to the police, the officer was arrested, and *Sarinson* was off the hook for her testifying against the officer at his trial. Whether she still engages in prostitution I don't know, as she's no longer my client.(Hence why I can post that part. ;) )

I'm not saying what *Sarinson* did was right, from engaging in prostitution to agreeing and throwing the cop freebies for dropping the charges. I also understand that with kids, one will do a lot to protect them. But morally, it's a different story altogether. Things turned out well for *Sarinson*, I suppose, but they could have gone very, very badly. I'm not in her situation, but personally, I couldn't have done what she did. Both morally and legally it goes against what I believe.

Would you have thrown the cop some freebies, or done the time when caught?

If( speaking hypothetically) prostitution or something else illegal was the only option to provide for your family, would you do it?



All other thoughts or discussion surrounding this are welcome. ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium LSN80 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=255091 Jodi Arias is Guilty and could get the Death Penalty http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254671&goto=newpost Sat, 11 May 2013 09:13:09 GMT I have limited knowledge about the Jodi Arias trial other than the brief snippets I've watched on CNN or Headline News.

Here's a quote from the CBSNEWS.com website

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBSNEWS.com information about Jodi Arias trial
Arias, 32, fought back tears as a court clerk read aloud the highly anticipated verdict after a four-month trial in which the jury heard 18 days of testimony from the defendant, saw a series of gruesome crime scene photos and heard a raunchy phone sex chat between Arias recorded with Alexander just weeks before he died.

The next portion of the trial is called the "aggravation phase," and it will focus on whether the jury believes the crime was committed in an especially cruel, heinous and depraved manner. If jurors find the aggravators exist, the next step will be the penalty phase during which the panel will recommend either life in prison or death. The process could take several more weeks to wrap up.

The trial quickly became an Internet sensation and transformed Arias from a little-known waitress to a morbid curiosity and a star of a real-life true-crime drama that the public followed incessantly. The presence of cameras in the courtroom, the advance of Internet streaming video and social media, the salacious details of the case, and the attention it got on cable networks like HLN gave the trial the feel of a celebrity proceeding.

The jury heard all about the stormy relationship between Alexander and Arias after they met at a conference in Las Vegas in 2006 and he persuaded her to convert to Mormonism. They began dating but broke up five months later, at which point prosecutors said she began stalking him and became increasingly obsessed with Alexander.

The 30-year-old victim was a rising star at a legal services company called Prepaid Legal, where he gave rousing motivational speeches to colleagues and was a beloved co-worker to people across the organization.

Arias sought to portray him as an abusive sexual deviant in her trial, hoping that the jury would buy her claims that she killed him in self-defense after being unable to take the abuse anymore. She claimed he attacked her and forced her to fight for her life. Prosecutors said she killed out of jealous rage after Alexander wanted to end their affair and planned to take a trip to Mexico with another woman.
The part that was left out of this quote is Arias is quoted as saying she'd want to be dead sooner than later and not spend the rest of her life in jail. So she seems content with being sentenced to death in this case.

What are your thoughts on this whole trial? Does she deserve death for what she did? ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium Lariat Barrage http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254671 The Abercrombie Conundrum http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254533&goto=newpost Wed, 08 May 2013 14:04:28 GMT http://elitedaily.com/news/world/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-explains-why-he-hates-fat-chicks/ News of Abercrombie CEO making very controversial... http://elitedaily.com/news/world/abe...es-fat-chicks/

News of Abercrombie CEO making very controversial statements about its preferred clientelle have gone viral on Facebook. We live in a very sensitive, anti-bullying world right now where suicide rates and guns in schools have shed some light on the impact bullying has.

In somewhat related news, Chic-Fil-A came under massive scrutiny when its leader came out publically and stated that they were a company of conservative values and did not support homosexuality or gay marriage.

So here's the question - are Abercrombie CEO Mike Jeffries comments way off base and wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jeffries, Abercrombie CEO
“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he told the site. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either,”
Abercrombie & Fitch has lost literally MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars as a result of fines for unfair hiring practices. They've been sued by African Americans, Muslim-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and overweight people because they've been outright denied employment they were qualified for or hired only to be relegated to the stock room because they "don't have the look" of a sales employee.

On the other hand, if a company chooses to make a statement like this that may very well lead many folks to boycott them, isn't that on them? Should our semi-Capitalist economic system dictate their success of failure rather than the government? If they don't want to market to "plus-sized clientelle," shouldn't that be their choice?

