An Eye for an Eye

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the death penalty cannot be applied to cases of the rape of a child. This has produced an outcry of opposition from among others, Barack Obama. I think Obama has missed the mark on this one. You see, there is that pesky LINE as in where do we draw the LINE?

Admittedly, I oppose the death penalty altogether. Its deterrent value is questionable and it licenses the state to commit the very act that it is punishing. Of course, that is the death penalty as it applies to murder convictions. While I disagree with it, at least in the application of punishing the crime of deliberate premeditated murder, we have some objective yardstick. In the case of child rape, I see an incredibly slippery slope.

If we apply the death penalty to child rape, what do we tell:
The man whose 80 year old grandmother has been raped?
The engaged woman who was saving her virginity (yes, old fashioned but it still happens) for her future husband and has been raped?
The young woman who is now pregnant with the child of her rapist?
The man who has been raped?

Do we tell all these people that their trauma is somehow less than that of a child?  You answer, “childhood is precious and special. There must be different standards applied there.”

So do we now apply the death penalty to:
Those who physically abuse children (which would put a lot of parents on death row)?
Creators and consumers of child pornography?
Employers who violate child labor laws?

Where do we draw the line? Our national obsession with the welfare of children is somewhat hypocritical in light of our professed disdain of but secret titillation with the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Miley Cyrus.

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision. If we must have the death penalty, it must be reserved for the most narrowly defined set of crimes. Otherwise, in the name of so called decency, we are on the slippery slope to a terrorist state.

Rutherford Political Blogger Alliance


McCain Goes for the “Youth” Vote

I would not have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes. Last Friday evening, in The McCain Update, an e-mail newsletter sent out to supporters, McCain provided a link sure to interest those young video game enthusiasts who, left to their own devices, might vote for Obama.

Right there on John’s campaign web site was Pork Invaders. I kid you not. Pork Invaders, in which you use your keyboard to move your “veto” gun back and forth and fire at a brigade of little pigs (no, I’m not making this up). If you manage to move from one level to the next, you are rewarded a snippet of anti-Obama propaganda concerning how much “pork” Obama has pushed through Senate legislation.

John’s game of course is patterned after Space Invaders. Space Invaders, folks, was invented in 1978. Wow, sure shows just how “hip” John is. Now I’m just waiting for John to show his youth appeal by writing campaign ditties to be sung to the melodies of Elvis Presley’s greatest hits. Does it get any cooler than this?

To those who feel they just don’t get enough excitement from my blog, I provide for you below a link to Pork Invaders. Fire away!

Rutherford Political Blogger Alliance

The Campaign Finance Flip Flop

There is only one thing that bothers me about the recent Obama flip flop on campaign finance. He started his statement to his supporters by saying that he would be foregoing more than $80 million in funding by opting out of public financing. Why on Earth did he say that and why did his handlers let him say that? The $80 mil he is “foregoing” is a drop in the bucket compared to what he has and what he will continue to raise. Why he felt he needed to frame this in the context of sacrifice is beyond me.

That said, the idea that this flip flop makes him a typical pol is ridiculous. A typical pol, works within the current system and plays it for all it’s worth. McCain will stick with public financing and let the 527’s do the dirty work for him in the traditional fashion. Rather than being a typical pol, Obama is going outside the established system and is really running a campaign “of the people”.  As other pundits have noted, Obama’s approach makes him beholden to no one. He has millions of small contributors, none of whom alone can unduly influence his policies. For that matter, his flip flop is not of the gargantuan proportions that McCain supporters would have you believe. Almost from the minute that Obama signed the “pledge” he started hedging, indicating that he would only accept public financing if he was assured that the playing field with McCain would be fair. He has obviously figured out that a fair fight this year means he needs all the money he can get. It’s a very sensible decision.

I guess the other thing that puzzles me is if public campaign funding is provided by tax payer dollars, why wouldn’t conservatives be overjoyed that their tax money is not going towards Obama’s campaign?

Rutherford Political Blogger Alliance