patrick.net

Convicted murderers should be hung publicly in the center of town in the area they lived in as a teen ager.
I agree. Public hanging is an effective method. Death penalty should seek to maximize deterrence without inflicting excessive physical pain.
Hang them at noon and let them swing until noon the next day.
That is the idea.

That's right, that's the way to create the good society - go back to the Dark Ages. Good to see we've progressed a long way in moral evolution and thinking since then. I wonder why the death penalty has been banned in most OECD countries, and certainly not performed cruelly in the US any more. I would have thought that cruel murders of atonement would morally debase you to the same level as the person you were killing, and completely and hypocritically fails to set an example of good behaviour. I thought deeply spiritual people like bap33 were above base motives like revenge? or what is the other purpose of this thinking? and why is it that most people do not commit murders due to their upbringing, obviating the need for grisly public examples? apparently all the stuff in the gospels informing the judeo-christian legal system means naught... such as jesus forgiving the criminals on the cross - which is really rewarding them with a place in heaven, if you follow the logic through...

"Robert-François Damiens (1715-1757) was a Frenchman who attained notoriety by unsuccessfully attempting the assassination of Louis XV of France in 1757. He was the last person to be executed in France with the traditional and gruesome form of death penalty used for regicides.

Damiens was born in a village near Arras in 1715, and early enlisted in the army. After his discharge, he became a menial in the college of the Jesuits in Paris, and was dismissed from this as well as from other employments for misconduct, his conduct earning for him the name of Robert le Diable (Robert the Devil). During the disputes of Pope Clement XI with the parlement of Paris, Damiens' mind seems to have been excited by the ecclesiastical disorganization which followed the refusal of the clergy to grant the sacraments to the Jansenists and Convulsionnaires; and he appears to have thought that peace would be restored by the death of the king. He, however, asserted, perhaps with truth, that he only intended to frighten the king without wounding him severely.

On January 5, 1757, as the king was entering his carriage, Damiens rushed forward and stabbed him with a knife, inflicting only a slight wound. He made no attempt to escape, and was at once seized. He was then tortured so as to have him denounce his accomplices or those who had sent him, to no avail. He was condemned as a regicide by the Parlement of Paris, and sentenced to be torn in pieces by horses in the Place de Grève. He was first tortured with red-hot pincers; his hand, holding the knife used in the attempted murder, was burnt using sulphur; molten wax, lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. Horses were then harnessed to his arms and legs for his dismemberment. Damiens' joints would not break; after some hours, representatives of the Parlement ordered the executioner and his aides to cut Damiens' joints. Damiens was then dismembered, to the applause of the crowd. His trunk, apparently still living, was then burnt at the stake.

After his death his house was razed to the ground, his brothers and sisters were ordered to change their names, and his father, wife, and daughter were banished from France."

Sigh, those were the days...

What went wrong then? Welfare also disincentivizes production, making a certain portion of the population more dependent on welfare in the future.

IMO, other countries have very different initial conditions that allow them welfare and relative stability at the same time, for now.

being shot and disabled for life by a desperate penniless thief would also disincentize production i would think. not to mention the costs of producing and selling all the guns out there, the economically unproductive costs of chasing down the criminal and bringing them to justice, etc. see, i can even keep the eco-rat bean-counters happy, with their pure economic arguments divorced from morality and broader social concerns...

what different initial conditions? america is the most affluent (and also the most unequal) country in the world - you just have a problem with decent redistribution of the wealth of the nation - i think it's called greed and disregard for the poor - and cultural fatalism and individualism - witness FEMA and New Orleans...

I believe hanging is a humane method of execution. It is still performed in Singapore. In fact, people were executed there for the possession of certain substances.

I thought deeply spiritual people like bap33 were above base motives like revenge?

It really is not about revenge. It is about deterrence and disposal.

what different initial conditions?

How about the amount of natural resources per capita? Most successful welfare countries have abundant natural resources like fishery, foresty, oil, and precious metals and they do not have large populations.

I believe hanging is a humane method of execution. It is still performed in Singapore. In fact, people were executed there for the possession of certain substances.

I thought deeply spiritual people like bap33 were above base motives like revenge?

It really is not about revenge. It is about deterrence and disposal.

The execution by hanging in Singapore was decried in Australia as barbaric and extreme, and the guy argues that he did it to raise money for his brother. It's a question of cultural relativities again.

Many people murdered by the state in the US are actually mentally ill. Is that how you treat the sometimes unfortunate outcomes of mental illness?

