Texas & The Death Penalty

Jeffrey Lee Wood is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection tonight in Texas. I am an opponent of the death penalty not only because it does nothing to prevent serious crime, but also because it goes against my basic principles regarding life in general. Other than self-defense or in a time of war, taking the life of another human being is abhorrent.

The case of Jeffrey Lee Wood is one that simply amazes me. If you click on the title you'll be taken to the Washington Post website where you can read their article on this. Briefly, this is what happened:

He was sitting in the car outside of the store where they had arranged with the clerk to pull off a fake robbery - then all 3 would split the proceeds. Something went wrong and his partner shot the clerk in the head.

"Since the case began, lawyers and family members have argued that Wood was mentally unfit for trial. They say he has a severe learning disability, is easily coaxed into doing what he is told and is delusional. Wood signed a statement confessing to the crime."

Other than saving the citizens of Texas the expense of keeping him locked up for the rest of his life, I fail to understand what his execution will achieve. As a punitive action it goes too far, and as for setting an example for other criminals, it's impact is nil.

I find it mind-boggling that someone can oppose the death penalty, yet state with a straight face that abortion is a matter of choice, not murder. When asked when life began last Sunday, Senator McCain answered "at conception" - a viewpoint held by approximately 70% of all Americans. Senator Obama on the other hand, said that the answer to the question was "above my pay grade." Quite the dodge for someone who is supposedly going to lead us to great change.

In Psalm 139 God says 'I formed you in your mother's womb and before you were born I planned every day of your life'. Many Christians take the bible as the literal word of God, thus most Christians believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I tend to view the Old Testament as allegorical, not as the spoken word of God. Either way, it is clear that most Christians are not in favor of abortion, but there are a fair number of these same Christians that also support the death penalty.

Regardless of whether or not your pro-life and pro-death penalty, or pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, the incongruity of the positions defies logic in my eyes.

In a previous posting on abortion I suggested this: If the mother, after viewing the fetus clearly in the womb with the technology we now have available to do that, decides that she still wants to abort the fetus, then her "choice" can be honored. With all the judging we do of others on this earth, I suggested that Christians leave their judgements at the door step once the decision has been made by the mother, and concentrate on helping the woman who has had to make this difficult decision. Let God make the final decision on the morality of aborting the child, suppress your own judgements, and just help a fellow human being who will experience doubt, guilt and a myriad of other emotions.

While discussing the death penalty with my son, he asked, "If somebody killed me, wouldn't you want them killed too?" I told him yes, I would want that person killed, but that would be a visceral reaction on my part. After time and thought, my principles would prevail and I would not endorse the death penalty for the murderer. He couldn't understand how I could feel that way about his murderer. All I could tell him is that life has taught me may things: it can stop in a heartbeat; to retain anger and a desire for revenge hurts you, not the guilty party; forgiveness is the key to a happy heart, and the less judging you do here on the earth, the better you'll be judged when it's time for the final judgement.

With all of the other problems facing our world, a story like that of Jeffrey Lee Woods is seldom national news that draws the attention of the American public. That is unfortunate, but I believe that someday this country will come to the realization that killing someone as a punitive measure is strictly Old Testament - "an eye for an eye" - and it has no place in the evolution of mankind.

It would be nice if the world viewed war in the same fashion, but I don't know if that day will ever come.

Give The Man Some Credit

""My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said."

You can call it a flip-flop if you want to, but I think the man is just using common political sense. You cannot continue to ignore the will of the American people and expect to be elected; a fact that remains lost on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

President Bush - call these dilatory representatives of the people back into session!

Perhaps now that their standard bearer has had a revelation, others may have a change of heart also. Give them about a week to get their asses chewed out back at home, then call them back to work. The American people deserve better than elected representatives with ideologies to rigid to adapt to the will and the needs of the people.

If, per chance, they refuse to compromise, I hear there are job openings in Alaska for surveyors, and I can think of a few Senators and Congressmen I'd love to see in this situation:

This poor guy doesn't realize that the bear was driven to this rage because the damn penguins have such a goofy sense of humor - not unlike yours truly.