Let's see if we can get a spirited debate going on marketing, labor practices, economic system, and overpriced clothes. ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium IrishCanadian25 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254533 James Holmes To Plead Not Guilty http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254531&goto=newpost Wed, 08 May 2013 12:08:23 GMT By virtue of insanity or mental defect, of course. And the judge presiding over the case, Carlos Samour Jr., has scheduled a hearing on May 13th to... By virtue of insanity or mental defect, of course. And the judge presiding over the case, Carlos Samour Jr., has scheduled a hearing on May 13th to allow Holmes' attorneys the opportunity to show cause for changing his plea.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/justic...iref=allsearch

To reset, Holmes is the 25 year old that shot up the Aurora, Colorado theatre during the July 20th premiere of The Dark Knight Rises. Killing 12 and injuring dozens more, Holmes had offered to plead guilty if sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, but the prosecution rebuffed, as they would be seeking the death penalty. So now, Holmes gets what's approximated to be a 4 month trial beginning in February of 2014, with the chance of an 'Acquital.'

I don't know Holmes' motivations, but when I heard this on the radio on my drive into work this morning, I immediately thought of Mickey's (Timothy Olyphant)speech to Sidney(Neve Campbell) in Scream 2 as to why he had taken on the persona of the Ghostface killer:

Quote:
Billy was a sick fuck who tried to get away with it. Mickey is a sick fuck who wants to get caught. Yeah, I got the whole defense planned out. I'm gonna blame the movies. It's pretty cool, huh? This is just a prelude to the trial. Today, it's all about the trial. Can't you just see it? The effects of cinema violence on society. Cochran to represent me. Bob Dole, on the witness stand, in my defense. Hell, the Christian Coalition will probably pay my legal fees. It's air-tight Sid. I'm the innocent victim.
Things didn't turn out so well for Mickey, as he never made it to trial. But screw me I hate the insanity defense. It's a way of saying, 'It's not their fault, they were a slave to their illness.' Or, 'It was their upbringing. Mom and Dad didn't say "I love you" or hug them enough.'

I know that's a vast oversimplification of things, but here's where it gets me. Either one committed the crime they're being charged with, or they didn't. Attorney's parade 'expert witnesses' to the stand to speak to what the state of mind of the accused might have been when they committed their crime, but one never truly knows.

Allow all the witnesses at a trial one wants. Allow them to speak to state of mind. But for God's sakes, either the person did it, or they didn't. That should be the decision of the jury. Did they do it? If so, they're guilty. Allow people with more knowledge of the law and the brain, such as judges and psychiatrists, to make the decisions about where to send the person if they're convicted after that.

Make no mistake, James Holmes would have been convicted here, and he would have gotten the death penalty. Anyone else find it convenient that he changed his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity only after his attempt at plea bargaining away the death penalty was rebuffed?

This to me isn't just about James Holmes, it's about every person who commits a crime and offers up that plea as a defense. Regardless of their state of mind, the heart of the matter of going to trial, and why our justice system was created was to separate the innocent from the guilty. Not Guilty by insanity is not something you see plead when the accused has a chance of getting off. I would imagine to walk into a movie theatre and shoot a bunch of people, one would have to have had something go haywire upstairs. Hell, somewhere, there may have even been a break from reality. But let those who know the law and the mind sort that out, and let's save our trial system for determining guilt and innocence.

I, if anyone, am empathetic and sympathetic to the plight of the mentally ill. It's what I went to school to do, and it's the population I work with on a daily basis. But I've dealt with it enough from small depression to bat-stir crazy to be able to say that there's still a level of responsibility everyone has for their actions, mentally ill or not.

James Holmes destroyed lives, families, and neighborhoods. Life in prison is the best he should do.

Am I off base here?

Thoughts on James Holmes, and the insanity defense in general?

Any other thoughts or discussion surrounding this is encouraged. ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium LSN80 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254531 Syria and Israel: Itching for a fight? http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254445&goto=newpost Mon, 06 May 2013 16:34:16 GMT http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 A missile strike on Sunday that targeted research facilities in Syria... http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

A missile strike on Sunday that targeted research facilities in Syria that were believed to be transferring weapons to Hezbollah,an Islamic militant group located in Lebanon. Syria, in the midst of a civil war, was said to be warned by Israel not to transfer weapons Hezbollah, which is believed to using chemical warfare, including sarin gas. Israel is purported to have told Syrian leaders that they would intervene if done so, and now, 42 soldiers are dead, with another 100 people missing. Israel denies culpability in the strike, but Syria isn't buying it. Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad told CNN the following:

Quote:
"This amounts to a declaration of war(by Israel). The details are not clear on what happened. Did they fire missiles? ... It is not clear for me, because I don't know how it happened, and of course it is worrying, but Israel will suffer the same."
Despite Israel's refusal to acknowledge responsibility for the attack, other countries aren't buying it. Iran, an ally of Syria, has vowed a "crushing response", while Russia has called Israel out and said their involvement in Syria's civil war is "very troublesome." A high ranking U.S. official has confirmed that Israel was behind this strike, and a strike last week as well near Damascus, where they purportedly targeted 110 missiles stored there.