It is unfortunate.

Doesn’t everyone have rights recognised by the state to safety and security of person, and respect for personhood? People are not carcasses to be disposed of.

Yes, but what if death penalty saves more lives?

What about all the soldiers in Iraq who knowingly killed innocent civilians, either individually or in indiscriminate bombings and shell, mortar and grenade fire?

Different subject. Soldiers are exposed to extraordinary dangers and risks. I seriously doubt they knowingly kill innocent people just for fun. On the other hand, innocent civilians are killed in all wars. I agree that such occurrences should be avoid whenever possible and that maintaining peace should be a top priority.

The execution by hanging in Singapore was decried in Australia as barbaric and extreme, and the guy argues that he did it to raise money for his brother. It’s a question of cultural relativities again.

He may be morally redeemable, but the strict application of capital punishment in Singapore is probably doing more good. Again, this is unfortunate.

And, of course, anyone who is about to be executed should be given the chance to repent (even though they dont give their victoms that chance).

I agree.

We are all wrong-doers at various times. However, punishment is not about revenge. A person can be punished and forgiven at the same time.

wait a minute, bap33, if i kill a good person because i'm mentally ill, or because i don't have enough food and break into their house, or whatever, won't they go straight to heaven to be with god? haven't i done them a favour? why should they continue suffering here on earth with taxes and the wind and rain and everything, when they can be in paradise instead? i should be thanked! in fact, all good people should end their lives promptly to be in paradise! that would be the logic of the new testament (and is, indeed, the logic of the writings of the early christian church...)

to say that it is better to continue living on earth rather than immediately being in heaven in the direct presence of god is a rebuke to god himself! it's saying you place earthly pleasures ahead of heavenly ones!

in fact, the US still has the death penalty in all but 12 states. the rest of the OECD has ended it. so you think 'the libs' have had their way in the US for long enough? heh

bap33, didn't jesus say 'let he who has not sinned cast the first stone' when the woman found in adultery was going to be stoned to death, and thus forestalled her death and shamed the villagers? how do you reconcile that with your thirst for capital punishment?

and, peter p, if someone has apparently repented and won't do it again, why do you then still need to punish them? what's the psychological theory of rehabilitation here?

wait a minute, bap33, if i kill a good person because i’m mentally ill, or because i don’t have enough food and break into their house, or whatever, won’t they go straight to heaven to be with god? haven’t i done them a favour?

Hmm... :roll:

After all, going to prison is not humane

This is also one reason why I think capital punishment should be more broadly applied.

Putting criminals behind bars for extended periods of time is cruel and wasteful. The same resources can be used to better educate children, which IMHO will steer them safely away from committing crimes in the future.

wait a minute, it's not illegal to be gay.

(when i lived in tasmania, homosexuality was illegal. while i was there, it was legalised. i left the state before it became compulsory...)

isn't killing and murder both the cessation of human life of another? apart from the legal connotations of 'murder' as unlawful, whereas killing is simply the cessation of life under any means, accidental or wilful, by a human party or otherwise. i suppose you could be killed by a tree falling on you also. so there is killing, homicide, murder, manslaughter, etc...

however, i would define the state's deliberate killing of a citizen as murder, due to intent. unless it was in the defence of another person, in which case it would be justifiable homicide. in wartime, of course, all bets are off, because it suits governments for things to be that way.

an unforeseeable accident caused by another which resulted in a death would be a killing, or manslaughter, but most people would be more diplomatic than to call it that in everyday conversation.

After a few gang-bangers get their necks stretched they will have trouble getting new recruits. (add this to you foot notes Sean)

I do think there is some deterence effect from capital punishment. But, unfortunatley, it’s not with gang-bangers (at least the *real* gang-thugs). These guys don’t generally expect to live to 30 and have already given up on life. Perhaps we should endeavor to figure out why that is while simultaneously punishing those we have now.

so why does the US have this problem where other affluent countries don't? through economic and social indifference, you have allowed a culture of poverty and violence to be created in your own backyard. you have created oases of affluence and ghettos of poverty and lawlessness instead.

When I visited London way back when, I (of course) did the Tower of London tour. There you could imagine how it must have been - when, at the top of this hill, they would hold public beheadings and watch the head roll down the hill. Families would come with their children for the entertainment value. (Sean, I hope I do remember this correctly - it has stuck in my mind ever since).

