georgesbluegirl

You too!

NO ONE should ever be executed unless they murder another or rape a child under 12. Period. Sure, this guy is probably a mutant scum bag but....he shouldn't be executed because he was WITH someone who committed murder. I live in Texas too, and I believe in the death penalty, but only as aforementioned. This isn't China, after all. Texas is a tough state in which to find yourself on death row but I hope appeals prevail in this case. I also hope he never gets out of prison. God set up the death penalty in the Old Testament for many crimes besides murder. It was given for such things as idolatry, witchcraft, rape, adultery, homosexual acts, beastiality, etc. In this country, it was once common to have people executed for being a thief. I really have no problem with this execution going forward, and would not be all that up in arms if the death penalty were expanded to addition crimes besides 1st degree murder. If it was ok with God when he set up the law for his people in ancient Israel, it is fine with me. Okay, but we live in America, not a theocracy. While you might be theologically okay saying that the death penalty should be administered for doing X, the reality is that human governance is always going to have a degree of error - and in the case of the death penalty, it's really not effective or efficient to execute people. Only a small percentage of cases that could be wind up being tried as capital cases, leading to a huge amount of arbitrariness about which cases are tried as capital cases (hint: if you can afford a good or even decent lawyer and/or are white, your chances get exponentially better). Given the amount of energy it takes to go through the capital appeals process to ensure that an individual is guilty, and then the fact that innocent people still find their way to death row, some of whom are exonerated only after death (and I tend to give a lot of weight to even one innocent man dying)...I just don't think that it's worth it to try to fix what is already a hugely flawed system. It's much more feasible to protect the populace by locking up convicted killers for life. If we were somehow omniscient, it might be worth arguing for, but we're human beings - and I think that we should leave death between God and the sinner.

(Bolding mine) It costs more, actually, to go through the capital process than to imprison an individual for life. Expanding the death penalty would probably wind up costing the taxpayer a lot more. When you say it costs more, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean in regard to the lengthy appeals process in court, or the actual cost of the procedure? Appeals will take place regardless of the sentence, so if that is what you are basing your claim on, it really holds no weight. If you are refering to the cost of an execution, I don't see why that should be expensive. I would personally like to see them return to death by firing squad. That would be a very humane way of executing someone, and would only cost the price of the bullets and the salary of the executioners. Going through the appeals process for a capital trial costs a lot more than for a non-death penalty case. There was a big exhaustive study that came out of Duke a while ago that looked at the death penalty on a state level and then nationally (this was sometime in the 1990s I think, but similar data exist from many other reports). Overall, they found that the capital trials can cost the taxpayer something like up to 16 times more. According to an excellent summary article I read a little while ago from Columbia law, states with the death penalty spend about 2.5 - 5 million per capital case compared to about 1 million on a case for life without parole (lol, can you tell this is one of my soapbox issues?). I'll do some more sourcing if you'd like, but it's pretty easy to do a search of academic papers and studies and find that capital punishment isn't economically efficient. This, again, doesn't go to the moral dimensions of it, but when someone asserts that the death penalty "costs more than life in prison," there is a solid foundation of fact and study behind them - it's not just a hollow statement, it's pretty well substantiated. We can get into the utter arbitrariness as to how and when the death penalty is sought and the corresponding racial bias if you'd like, too....

(Bolding mine) It costs more, actually, to go through the capital process than to imprison an individual for life. Expanding the death penalty would probably wind up costing the taxpayer a lot more.

I see Ron Paul (R-TX) as the breakaway candidate in this election. He is nominally running as a Republican but he is effectively a whole different breed. Despite starting as a candidate with virtually no support or funding, he's garnered a huge online following that trickling into the real word as well. He's won every Republican candidate online poll by a landslide, on ABC, Fox, Drudge Report, Washington Post, etc, etc, etc. In many cases these sites later attempt to hide the results of the poll, presumably because they simply can't believe them. And this online momentum is translating into real life, where Paul has over 35,000 volunteers in his campaign. He just picked up 5th in the Iowa straw poll. I won't go into his platform here but I encourage you to check it out: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues I wouldn't say he's not a Republican; I'd say he embodies the traditional Republican values and ideals much more ardently than the current batch of neocons in power.... I do like the guy, although I wouldn't vote for him.