In all, the civil war in Syria has lead to the deaths of 70,000 people in all. The war has pitted rebel fighters against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Al-Assad had initially been seen as a agent of peace, but both rebels and the U.N. have been calling for his resignation since he ordered a mass crackdown and military sieges on protesters, which lead way to the Arab Spring and the subsequent Civil War which has lead to the 70,000 deaths. Iran is aligned with Syria and al-Assad because they can use a milita base in Lebanon as leverage with which to threaten nuclear warfare against Israel. Iran Foreign minister spokesman said the following:

Quote:
"Iran said will stand by Syria, and if there is need for training, we will provide them with necessary training. Syria and its allies will give a crushing response to the aggressions of the Zionists".
Who happens to be the biggest allies of the Israelis? The United States. Israel has turned to the United States for political, financial, and military funding for the past 60 years. The goal of the United States, Russia, and others has been to keep the Israeli/Lebanon border as is, which has been peaceful for some time now. The biggest fear of the U.N. has been that the war in Syria will spill over their border into other countries. Said Shaul Mofez, an Israeli lawmaker:

Quote:
"We are watching everything when it comes to the movement of these types of weapons. We have the means to do that. Israel isn't meddling with Syria's civil war. But Israel must protect itself from Lebanese militants. For Israel, it is very important that the front group for Iran, which is in Lebanon, needs to be stopped."
It's just a matter of time before we have a big old war on our hands, isn't it? ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium LSN80 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254445 Unemployment: At its lowest in 5 years http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254229&goto=newpost Thu, 02 May 2013 15:31:24 GMT http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/news/economy/unemployment-benefits/ While expecting the opposite, the Labor and Industry Department is reporting... http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/news...ment-benefits/

While expecting the opposite, the Labor and Industry Department is reporting that Unemployment claims have fallen 18,000 from last week, although the Unemployment Rate is expected to stay at 7.6%. Still, this is seen as a major deal by Economists, as 140,000 jobs were added in April, which is an increase from 88,000 in March.

Are these numbers deceiving? While 'only' 3 million people filed for unemployment during the week of April 20th, as of March, approximately 11.7 million people in the United States are still unemployed.

Personally, I still think it's an encouraging sign. While unemployment benefits have been cut and made more difficult to obtain, the change in number of claims filed now as compared to just 4 short years ago in March. In April, 324,000 filed initial claims. Compare this to March of 2009, when 670,000 people filed initial unemployment claims, and both the loss of jobs and the increase in jobs are a very encouraging sign.

What do you attribute the gain in jobs and decrease in Unemployment to?

Any other thoughts or discussion of the topic is encouraged. ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium LSN80 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254229 Once an addict? http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254175&goto=newpost Wed, 01 May 2013 16:55:12 GMT I'll keep this one short and sweet.

http://www.passagesmalibu.com/addict...nt-philosophy/

I'm sure most, if not all of us, have been associated with a friend, co-worker, or family member who has had problems with drugs or alcohol. I'm sure most of you have seen the commercial for Passages Malibu. The one where co-founder Pax Prentiss proclaims, " This isn't a twelve step program. I was an addict for ten years, now I'm not."

Passages is in direct contrast to the ideas and methods of AA and NA. At each session, any member who wishes to share starts with "My name is " ", and I'm an addict/alcoholic." Yes, they discuss how long they've been sober for, and collect chips and sobriety pins for doing so. But the premise is, "Once an addict/alcoholic, always one."

Passages website is an interesting contrast. They discuss the diversity of the their program, an individual treatment for the "addict" based upon their needs. However, they come with the disclaimer that the California Association of Drug Abuse and Alcoholism does not support their beliefs, namely, that they have a cure for addiction.For me, it essentially comes down to whether or not alcoholism and addiction is a disease, or rather, a curable condition. Passages Malibu would tell you that it's not a disease, rather it's a chemical imbalance, the result of unresolved issues from your past, or an inability to cope with you life. AA/NA beliefs the opposite, that not only is it a disease, but one that sticks with you for the rest of your life, regardless of how long you've been clean.

Medical studies, while not a matter of fact, tend to side with the idea that addiction is a disease, and that there is no essential cure. Essentially, the(inconclusive) science seems to be on the side of what NA/AA teaches. But it's not definitive, and there are no "true" studies that confirm them as diseases. But throwing out the science and the claims of cures, I'm most interested in what you believe.

Once an addict, always an addict?

Is addiction a disease, a chemical imbalance, or a choice?

Other thoughts? ]]> The WrestleZone Symposium LSN80 http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=254175