Yes, of course. Punishments throughout Europe were brutal until about 1850. A lot of welfare reform and new thinking was done from about 1820 onwards, after the Napoleonic Wars. Note that England stopped transporting convicts to Australia in 1850 also.

I would like to think that man was slowly becoming more moral and more 'like the angels' rather than regressing. There are far more people alive today than in those times, and yet they manage to live in much more peace and prosperity than then, and the rise of human rights and citizens' rights comprise a whole new area of thinking. After two punishing and pointless world wars in the 20th century, and the end of the colonial era, I would like to think things were becoming more rational and decent overall. We've seen the creation of the UN in an attempt to give all countries a voice and prevent war. There have been 60 years of peace in western Europe after centuries of immoral, destructive and ultimately fruitless warring, and the creation of the EU promoting peaceful trade and co-operation. With peace comes prosperity. With prosperity would hopefully come sharing, but the US forgot about that bit, and raises up people like Britney Spears instead, who only accidentally makes subject-object agreement in a sentence.

A person can be punished and forgiven at the same time.

It's interesting you say that, because in many US states, a convicted felon can no longer vote, often for life. That doesn't sound like forgiveness to me, that sounds more like conveniently stacking the rolls in favour of Republican voters... and never forgiving or forgetting... not to mention the difficulties many felons have in being barred from various types of work in perpetuity...

the Greatest Country on Earth. The last hope for the planet. America.

more like the Greatest Circus on Earth.

and there are more people outside america than in it that think it is now the most cursed, ignorant and deadly country on earth. cursed by stupidity and tired, unrevised 18th century thinking.

isn't patriotism the last resort of the scoundrel? or is it the first?

bap, i would have said that Jesus was a liberal. Is there anything in the NT where Jesus said he hated everyone, labelled everyone who was down and out a wrongdoer, and insisted that they should all die from capital punishment? and that the rich were being rewarded by god on earth, and that they were righteous because they were rich, and shouldn't do anything for the poor?

are we reading different bibles or something?

unfortunately, condi rice is an ex-texaco oil executive and chronic transparent liar for imperialism and big oil. hilary clinton at least has some intelligence, presence and human decency. she fought for healthcare reforms more in line with the rest of the world to lower costs for the elderly and disadvantaged, and was completely rolled by a money-grubbing, vested interest Republican majority in Congress. Australia offers free universal healthcare and has beaten big pharma by offering citizens the lowest priced pharmaceuticals in the world, paying $3 per script for pensioners (sometimes $0), and no more than $16 for antibiotics at full price. americans pay more for scripts than just about anywhere. america is ranked 37th in the world for overall quality of health care, and is particularly noted for its denial of access to care.

you pray to your god tonight, but i'll tell you now that the person you've been praying to so far has hooves, horns and a pitchfork...

RE: Kill vs. murder

How about war? Consider ourselves fighting a war against crimes.

wot, and bush isn't all about being a puppet, being selected and not elected, rigging polls, doing favours for crony capitalist mates, starting wars on false pretexts, and arranging for the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer? 'some people call you the elite. i call you my base'? he always looks so interested listening to the electorate too at public functions, and showed so much resolve and leadership after 9/11 and katrina...

i wouldn't have too much trouble looking hilary in the eye if she sincerely stands for social justice agendas, which is meant to be the domain of the Democrats. i doubt that the clintons, and, indeed, other democrat presidents and candidates, don't possess some faint glimmer of human decency. having said that, the 'left' in american politics is increasingly disappearing, and i've met elected labour party politicians who were right wing pillocks, where the right of labour is worse than the left of the conservatives... maybe hilary is a little too focused on time management and getting bang for her buck to bother hobnobbing with just anyone...

isn't hilary the triumph of issues over personality and substance over style?

decent, self-consistent and coherent policies and playing with a straight bat are more important to me than personalities - there are plenty of prickly left-wingers around with nevertheless an unerring moral compass.

RE: Kill vs. murder

How about war? Consider ourselves fighting a war against crimes.

yes, but the nazis/germans/prussians thought they were doing the right and noble thing too, in their own peculiar way. and there's always an element of 'what's in it for me' when countries go to war, no matter what propaganda they present to their people and soldiers. sometimes there's a strong element of longer term maneuvering in it as well - e.g. the US was engaging in WWII with a wary eye on the USSR, and didn't originally want to engage in 'the European war' at all...

do we have to go into just war theory now?