Taken from Is Capital Punishment a Deterrent? While all sorts of

I don't disagree with your sentiments. Foster was charged under Texas' "Law of Parties" law, fairly, and he has had every opportunity have his case appealed and those appeals were overturned. I for one am tired of hearing "Texas is about murder an innocent man." Foster is not innocent. He drove the car, and was in the car less than 100 yards away from where the murder was committed and did nothing to intervene. He is most certainly a party to that murder, whether he was directly involved or not. If the purpose of the death penalty is to "send a message" and to discourage would-be criminals, then this should do it. We should respect the law, pray for his family and his eternal soul. You realize that there is absolutely no statistical correlation between presence of the death penalty and lower crime rates? Actually, most states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without. In other words, the argument that capital punishment is a deterrant has long been known to be flawed. Also, I second Lorax that the law is the greater problem, not necessarily the specifics of how this one case was carried out. You can say that he was convicted "fairly under the law," but at what point are we able to say that a law like this is fair? Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be challenged. The Jim Crow laws could be enforced - people could be convicted of having interracial relationships (under the anti-miscegenation laws) and sentenced to jail, but is that fair, or just?

You don't have to feel sorry that he is being punished, but the fact remains that he is being sentenced to death not having committed a murder. Obviously, if Foster was involved in the situation and crimes, he deserves serious jail time. But he is being punished - killed - for the actions of another, implying that he was somehow responsible for the murderous decisions of another adult. Look, I don't make it a secret that I'm against the death penalty. But it seems to me that if you support the use of capital punishment, you have to justify its use by advocating applying it in a reasonable, unilateral, and somewhat sparing way. It also seems like this is exactly the kind of thing that you'd want to cry foul over.

No Independents? There probably ARE some independents running but, for the life of me, I can't think of even one! Primary season is for party candidates - the independents won't start popping up for a while.

Edwards isn't that far behind. Some of the newer polls (out of Iowa I think?) show all three basically neck-in-neck.

I would say that this statement grossly oversimplifies the way race works and is perceived in this country. You're probably right but he IS only half black; he is just as much white......so why is he perceived as black? Well, anyway, I know that's an oversimplification. My point is that he will never be elected if he aligns himself with splinter groups. Anyone wanting to be President has to have a broad base and that, of course, would have to include the white, Christian right. And, before too long, the Hispanic block (mostly Christian and conservative) will be a major force in American politics as well. Frederick Douglass, by the measure of blood alone, was less than "half black," possibly only a quarter (his father was a white slaveowner, and his mother, like many other slaves, was probably of mixed parentage as well). My point is that in this country, we've tended toward the "one drop" rule - if you're at least partially black, you're considered black. Remember that race itself doesn't exist genetically - it's all social. There's more genetic variation within the "races" than between them. I know you might already be aware of this, but I think it's an interesting point, especially in the context of a mixed race presidential candidate. I'm reading his first book, Dreams from my Father, which is his personal meditation on race and coming to terms with his place in the world, and the idea of "blackness." It's really good. By the way, have you read The Economist's new issue focusing on the woes of the GOP? I ask because they point toward one of the major issues, which is that Hispanic voters (as well as young voters) are trending "overwhelmingly Democratic." I haven't read that but I have read that younger voters do tend to vote for Democrats. I did myself in the late eighties. I'm surprised by the Hispanic trend though; you'd think they would vote Republican; considering the Bush administration's 'open borders' agenda and the fact that they tend to be conservative in their views. As for the 'one drop' rule, why doesn't it apply to whites who have Native ancestry? I know people who have one Mexican grandparent and they are considered white. Hmmmm....this just doesn't make sense but then race shouldn't be the measure of a man. In the end, the Lord will judge our hearts not our complexions. I'm not that surprised about the Hispanic trend, honestly. As far as the "one drop" rule, remember that it's not just about all races - the relationship between "blackness" and "whiteness" in America has always been one fraught with complication, really more so than between any other racial groups.

I would say that this statement grossly oversimplifies the way race works and is perceived in this country. You're probably right but he IS only half black; he is just as much white......so why is he perceived as black? Well, anyway, I know that's an oversimplification. My point is that he will never be elected if he aligns himself with splinter groups. Anyone wanting to be President has to have a broad base and that, of course, would have to include the white, Christian right. And, before too long, the Hispanic block (mostly Christian and conservative) will be a major force in American politics as well. Frederick Douglass, by the measure of blood alone, was less than "half black," possibly only a quarter (his father was a white slaveowner, and his mother, like many other slaves, was probably of mixed parentage as well). My point is that in this country, we've tended toward the "one drop" rule - if you're at least partially black, you're considered black. Remember that race itself doesn't exist genetically - it's all social. There's more genetic variation within the "races" than between them. I know you might already be aware of this, but I think it's an interesting point, especially in the context of a mixed race presidential candidate. I'm reading his first book, Dreams from my Father, which is his personal meditation on race and coming to terms with his place in the world, and the idea of "blackness." It's really good. By the way, have you read The Economist's new issue focusing on the woes of the GOP? I ask because they point toward one of the major issues, which is that Hispanic voters (as well as young voters) are trending "overwhelmingly Democratic."