Oh Mama

I just finished listening to Senator Obama's speech in D.C. that was billed as a major foreign policy speech. My first observation is that he was quite nervous initially, and no where near the famed orator he's purported to be. That is no big deal however; no one hits it out of the park everytime, and I'd have been a lot more shaky than he was.

My second observation: There were many parts of his speech where, if you closed your eyes, you wouldn't believe you were listening to a Democrat. His hindsight was 20-20 as he led us along the path of "could've". Some valid criticisms to be sure, especially as to leadership, but that was thankfully a small portion of his speech.

"Iraq is not, and has never been, the central front in the war on terror."

Entering Iraq drew the terrorists to us. Now that we've managed to eliminate the vast majority of the foreign fighters and develop closer relationships with various Iraqi elements, the jihadists are going to Afghanistan - it's a lot easier to hide in the mountains than it is in the desert. To say that Iraq has never been the central front in the war on terror is quite disingenuous.

I'd also like to have the list of allies that we've disenchanted so much. Our true allies, the one's that Senator Obama said we need to rebuild relationships with: Great Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea all had elements participate, even if it was just a few folks that are already gone (Japan). I'm not sure about South Korea, but they're going to be our allies because we defend their freedom. Germany and France now have new leaders, which immediately improved our relationships with them. I'm not sure just how many people are on the fence: Love America or Hate America, but my guess is that there are darn few, and those that hate us will do so regardless of what we do.

Of course he had to objurgate: "...the President misled us..." as regards Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

That fallacy has been the mating call of liberals for some time now, as they continue to forget that the intelligence services of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Israel all had the same intelligence that Saddam had an active WMD program. Turned out he didn't, or got rid of what he had. Only the conspiracy buffs think this was a Machiavellian effort. I wish he would have reminded us that he said the surge wouldn't work and we should just get out of Iraq. Today he said the surge worked and now was the opportune time to consult with President Maliki - he got that part right.

Did you catch the part about acting unilaterally if a "...major target like Osama Bin Laden..." is located in Pakistan. Hell, even Dubya hasn't gone that far. Of course, he's going to give them billions in aid so they'll stop growing poppies. A great idea, except it won't replace the income these hardscrabble farmers make from growing poppies, and it's unlikely that Pakistan will still consider us an ally if we attack anyone without their permission.

But he is willing to meet, without preconditions, with Ahmadinejad in Iran. He said he'd be going in with his eyes open, which is always a good idea so you don't trip over anything. I don't necessarily think that meeting with the Iranian leader is a bad idea, even without preconditions; I just don't know what he thinks he's going to accomplish with someone who denies the Holocaust ever took place and has said that Israel will be destroyed on many occasions.

His greatest misrepresentation was saying that John McCain wants to keep Americans there tour after tour, spending billions of dollars indefinitely. That is just an out and out lie. No one wants to keep our troops there and spend money indefinitely and he knows that. Having performed his flip-flop on Iraq, which I have no doubt is going to PO the extreme left, he sounds more like a Republican. Regardless of who is President, having a significant drawdown by mid 2010 is certainly doable - if not before then.

Both nominees agree that greater focus has to be placed on Afghanistan, NATO and the UN have to step in and help more, and the Afghan's need to build their forces up to start assuming a greater role in the effort.

On oil and climate change, and their threat to national security, both candidates are pointing in the right direction. Obama's plan to spend $150 billion over 10 years to guarantee our energy security, creating 5 million jobs in the process, sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure about the 5 million jobs, but I'm sure it would come close to that mark. Including "clean coal" and "safe nuclear power" as part of his overall plan is sensible. He also wants to lead the world in an effort to battle climate change. I'm sure when he reaches out to India and China they'll be only to happy to stop the growth of industry that is fueling their economies. It's a great idea, and they may even throw him a bone, but don't expect any major changes unless we can come up with a new source of energy. Stating that we would share any new source of energy with the rest of the world was the right thing to do.