Just look at the murders that have occured because a Dutch newspaper ran a cartoon depicting Allah.

what would happen in the US if cartoons were published showing Jesus in a mocking light? surely there would be a strident backlash also... There has to be some respect for others sensitivities, rather than provoking them...

why do so many who said they’d leave the country if Bush was elected still live here?

i dunno, emigration is a hassle... where do you go? why do refugees in the sudan still live there?

And why is it considered such a bad thing to be patriotic?

Because every country/nation-state so defined therefore has the right to be patriotic, and hubristic, and claim to be the greatest country on earth. And that inevitably seems to have lead to wars and colonialism and squabbles over resources in the past. And you end up whitewashing all the dirty dealings and pretending they never happened by creating a 'civil religion' of flag-waving and false rhetoric and propaganda.

And further, you will never address any problems or deficiencies if you are supposed to be jingoistic and patriotic all the time - your society may actually have a rotten core. It's just like Orwell's 1984 society of brainwashing and propaganda. And maybe you're not all that great, individually - maybe you're dumbed-down, superficial, materialistic, wasteful of resources, arrogant, acquisitive, uneducated, ignorant, coarse, corrupt, socially regressive, uncompassionate and uncaring of others, who knows? Maybe other countries and societies have a better social settlement and more to offer and lessons to learn?

I think we've already covered the remnants of the death penalty, poor healthcare, poor social capital, ghettoisation, high homicide rates, high levels of violence, imperialism, etc when compared to similar countries...

Lawyer, alleged "feminazi," bestselling author, notoriously wronged woman, working mother, alleged murderer and adulterer, Senator, cookie-baker, First Lady, enemy of cookie-bakers, and quite possibly future president of the United States.

Shortly after the Tammy Wynette quote, the "cookie incident" cemented Clinton's reputation as the woman America loved to hate. For all the seething cauldron of outrage these comments produced in insecure, anger-driven morons like Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell, Clinton's no-nonsense, take-no-crap attitude also established her as a something of a hero to modern working women. Naturally, this was considered a massive political liability for hubby, who already had the modern working woman vote locked up but was polling poorly among insecure, anger-driven morons (i.e., a large chunk of the American electorate).

It would be along the same lines as the outrage and protest aginst Eminem’s anti-gay lyrics. I don’t see the religious right making terrorist threats.

yes, what about religious fundamentalists in the US killing doctors who perform abortions and blowing up clinics? as an example

what if you don't agree with the death penalty? what if you think most americans are belligerent, overly religious meatheads and ignorant? or always blowing smoke up people's proverbials?

other countries see americnas as all sorts of undesirable things - insincere; over religious; hypocritical; money-obsessed; overly commercial; etc...

I happen to know a few Americans who have left and say they don't like the place, as a matter of fact.

there are plenty of places in the affluent first world other than the US to live - English and non-English speaking. It depends what you value, and the culture you grew up in...

If they didn’t we’d be far far more mired down in corruption and violence than we are.

but all the evidence is that you are horribly mired in corruption and violence - jack abramoff, the business-government nexus, etc. and the ol' gun death thing... remember the fbi under hoover declared that the mafia in america didn't exist, because they had some photos of him revealing he was gay... coming to america was the best thing that ever happened to the mafia...

and any leader certain vested interests don't like you assassinate - the Kennedys, who tend to stand for socially progressive values... John Jr was no accident...

Dick Cheney

The Early Years
Cheney voted to protect citizens' constitutional right to own armor-piercing bullets. He voted against the Clean Water Act. In fact, he voted against any bill that even included the words "corporate" and "pollution." He voted to protect the sacred constitutional right of a corporation to keep quiet about which local communities they flooded with toxins that cause cancer and birth defects.

Unlike his constituents' wives, Cheney's baton-twirling spouse Lynne wasn't just sitting around barefoot and pregnant all this time. Under Reagan, Lynne Cheney served as head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, protecting innocent citizens against the depravations of public broadcasting and from potentially confusing "propaganda" content, such as a documentary suggesting Africans might have a few legit gripes about centuries of colonialism, forced slavery and industrial exploitation.

Halliburton
When Bush Sr. was drubbed by Bill Clinton in 1992, Cheney decided it was high time he became a titan of industry. With nothing but insider Washington credentials on his resume, he became chairman and CEO of Halliburton Corp. in 1995. Cheney made millions leading the massive oil industry construction company, while carefully "tweaking" its accounting practices. A 1998 accounting change improved the company's revenues by $234 million over the course of four years.