I would say that this statement grossly oversimplifies the way race works and is perceived in this country.

To me, the inference of the thread is this was a killing that shouldn't have, and wouldn't have happened had our borders been secure like they should be. It's an outrage, and if I were the parent of one of these people, I would be suing the government. This is one instance where he should have an extra felony charge for doing it while here illegally. He'd been in jail and got out before. That should never have happened. There was something about him having sex with young girls, too. It is a horrible crime that could have been committed by any unbalanced maniac... illegal, legal or whatever. So if you were the parent of one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims, who would you sue then? Exactly the point that I was going to make. This is an issue of a callous murder, not of immigration. Awful things are done all over the world and by people from all different kinds of backgrounds.

The labeling of everyone else as a 'liberal' who doesn't agree with one's very narrow view is offensive, to say the least. Taing pleasure in upsetting those that believe differently is unChristian and hateful. And Keilan, I agree with you up there. There are people in this thread that only want to be nasty...it makes me sad.

Oh, and by the way: No, responding to the substance of my responses with basically saying "you've just bought into the progressive liberal bunk" IS talking down to me. It's implying that I'm dumb enough to just swallow dogma without asking questions or doing my own research.

Axx: So we can run amok with the gift of Creation God has given us and it doesn't matter what we do, He will just clean up our messes for us? Bull. That removes us from having any responsibility. God didn't put man at the head of Creation for nothing. We're supposed to treat it well, and respect the awesomeness of that with which we've been entrusted.

lol You are giving them a lot of credit, considering a lot of the KOSkids haven't a clue what Wall Street is and a "stock" to them is how much booze mom and dad have in their basement... I don't know about that, there are a lot of DLC "New" Democrats on Wall Street these days. Look at Terry Mcauliffe, John Corzine, Jim Cramer, and the "Sage of Omaha" Warren Buffett who is by all accounts the greatest investor ever. Uh oh, I wouldn't go lumping DK in with the DLC . The general sentiment arount DK (where I am a member...if on the off-chance there is anyone else who is too, PM me!) is rather negative regarding the DLC. It's usually a pretty anti-Hillary crowd, and the MO is sort of the more progressive netroots wing of the Democratic party. The DLC, which I myself have mixed feelings about, is more moderate and have a different economic outlook than a lot of the more progressive.

Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. I have to think that your definition of the Left and how many of us define the Left are different.... Eek. I myself am trying to figure out how "the Left" is being defined here. I am (what one would call in the traditional linear plot of political ideals) a liberal. I am certainly not a "Marxist" and I don't believe that a command economy can ever really be functional and/or fair. And I assure you that I am not planning on killing anyone. Actually, the implication is just insulting. I do, however, believe in respecting the rights of all people and helping them out when they need it, in respecting the environment that God has given us, in protecting civil liberties, in treating war as an absolute last resort. My economic beliefs are something of a mixed bag (indeed, involving both praises and complaints about FDR's policies). I'm not sure what about any of that is so awful. We pray to the same God - isn't that what's most important, especially in the context of Worthy?

I can't remember....who called it "a pimple on the back of American journalism"?

Wow, the Sun really outdid itself spinning around Durbin's words. What Durbin said was hardly a concession that the surge itself was doing good things.

THIRD! I've been thinking about bringing this up for a while! Good call.

See now your ruining it, I already changed my mind on it after reading the post above about the Navy's point of view. I think the "pun" was intended forrest! I thought it was funny! I know, I certainly was not serious in my response. I know, neither was I.......................I was just feeling left out........... I had a TOTAL blonde moment in not getting the "pier" joke. Groan. And I was about to spout off about grammar...

I like this idea... although it has to be fairly priced used stuff. There is a videogame store near me where you can buy a game new for $50 and used for $46. Check Goodwill. Occasionally you can REALLY luck out there, even with videogames. Plus if you're the token kid with a record player, you can find all kinds of 45s and stuff for really cheap. My favorite: my friend finding an original "Layla" single for $2. Salvation Army too...plus what None said about secondhand and local consignment shops. It takes a lot of time to pick through the junk (though sometimes the best things are also the most awful), but it's worth it. My uncle just found a "new" stereo system for $30, and it works like a charm (slightly dented, but who looks at the side?).

That is a great point, the more we reuse, the less we consume. There's this alternately fascinating and dull book by Susan Strasser called Waste and Want: A Social History of Trash that one of my professors used as an entre into discussing consumerism (I recommend it, but you only need to read about every other chapter). Our "culture of disposability" (one-time use sanity products, for example) dates back in a lot of ways to marketing - it was made into a status symbol that one could afford to waste.