I wouldn't expect anything different from Senator McCain in that respect. T. Boone Pickens is willing to spend his own money on TV time to create an interest in his plan to combat our oil dependency, and I think the folks in Washington are finally going to have to act.

A "Shared Security Partnership Plan" is an interesting concept, but unless Russia and/or China are involved, it will only enhance their xenophobia. Though we need more detail on what exactly the members of the partnership would have to do in the event of an attack on one of them, it remains an interesting concept, especially as regards cyber-terrorism. I'm sure that his proposal to increase foreign aid to $20 billion will convince some to join, but the doubling of foreign aid is not a bad idea either. I don't even know if we're the richest country on earth with the current cost of a barrel of oil, but we certainly have enough to share with the rest of our fellow men who need it. Keeping it out of the hands of the corrupt is always the challenge.

He also wants to go after guns, drugs, gangs; solve the Middle East problem; reform the U.N. - lofty goals to be sure.

Senator Obama's lurch to the center is not unexpected - that's the only way he stands a chance of being elected. It don't think it will cost him many votes from the far left, and it should give some reassurance to the undecided that he will not "cut and run".

Satire Lost

"Satire is the use of irony, wit, or derision to

attack human weakness or foolishness."
Library of Congress

It's probably a good thing that very few people bother to read "The New Yorker" magazine these days. I always thought that the covers of "The New Yorker" were the best thing about the magazine, but after seeing the cover above, I have to wonder what it was they were hoping to accomplish.

The magazine purports that it shows all of the misconceptions that our body politic hold about Mr. & Mrs. Obama. With the Anglea Davis afro and an AK-47 on her back, Mrs. Obama is the picture of 70's radicalism with their deep seeded hatred of America. They've managed to add a turban and bisht (the thing that looks like a nightgown) to Mr. Obama to illustrate the misconception that he is a Muslim. You'll also note the American flag burning in the fireplace and the picture of Bin Laden on the wall.

The phrase that springs to mind is: "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

It is a time-honored fact that perception becomes reality for many people. Even those of us who seem to have a modicum of intelligence can easily fall into this trap. An easy example to site is the supposed "stupidity" of President Bush. Frank Caliente's commercial that has the President explaining how you can "recordificate" and speaking the word "pause" as Frenchmen would is hilarious, and is one of many examples where comedians and others strive to paint President Bush as stupid. The last time I checked, you don't graduate from Yale if you're stupid. In deference to my more liberal friends, a college degree does not connote any degree of common sense, so you may still comfortably recline in your chair of superiority.

As a satirical cartoon, I get it, but how many thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans will look at this with no concept of satire? It will merely reinforce the misconceptions they already have about Senator Obama. Both campaigns have voiced their dismay over the cover art, as they should, and we can only hope that both campaigns continue to try to operate with dignity and honesty, knocking their partisan bulldogs down when the step over the line.

Speaking of dogs, (nice segue huh?) I received an email that I would classify as satire as well. I'll leave it up to you to determine:

Have you ever heard the stories about how a dog can sense an earthquake coming?

Have you ever heard that a dog can "sense" a tornado brewing, even as much as 20 miles away?

Do you remember hearing that before the December tsunami struck Southeast Asia, dogs started running frantically away from the seashore, at breakneck speed?

Do you know that dogs can detect cancer and other serious illnesses and danger of fire?

Somehow they always know when they can 'go for a ride' before you even ask and how do those dogs and cats get home from hundreds of miles away?

I'm a firm believer that animals - and especially dogs - have keen insights into the Truth. And you can't tell me that dogs can't sense a potentially terrible disaster well in advance.

Simply said, a dog just KNOWS when something isn't right . . . when impending doom is upon us . . . they'll always try to warn us. . .!

Many thanks to my buddy Dave for sending that along - I got a chuckle out of it - I hope you did too.

Senator Harkin Demeans McCain & Military

“It’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”

“I think he’s trapped in that. Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

Senator Tom Harkin on Senator John McCain

In case you were unaware, Senator Harkin also served in the military. During his run for the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2004, he was forced to admit that he did not fly combat air patrols or photo reconnaissance as he said he had. He ferried damaged planes between Japan and the Philippines and then did test flights on them after they were repaired. I guess it's a good thing he wasn't in Bosnia with Hillary during all that sniper fire.