The practice was further complicated by the fact that Halliburton was severely on the ropes at the time the change was made. In addition to suddenly boosting the company's bottom line just when Halliburton was going to get slaughtered on the stock market, Cheney and crew "neglected" to inform the SEC about the change until more than a year later. When Cheney quit Halliburton to take the vice presidential nomination in 2000, the company offered him a $20 million going-away gift, characterized as a "retirement package" for his many (five) years of service in the private sector. In a concession to public outrage and concerns that Halliburton was buying access to the White House, Cheney selflessly accepted only $13.6 million, indisputably preserving the ethical integrity of the Executive Branch.

During the 2000 elections, Cheney's history of heart troubles raised serious concerns among the electorate. Voters worried that if Cheney died while in office, his running mate George W Bush might be left in charge of the country.

9/11
Almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney and his old crony Donald Rumsfeld (now Secretary of Defense) began beating the war drums for a new invasion of Iraq, despite a complete absence of any evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with September 11 or al Qaeda in general.

Cheney got his way, eventually. After a staged confrontation at the United Nations, where Secretary of State Colin Powell was roped into making the improbable case for an invasion, the Bush administration discarded all hopes of attracting allies (other than faithful lapdog Britain), despite Cheney's last-minute "can't we be friends" tour of Europe. The U.S. went ahead with the invasion in spring 2003.

Halliburton and 9/11
Cheney's enthusiasm for the war wasn't solely driven by philosophy. His old buddies at Halliburton were finally seeing a return on that $13.6 million (and the $1 million a year in "deferred compensation" still being paid to supplement Cheney's measly six-figure government salary). Halliburton's first quarterly earnings report at the end of the short second Gulf War saw profits double from the previous period (more than $20 million), a gain which news reports comically characterized as coming "despite" the war.

Just before the Iraq war started, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton an "emergency" contract for oil fields reconstruction, which was awarded without the usual government bidding process because of said "emergency" (and despite the fact that the invasion wasn't on any particular timetable and the fact it had been in the works for a year and a half).

The deal was authorized for up to $7 billion, but the Army didn't trash the country with sufficient enthusiasm to make the whole amount, and the actual size of the deal is now estimated at $600 million (assuming Halliburton survives the lawsuits from competitors who inexplicably feel that something fishy is going on here).

A disappointment to be sure, but Cheney has four more years to make it up to them. And then there's always Syria... And Iran... And...

Bap33

My problem is that your philosophy does not allow for people like me, who are not religious, in your world view. What would you do with folks like me who have no interest in religion whatsoever, but are deeply ethical, not particularly liberal, and positive contributors to society? All I've heard so far is that there is no place for me in your society. This despite the fact that I am more ethical than many of those self righteous sorts I observe exhibiting hypocrisy on a daily basis. I don't really wish to live in a world/country where I am forced to lie about my own deep personal convictions in order to feel safe from my fellow holy-warrior man.

My issue is that those insistent upon prostelatizing their beliefs to me are rarely interested in hearing what I might have to say. This is fine up until the point where you begin trying to dictate my values for me.

Bap33,

Thanks for your comments. I do not take personal offense even though we disagree on many issues. You are rare, in my experience, in that you are willing to actually discuss these issues. I don't particularly like the overly-broad demonization of "the left". Many of my friends and family are "leftist progressives", and I assure you they are ethical, love this country, and most of them are even virtuous christians. There are also people on the "right" who I regard as hating this country. So for me, all that matters is the person, not the label. Labeling is a lazy way out of doing the hard work of evaluating issues and people on their intrinsic merits. (This is why I despise forums like "the futurist").

I also agree that the bible (implying the judeo-christian bible) is sufficient for many to lead a virtuous life. But I don't agree that it is necessary. Certainly, there were virtuous people before, and apart from the bible. And certainly there are and have been other religious cultures which embodied the same essential truisms about human ethics.

I'll demonstrate an example of the uselessness of "left/right; liberal/conservative" labels. One who is fiscally 'conservative' must favor market 'liberalization' for 'conservative' markets are protectionistic and impeded. Is this person "liberal" or "conservative". It depends upon whether you're talking about politcs or economics. What about the born-again christian farmer in Iowa who wants protection from Dutch factory farmers and globalization? He is politically conservative, but fiscally liberal (even more confusing he is favoring market deliberalization, which is a liberal ideal). See the problem?

If we were in China complaining about it’s government, this blog would either be blocked or taken down.

