1000!

Sometime within the next 30 days, it’s likely that we will have the 1000th execution in the United States since the capital punishment law was passed in 1977.

Good.

But not good enough.

We still have thousands and thousands of murderers and rapists awaiting their legally resolved penalties, getting three square meals, free cable TV, and free access to weights and gym equipment for which most of us pay $40/month.

Why?

Because the legal system allows dozens of appeals?  Partially.  But  not inmates have appeals still in process…

Because liberal judges keep issuing dubious stays of execution for primarily ideological reasons?  Partially.  But those are usually desperation stays reserved for the last couple of days prior to the scheduled date…

So why?

Because the Death Penalty shows a side that Americans hate to reveal about themselves, that vindication and retribution is something that we believe in, but are uncomfortable about.  Because when it comes down to it, we’re just a bunch of hypocrites, voting for a system of punishment, but unwilling to see it through.

Yeah, that’s it.

Well, I ain’t a hypocrite.  The people on Death Row are murderers.  Every single one of them.  The 999 prisoners that were executed have never killed again.  Since they were executed;

• They haven’t stabbed anyone during a prison riot


• They haven’t kidnapped or raped innocent children


• They haven’t beaten or shot their spouses

In fact, I feel confident that they will never commit another crime.  Now that they’re DEAD.

And after all, that is the goal.  Law-abiding citizens (and non-violent criminals, for that matter) just want to be safe and not have to worry about the predators that may lurk among us.  If a zoo animal goes nuts and kills a patron, do we hospitalize it?  No, we euthanize it.  Why?  Because it might kill someone else…  

Now, if a person goes nuts and kills a neighbor, do we euthanize him/her?  Remember, this is a thinking beast, certainly capable of killing again.  Possibly more dangerous than the zoo animal, given the wide variety of tools and weapons that are in the arsenal.  But instead, we give the murderer legal chances to obscure the circumstances surrounding the murder.  Most appeals aren’t based on innocence or guilt, that ship sailed long ago.  Instead, the appeals are based on court procedures or legal interpretations.  Most aren’t even claiming innocence.  Some have admitted guilt long ago.

Yet I still pay taxes to incarcerate these people.  Why?  If I choose not to keep them alive, why not just tax the liberals who insist on letting them live?

Simple solution #1 – Offer $250K to each Death Row inmate to renounce his appeals and step into the gas chamber (or electric chair or lethal injection) voluntarily.  Some are probably sick of the prison life anyway.  In exchange, we will give $250K to whomever they choose.  Some of these people have family that they would want to have the money, some might want to pay off some debt.  Even if only a few dozen take the offer, taxpayers are saving money AND we’re giving the inmates a way out.

Simple solution #2 – Two prisoners per cell.  One meal.  The problem will work itself out.

Simple solution #3 – Arena.  I’ve talked about his earlier.

Simple solution #4 – During the appeal process, the inmate should be on house arrest…  at his attorney’s house.  We’ll see how many of these camera-hungry ambulance chasers really think their client is rehabilitated…

Simple solution #5 – If a judge issues a stay, the inmate should be on house arrest…  at the judge’s house.  We’ll see how many of these bleeding heart, politically motivated judges really think the inmate was mistreated.

Simple solution #6 – Did you ever see the Dirty Dozen?  Surely there are some missions in the Middle East that could be well handled by a few select murderers….

Simple solution #7 – Organlegging.  If you don’t know what that is, you need to read more.

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design?  

OK, I’m gonna channel Hubie Brown here…  

Let me get this straight…  You’re trying to explain the existence of the universe.  You have scientists who are smarter than you disagreeing about the evolutionary process, so you come up with a theory about a divine being that doesn’t need any scientific theories because it’s all based on faith.  To make it seem more logical, you call it “Intelligent Design”.  Well, by definition, anyone who disagrees with it must be UN-intelligent.  I see tons of upside to this theory.  Nothing but upside.

Back to Earth now…

I’ve always had SOME issues with scientific explanations to cosmic timeframes.  I mean, Carbon-14 dating might say that a rock is five billion years old… but how do we know that it really is that old?  Suppose the rock is only two thousand years old?  We have no way to verify it unless some papyrus was kept with the rock since the beginning of recorded history.  We’re only making guesses as to the half-life of Carbon in our own little cosmic window.  So “science” has tenuous threads running all through the theories that have been presented as “facts” for a long time.

But that doesn’t suddenly re-introduce the “Creator” as the best solution to these threads…  After all, where did the Creator come from?  And where did he get his ideas?  Does he wear clothes?  If not, what made him think of them?  Why would he make someone like Terrell Owens?  Face it, any theory that cannot be proved or disproved isn’t a theory, it’s a statement of faith at best, a wild guess at worst.  To have it taught in public schools is like questioning the periodic table.  Why is hydrogen first?  I don’t understand the science behind the periodic table, so it mustn’t be true.  Someone else must have “designed” it.  Like a God.

These ID adherents probably believe that “Capricorn One” was a documentary too.

Please.  If you don’t understand something, that doesn’t automatically make it God’s will.  And if you understand something, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.  If God meant for us to teach it in school, he would’ve made us all Catholic.

Election Review

The average American voter is an uninformed boob.

I’ve said it many times, and many times I’ve been proven right.

The average American voter gets his information from television or the newspaper, a wholly passive exercise that depends on the media being non-partisan and unbiased.

Hah!

Congratulations to the Unions who recognize this basic fact, and use it to their advantage… and everyone else’s detriment.

Congratulations to the Gerrymanderers (read: liberals in power) who taught Arnold a lesson on manipulating the media and controlling the uninformed boobs.

I’m not a right-wing stooge.  I voted against some planks in Arnold’s platform, feeling that they were TOO conservative and/or restrictive for my moderate tastes.  Basically, I voted with the thinking moderates who were overwhelmed by many groups:

1. The thinking left – Obviously, California is under the control of these whack jobs, who orchestrated a brilliant scare campaign to sour the voters on legitimate reform issues, and managed to secure the status quo.  Unions fall here.   After all, who is more socialist than a union?

2. The unthinking left – These are the Berkeley bozos who will vote anti-Republican and pro-union no matter what.  They won’t read the initiatives, they won’t consider the pros or cons of a given proposition… if Arnold is for it, they’re against it.

3. The unthinking moderates – Most of the people probably fall here.  They THINK they know what the proposition is addressing, but since they heard it on television, they’re probably wrong.  For example, Prop 77 should have passed overwhelmingly.  It takes district boundaries AWAY from the Legislature, a logical check/balance issue given the bizarre Gerrymandered districts that have evolved through the years.  The thinking left fired multiple commercials about “retired judges” and “legal maneuvers” and scared the television-watching drones into voting down a reasonable law.  Same with Prop 75 which would have stripped many unions of their massive political clout, a good thing if you’re not in a union (which is the vast majority of taxpayers).  But again, by outspending the competition, the union stooges managed to obscure the issue and scare the simple-minded public from actually reforming a broken system of PAC and union controls.

Now, I’m in the middle class of California, which means that the status quo isn’t necessarily a bad thing to me.  I’m not the target of the left, so my money, while misspent and overtaxed, isn’t at risk of being completely stripped away.  Nor am I a target of the right, so my political clout isn’t being threatened by campaign reforms or spending limits.  No, I’m simply trying to improve my chances to succeed.  And my children’s chances.  And their children’s.  Meanwhile, the liberals are trying to fortify their positions, and the conservatives are trying to break down the walls.  And until the middle gets our collective shit together, we’re gonna be the ones who get squeezed.