Democrat strategists will have a difficult enough time convincing the American people that Senator Obama has any concept of geo-politics without Senator Harkin's foolish observations. Since Senator Obama says he's ready to sit right down and negotiate with terrorists just as soon as he's sworn in, and immediately start withdrawing troops from Iraq, I hope he asks Senator Harkins to be his running mate.

I guess thinking that politics should be set aside for Memorial Day was foolish on my part, but thankfully the vast majority of us aren't consumed by political aspirations.

Senator Harkin should apologize for his slander. If he fails to do so, it will only help Senator McCain, and the results in November could very well place Senator Obama alongside George McGovern and Michael Dukakis inside "The Hall of Hapless Wanna-Be's" where liberal Democrats reign supreme.

Senator Harkin - you should be ashamed of yourself.

The Clinton Comeback & Limbaugh Lunacy

Kudos to Hillary Clinton for her dramatic wins in Texas and Ohio. Why the pundits ever count her out is beyond me. After two years of seeking the office, eight years in the office, a successful senatorial campaign - why would anyone ever doubt the Clinton Machine? The expertise of their machinations is only a piece of the picture, as Senator Obama's lack of experience will continue to plague him throughout this battle for the nomination.

If more fellow conservatives start to come down with Limbaugh Lunacy, then the Democrats would be foolish not to nominate her.

Rush may say that he wants you to vote for Hillary because she's more conservative than Senator McCain. That's absolute rubbish of course, but he couldn't tell you the real reason why he wants you to vote for Hillary, but I will.

You see, if Hillary is elected, he's counting on at least four years of accomplishing nothing, even with Democrat majorities in both houses. He's counting on the same kind of hatred that has been hurled at President Bush for the past eight years to rise again into the "Hatred of all things Clinton" that we endured in the 90's. I'm not talking about their policies or actions, I'm talking about the mindless hatred that many people still feel for Bill, but even more so for Hillary. The depth of the haters knowledge is the shallow end of the pool in most cases, regardless of who it is you hate.

If John McCain is elected President, then Rush's greatest fears come true. A Republican who is willing to work together with the opposition for the betterment of the country. Rush would much rather have gridlock than have the door of true bi-partisanship unlocked.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, but I respect him as a man, and I would trust him to do what he thinks is right, even if I don't always agree. Leadership does not require that one to be a politician; it only requires honor, honesty and dignity.

What's In A Name?

Was radio talk show host Bill Cunningham using Senator Obama's middle name as a not so subtle hint regarding his Muslim background? He says he always uses a person's full name. Then, after Senator McCain apologizes for his remarks, he turns around and goes on TV to announce that he's backing Senator Clinton.

No one can know for certain what Mr. Cunningham's intentions were, but I'm going to go out on a limb and make a judgement - he knew exactly what he was doing. It was bigotry, pure and simple. I realize that many on the right are concerned about the influence of Islam in Senator Obama's life: Does allegiance to Allah come before the United States? How many John Kennedy (Catholicism), Mitt Romney (Mormon) speeches will it take before they realize that his religion does not come before the country? It is ridiculous to even suggest, because if he did try it, he'd be impeached in a flash, just as any President should be who tries to make any religion the "state religion".

I would normally say that using a candidates full name should never be a reason for an apology - it's your name, if you don't like it change it. But in this case, especially when you view the video of his rant, there can be little doubt about the bitter seeds he was trying to sow.

Now I'm not all that fond of my middle name either: Len

I never made any effort to make it known because the thought of being called "Ben-Len" in grade school was about like being called "Ben Franklin" all the time - it was annoying. Nicknames can be even worse. My father's nickname for me: Pooty. Where he ever came up with that I'll never know, but if he wanted to see a six year old in paroxysms of rage, all he had to do was call me that. Of course, once my three brothers and two sisters realized how much it jerked my chain, I eventually became inured to the endless teasing. I guess it was just too close to "Poopy" for my tastes.