Only if it is hosted by Microsoft or served by Google. ;)

Just kidding.

Live Free or Die

Oh you've got to be fucking kidding me. See the comments from http://tinyurl.com/hv699 dude, far from fucking free, just a dying empire lashing out. Funny that we are going to go to war with Iran just when they start selling oil for Euros, funny that. Hmmm, Iranian Oil bourse and M3 not being reported in mid march and increased rhetoric about those crazy persians and their nuklear program.

hmm, the self-regulating 1984 society....

Why are right wing republicans so incoherent and illogical, and self-inconsistent in their world views? I don't mean bap33, I mean George HW Bush:

REPORTER: Mr. Vice-President, how can you claim that your home is in Maine for tax purposes and at the same time claim that your home is in Texas for voting purposes? Are you really a Texan or a New Englander?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm really a Texan. But I got one house. And under the law, every taxpayer is allowed, when he sells a house, and buys another house, to get the rollover. Everybody, if it turns out, and I may hire, I notice she said she has a new good accountant. I'd like to get his name and phone number because I think I've paid too much in the way of taxes.

And residence, Mr. Boyd, legal residence, for voting, is very different. And the domicile, they call that, very different, than the house. That they say you're living in the vice-president's house. Therefore you don't get what every -- I've got problems -- what every other taxpayer gets. I got problems with the IRS, but so do a lot of people out there. I think I've paid too much. Nothing ethical. I'd like to get some money back.

So Sean, what did that google result show you about how Christians react to Jesus being ridiculed?

This is a pointless point. Different cultures react differently. My point was that you don't deliberately flout taboos of other societies as a 'joke'. I don't care how they react or over-react - that's all culturally relative...

You can't say that you're morally superior just because you react differently in this context. It's not morally superior to run cartoons which you know will be offensive. Note that no deaths occurred in the countries where the cartoons were run, although they have high Muslim migrant populations.

You guys invaded a country that wasn't aggressing against anyone, and have killed tens of thousands of locals - to get oil, to get army bases in the region, and to stop oil trading in the Euro. The 'terrorists' (whoever they really were) ostensibly came from Saudi Arabia, your oil trading ally. Where's the moral high ground there?

I'm sorry I didn't mean to hate america, it was an accident, i swear... i was cleaning it and it went off...

heh, so I studied 5 years of political science, sociology, anthropology, psychology, social policy, and philosophy, just to encounter bap and the posited 'right-wing' wall of truth. so, is bap subsumed in my theories, or am i subsumed in bap's theories? is bap just a rambling discourse of unconsidered clichés, prejudices, stereotypes and low-quality judgements mindlessly parroting meta-narratives rebuttable on so many points of ethics and reason that you don't know where to even begin, and wouldn't even attempt it? is 'loving america, right or wrong', a disease? are the republicans fooling some of the people all of the time by pretending to be holy and religious and using christianity as a front while secretly looting the nation for themselves? is it just the rule of the elites, helping themselves to the wealth of the nation, beyond the wildest dreams and excesses of the pre-Revolution French court? and why has greed been elevated from a vice to a virtue? all these questions to be answered in another exciting episode...

You guys invaded a country that wasn’t aggressing against anyone, and have killed tens of thousands of locals - to get oil, to get army bases in the region, and to stop oil trading in the Euro.

Ummm... "you guys"...? Please strike my name from the "in favor of invading Iraq" roll call. And FYI, I'm not some Bill Buckley/George Will johnny-come-lately neocon who just recently changed my mind on the subject. This (plus all the religious right pandering, cronyism, corruption, etc.) is one of the main reasons I did NOT vote for Mr. Cheney for President in either election. ;-)

@Bap33,

Huh?

Oh, you meant jinx.

‘criminal’-hating

Is criminal-hating a hate crime?

involving extremely gruesome methods of capital punishment

Huh? We only talked about sensible methods like hanging. We oppose any punishment that involves dismemberment, disembowelment, or other forms of excessive pain.

don't the christians say, 'love the sinner, hate the sin'? what happened to that?

i think you guys are more into 'hang the sinner by ther neck until dead, although they'll be alive for a while still, and there are more humane methods which we prefer not to use, because we are really still unreflexive savages at heart'

perhaps the market is to blame for excluding some people from meaningful participation? so they turn to crime as the only way to make money? perhaps there's better ways to encourage civil responsibility in other people? you guys are knee-jerk fools...