by

The death penalty: Who decides?

Maryland is the latest state to ban the death penalty.

When I discuss this issue with other people, strong feelings take over, and often emotion prevails. This is understandable; I cheer when the bad guy dies in the movies, and I’m happy Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are no longer around.

The problem is that there is a balance to be met when dealing with the law: While you should not be Mr. Spock, ignoring your emotions, you cannot also be Dr. McCoy, letting your emotions overwhelm your logic. Yes, some people deserve to die.

The problem is this: Who makes that decision?

Some people would like to see rapists put to death. Others think anyone who commits a murder should automatically be given the death penalty. There are probably people who think drivers who don’t turn off their turn signals should get the death penalty.

If we say that it should only be applied in the most heinous of cases, then we still have that problem. Who decides that the crime is so terrible that the death penalty applies? Well, a jury first, of course, and then a judge. But wait a minute — that’s what we have now.

And this is where we meet the real problem: Our system of justice is not perfect.

Trust me, I do this for a living. Innocent people get found guilty all the time (and guilty people get found not guilty, too). I don’t think I have to cite all the cases of people on death row who have later been found to be innocent (including some who confessed — although usually the confessions were coerced or they have mental problems). And who knows how many we have already executed who we’ll never know if they were innocent because no one is researching their cases like they’re doing with those currently on death row?

So long as we have a system of justice that is not 100% perfect, we should not have a penalty that is 100% irreversible.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Immi-grants for college

There’s this silly meme going around now, comparing the cuts being given to the military for education with programs helping illegal immigrant children get an education.

The reason he is giving her that expression is because the statement she makes is absolutely wrong (and stupid: “only” way? No one else gets aid? Give me a break.)

This is a false comparison. The federal government funds the military and thanks to the sequester, money is being cut from the military budget. Blame the Republicans for forcing the sequester through (it was their idea) and then trying to convince all of us it’s Obama’s fault.

The other example is from states like Colorado, and has nothing to do with federal funding. In Colorado, children who were brought here illegally by their parents and thus had no choice in the matter and who graduated from Colorado high school, were never arrested, were applying for citizenship, and who kept good grades were allowed to go to Colorado public colleges at the same rate as a Colorado citizen. Not greater than, exactly the same as. No tuition given to them, just the same discount as all the kids they went to High School with.

Isn’t that what we want? Good kids with good grades becoming good citizens, paying taxes, and then staying in the US to help our economy? Don’t we want to encourage that?

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

The right not to be ridiculed?

The problem with many religious people is that they see any criticism of their beliefs as an attack — the so-called “War on Christmas” for instance. If you question their beliefs, they think you’re trying to take away their rights. This is ridiculous.

No one is beyond having their beliefs criticized in America. That’s one of the great things about our country and our 1st Amendment (which covers both freedom of religion and freedom of speech). You can believe whatever you want. It doesn’t mean you are beyond question or that people have to agree with you, or even put up with you.

Not surprisingly, many of those sensitive believers who cry about being discriminated against when criticized are the first to speak poorly about Muslims or Scientologists or Wiccans or Atheists. I’ve often found it hilarious how some Christians scream that Muslims are trying to instill “Sharia Law” in America (they’re not) while at the same time they’re trying to make abortion and gay marriage illegal because that’s what their religious law tells them.

Anyway, here’s a clip of my friend David Silverman on Fox today talking about this issue. (Just yesterday, we were having breakfast together discussing it…)

(As an aside, in case you’re unaware, David was the inspiration of the WTF face meme, which was the face he gave Bill O’Reilly when O’Reilly claimed God must exist because otherwise you can’t explain how waves in the ocean work. So far, David is my only friend who has become a meme.)

are-you-serious-rage-face

Editorial cartoon of the day

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Meet the new Pope, Same as the old Pope

When people are turning away from religion in huge numbers, when stories of scandal and corruption fill the news, it would be a perfect time for Catholics to embrace the 21st century and perhaps put forward a Pope who would want to change things. Maybe soften their position on gays (especially given how many gay priests they have and know about). Maybe not be as harsh on contraception. Maybe even take a stand against the way their leaders live like royalty, surrounded by gold and living in castles, when the founder of their religion specifically preached against such excesses.

But nope.

Instead, this new Pope is just like the last, ranting against gay rights, saying contraception is a sin, and surrounded by his own personal controversies in Argentina, where he supported the dictatorship there.

Most Catholics in America at least just ignore much of the church’s preaching. (I’m not quite certain how you can pick and choose these things, but I’m no Catholic.) But the numbers show that membership keeps dropping, and will continue to so long as the church tries to pretend the middle ages never ended.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Bush versus Clinton? Again?

One of the reasons I supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton is because I have a real dislike of dynasties. We have over 300 million people in the US. Can’t we stop electing husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the same politicians?

This is nothing against Hillary. I think she’d be a fine President.

But now Jeb Bush may decide to run in 2016, and we could be presented with the third Bush getting a nomination and a race that looks awfully familiar: Clinton versus Bush.

In America, we don’t have royalty, but we apparently have something similar: A Ruling Class. We’ve had our Roosevelts and our Kennedys and our Bushes and our Clintons, going all the way back to John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Not that these people have necessarily been unqualified, but in a country this large, it would be nice to see who else is out there.