So what's in a name? It's all in how you say it.

Senator Obama's Good Idea

I could not watch the entire 45 minute victory speech Senator Obama gave last night, but I did like his idea regarding education. I would offer the Senator these suggestions:

1.) If we're going to pay for four years of education, we should expect four years of service, either at home or abroad, Peace Corp, military, and numerous options for service here, including teaching, nursing, our infrastructure, our cyber structure - skills that we don't even know we need yet.

2.) Don't make it mandatory - If the student doesn't wish to provide four years of service, then the student's parents foot the bill. There's no need to pay Biff's way through Harvard when Daddy has millions.

I realize that some people will say: "Yup, the rich can buy their way out again!"

In all of our conflicts, including the Civil War, rich men, sons and daughters of rich men have given their lives. People from all shades of life have done both: everything they could for their country, or everything they could for themselves.

If we take a step back from the class warfare that's more imagined than real, and ponder on the fact that we share more in common than often supposed, maybe it will get a little easier to find the good ideas that can appeal to and help the vast majority of our citizens. Providing a path to education that never existed before is one of those issues. We may differ in our approach somewhat, but debate and consultation should pave that path as quickly as possible.

Education is the key to our success in the 21st Century and beyond - even if it is mostly taught by my fellow Americans that I have political differences with.

Politics should never be the sole definition of a human being. As I have been reminded and will never forget; the crosses in Arlington don't indicate a Democrat or a Republican, they indicate an American.

It Comes As No Surprise

I listened to Senator Obama give his stump speech in Madison, WI - at least as much as it took to settle the issue: He would be a much bigger mistake than Hillary.

"Change our mindset": We shouldn't have gone to Iraq, we need to get out, we need to stop living in fear...Translation: Let's just play nice with the bullies and I just know we'll become the bestest of friends. I stopped living in fear within a few days after 9-11, and especially after my first flight after that date. If this man becomes President, I'd be ready to start fearing again - fearing what his election whould do to the morale of our Armed Forces, and fearing what his election would mean to our status as the world's sole super power. National health care at the cost of a strong military is slow suicide and application for entry into the ranks of has-been world leaders.

Health care is an issue that must be addressed, but not at the expense of a strong military.

"Bush's tax cuts for the rich": Apparently the fact that the economy could have easily tanked after 9-11, but didn't due in large part to those tax cuts, fails to register. Tax cuts equal more revenue - you don't have to have a doctorate in economics to comprehend that simple fact.

In addition to not listening to lobbyist from Exxon-Mobile and elsewhere, he's going to change things in Washington. When he's had all the bureaucrats rounded up and replaced with illegal aliens let me know - then I'll be convinced that change is on the way. I hate to disparage illegal aliens by saying they could do the job of a bureaucrat; they contribute more to our economy by just doing what they do.

So as the title indicated, no big surprise to anyone. My only hope is that John McCain's more liberal approach to immigration, national health care, and global warming will have appeal with the middle-of-the-roaders.

Teddy - Thanks, But No Thanks

I know that most Hillary supporters are disappointed by Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Senator Obama, but I think you should take heart in the fact that he didn't endorse the world's smartest woman.

What's even more entertaining is the absolute slap in the face that the Massachusetts Methuselah gave to President Clinton. It had everything to do with politics, but it had nothing to do with Senator Obama.

The grandfather of the Kennedy political dynasty is taking great delight in giving his last drop of energy to make sure there is never a Clinton political dynasty - at least not any more than what we've already seen.

President Kennedy was of a mold of Democrat that now appears to be banished to sit at the back table with Joe Liberman. Even if his brother fell prey to the moveon.org's of the world, he'll still protect the family name and his brother's place in history.

His endorsement meant something once upon a time, even after Chappaquidick.

But it has been so long since Ted Kennedy has been anything other than a parody of a senator, I think the Clinton camp should acknowledge the endorsement with the briefest of statements and not allow the press to make anything more of it than what it is - the closing chapters in a life that once held so much promise.

