May 16, 2009 Political
Well, Skinny B is set to speak at Notre Dame University, a supposedly staunchly Catholic institution that allegedly supports the Right to Life movement, and should be anti- abortion.
Skinny B is pro- abortion, so pro- abortion that he is in favor of sucking a baby’s brains out in late term abortions and killing a baby in the womb. What a great guy, huh? Love to have him at a party, some light convo, a little fetus killing, everyone goes home happy, right?
There is a disconnect here, between the folks at the university, and the rest of the Catholic leadership, apparently. The students, and the university professors (who you would expect to be liberal) seem to want this person to speak at the commencement- well, that is one thing, but to give him an honorary degree from this prestigious University is another thing entirely, as it appears that the University is honoring, or at least condoning his stance on abortion, which runs counter to that of the Catholic church.
This is wrong- while my convictions are pro life, I realize that Roe v Wade is law, and I can’t change that myself. I also realize that this is a law that is better when used VERY sparingly, and Barama seems to believe that we should have a Big Box Store that caters to abortions, to hear him talk about this. He has been evasive as to just when he believes life begins, and I believe that is so there will not be a certain date where abortions could not be performed. Take that to the extreme, you could feasibly abort as a baby is being born, according to his ambiguity.The man will not take a position here- “That question is above my pay grade.” Really, or do you not have the cojones to actually stake out a moral position and defend it?
I can understand Notre Dame allowing him to speak- after all he is (shudder) the president- but the honorary degree is too much. First, you have to believe that the man has some honor, and I do not. Barama is a man of convenience, and his ideals shift according to his audience. If that sounds like I am calling him a liar and a con man, you would be hearing right.
He makes and breaks promises faster than the speed of Nancy Pelosi’s medications. When in Chicago, as a State legislator, he voted for a bill that would, in effect, kill babies in the womb, well after there would be a discernible heartbeat- something that I would think anyone with any sense of humanity would shy away from, but not him. One might be excused from thinking that Barama has stock in some fetus- sucking, stem cell producing start- up company, and needs some raw material. His positions seem to reflect something like this scenario. Perhaps his share is being kept in Al Gore’s “Lockbox” for after he gets out of office.
The bottom line here is that Barama should speak at Notre Dame, but he should not get the honorary degree, because that would demean the University’s stated position. The students seem to want to hear this faker, but that’s their privilege.
Winston Churchill once said, ” If you are 20, and not liberal, you have no heart- if you are 40, and are not conservative, you have no brain.”
I’ll let that quote sink in.
May 13, 2009 Political
As long as we, as a civilization have been executing people for crimes that, in some cases, astound civilized people in their sheer brutality, we have also had the argument both for and against the Death Penalty. Many people argue that the process demeans people, bringing the people down to the level of the murderers and rapists that commit these crimes. They also argue that this punishment does not deter people from committing these types of crimes.
These people arguing on the basis of either line of reasoning are wrong in their assessment of this punishment.
Lets take the ” it makes us no better than the criminals” line of reasoning first. The Death penalty is a last option for those criminals who have been deemed to be unable to be rehabilitated, or who have committed crimes that are so heinous that death could be easily considered to be a just punishment. When someone takes a life in the commission of a crime, the very act demonstrates a casually dismissive attitude towards another’s life and liberty, and this dismissive attitude is counter to a civilized society, which depends on a certain level of respect towards another’s life and property.
When there is no respect, indeed when the disregard escalates into murder, society has an obligation to look to the victim first in terms of justice, for the victim cannot speak for himself. The death penalty is appropriate in these cases, because there cannot be a true ” leveling” of punishments, in other words, the punishment should rise to the level of the crime, in order to be called “justice”. This becomes society’s last attempt to level the playing field in terms of this justice.
This is something that juries have, over the many years, given considerable thought to, rarely coming back with what could be construed as a kneejerk reaction in their sentencing of defendants to the Death penalty. The bar is quite high, and various courts have raised the bar higher in past years, some would say too high, but that is up to the courts to decide. As what can easily be seen as the last option in a judgement, people are cautious in how they apply this penalty, and this caution is good, for it says that as a society, we are civilized enough to know that it IS the last option.
Now, as to the canard that this death penalty does not deter people from committing murder and other heinous crimes, well, this is true, because there will always be stupid and criminal people- that is just human nature, and that is not something that any penalty will cure. As Ron White, the comedian said, “You can’t fix stupid.” There will always be greedy people who will rob- there will always be evil people who will kill. This is an unfortunate fact of life, and all the good intentions in the world will not change this.
But one thing is for sure- the people you send to the death penalty will not re- offend. That much is 100% certain. Not a one of these people will bother another victim, and I for one can live with this easily. I can surely live with this option, rather than life in prison, because the death penalty is more compassionate.
What would you consider to be worse- to put someone to death, or keep them in a cage for the rest of their lives? If you said the latter, you are a cruel, cruel person. To live with no hope of ever getting out of the cage- well, I know I would rather die. Taking joy, or even satisfaction out of anyone’s imprisonment is a hard thing to feel, but when you know that there will never be an end to that suffering- well, you wouldn’t do that to a dog or cat, would you? Keep them in a cage with no room for the rest of their entire lives? And then there’s the cost of keeping these people incarcerated, all at taxpayer expense, which I find to be inexcusable.
I have no problem with rehabilitating prisoners, as long as there is a REASONABLE chance that these people will come out and have a productive life, but there truly are crimes that deserve the full weight of society’s judgement, and to try and save these people who are evil, is a misguided attempt at feel- good legislation, and does no one any good.
We can have a discussion on rehabilitating those who might be rehabilitated, but let’s be realistic about what we do and why we do this, and it is not because we enjoy it.
It is because it must be done.