Perhaps a lot in life shared by many younger brothers who have to try and walk in the shadow of their famous siblings.

The Candidate of The Month Club?

You've got to hand it Barack Obama when it comes to a celebrity endorsement.

Over the past weekend Hillary got an endorsement from the Mayor of San Francisco. If I'd been a member of Hillary's staff I would have told Gavin thanks, but lets not make a big deal out of it. Sodom on the Sea is not exactly heartland America, and his endorsement is as likely to turn off as many people as it turns on - an appropriate phrasing I suppose as far as San Francisco is concerned.

John Edwards got a couple of big celebrity endorsements as well: Harry Belafonte and Sean Penn. That means he's got the calypso vote and most of the folks at S.A.G. (That used to stand for Screen Actors Guild, but has been changed to Silly-Ass-Goofballs to reflect their relevance to American society.)

Senator Obama simply crushed the competition. I'll grant you that fannies in the seats to see Oprah doesn't necessarily translate into Obama votes, but considering the fact that names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and donations of time and/or money were required to get tickets to the event, this was pure genius on the part of those responsible.

I'm not sure if this is democracy at work or just the Mickey Mouse Club redux, but whatever it is, it can do nothing but help Senator Obama. Now before you libs start passing frozen chickens, my reference to the Mickey Mouse Club is complimentary, not negative. It is true that when I "Mickey Mouse" some repair around the house (duct tape required), the phrase does not induce confidence in the trustworthiness of the repairs. In this case however, I'm referring to the marketing brilliance of Disney, a brilliance that's still blinding even today.

Consider the voting population in terms of a swimming pool. There is a shallow end and a deeper end in most pools, and in our voting pool there is quite a bit of shallow water. Not everyone is as afflicted as we are my friends. Regardless of political persuasion, what other conclusion are we to reach when we have such a dismal turn out for elections?

In the shallow end of the pool, it doesn't take as much to roil the waters as it does at the deep end, and right now Oprah is just starting to get her feet wet. The cult of celebrity has always been a player in politics, but I think Oprah brings a dimension to the situation that is above and beyond what anyone else in this country can bring. Don't ask me to explain it, because I've never forgiven her for introducing Dr. Phil to us, but I have the feeling that she will soon be playing a much larger roll in this election cycle.

It's not just the celebrity aspect, because you have to have some substance to go with the smoke and the mirrors. Though I'm in total disagreement with his position on Iraq and abortion, I must admit that Barack Obama has brought something to this election that I had hoped Fred Thompson could bring - excitement and hope.

In the summer of 1968, after Dr. King was murdered, I was one of millions of teenagers who saw in Bobby Kennedy the hope for a better future, even though I was a member of the Young Republicans Club. Once he was killed, I began to question everything about my government and wonder what would cause our nation to writhe in such agony. I became a liberal and voted for George McGovern in 1972. I was so disgusted by our government that by the time we got around to Carter and Reagan that I voted for John Anderson. After four years of Reagan I was changed forever - a thought that horrifies some and makes others nod in agreement.

The point of that brief journey through part of my voting history is this: A President needs to be a leader. Your politics become secondary to the voting population when you can inject and infuse the people with confidence, energy, and most importantly of all, hope. The life long bureaucrats pretty much control the basic operations of government, and our balance of government assures that very little gets done by anyone without a true mandate from the people, so we should never make the mistake of underestimating the importance of "persona" in a leader.

George Bush had it atop the rubble with the bullhorn in his hand, but he lost it almost immediately and has failed to find it again.

Hillary has a "persona", but when half the population would cast you as the witch in the latest stage production of "Hansel & Gretel", that's not the persona needed to lead the country.

There is no other candidate, Republican or Democrat, that is currently capable of creating this feeling. Mike Huckabee may have a shot, but it may be nothing other than a flash in the pan - too soon to tell.

At least at this stage of the game, Senator Obama is getting the best out of a celebrity endorsement that a candidate can expect: plenty of airtime, plenty of print, and plenty of names to add to their database.

Like I said, you've got to hand it Senator Obama, and Oprah may well do that with the nomination.