Instapun*** Archive Listing

Archive Listing
October 30, 2010 - October 23, 2010

Thursday, October 28, 2010


John Titor. Time-traveling soldier from a post-apocalyptic future with a functioning internet. He was wrong about civil war breaking out in 2005, sure, but that computer thing he "guessed" right was pretty dope.

TO YESTERDAY! Observations and questions about the time-travel video from someone who doesn't need it to be true or false.

1. Where's the phone? I see the hand held up to the head, I see the "woman" (totally does look like a man) clearly talking, but I'm not seeing any supposed "thin black device." What I do see is a shadow exactly where a shadow ought to be given the sunlight. Now, it's possible that the phone is totally subsumed by his hand, but, as I'll elaborate in 2 and 3, that's not exactly a compelling argument.

2. Billy O is right: No cell towers in 1928. It could be that the man is using some kind of more advanced cell phone that doesn't need massive networks of towers like ours do. But then it seems counterintuitive (but it isn't necessarily impossible) that a phone so advanced would be something you'd have to hold up to your ear-- at a certain point in that technology's progressive miniaturization, it makes more sense to simply have it attach to the ear, rather than having to unfold it with your fingertips like that gag in "Zoolander."

That's all speculation on my part, granted. BUT, conceivably, practically (if common sense can be made to apply to a question like time-travel), what kind of cell phone could work in 1928 that you'd have to hold?

3 (2a). To me, it looks like his fingers flutter. So he's not using his fingers to hold this phone. So it does seem like he'd have to be palming a super tiny Zoolander phone.

There's other questions, and the footage doesn't give us enough grist for the answer mill. Who's doing the time-traveling? The military? You'd think a time-traveling soldier would be trained to avoid a giant 1928 camera set up in broad daylight across the street. So if not the military, who? A private citizen who wanted to see an obscure Chaplin flick on opening day? Not... as inconceivable, come to think of it.

But again, no visible phone. For my money, this is the convincing time-traveler caught on film:

Scruffy hipster, sixty years early. As the article explains, everything the guy's wearing is period appropriate... except they're wrong about the "embroidered sweater." That shirt underneath does not look embroidered, nor does it look sweateresque. It looks like screen-printed T-shirt replete with modern faux distress. And does the camera he's holding look anything like that "turn of the century Kodak Folding Camera"? I can't see it in detail (although, unlike Chuck Chaplin's Droid, I can see it), but it looks a lot like an higher-end Canon or Nykon to these eyes.

And who would choose to dress like this in 1940? In public? Here's what this is. This dude is what he looks like: a time-traveling hipster, who brought his hipster fashion sense into a 1940 Woolworths and got off, in his smug, ironic hipster way, on putting together an outfit that was technically period correct but still reflected his "individuality."

And he's in Canada. Which makes him, because why would anyone else travel to Canada's past, a Canadian. Which is, like, triple hipster. This is not the ambassador I want representing my era-- though he's probably the ambassador my era deserves.

One more thing. I appreciate DJMoore's clarification that he doesn't surrender his judgment part and parcel to scientific orthodoxy. But his definition of mainstream physics as "stuff that's passed repeated experimental verification" is suspiciously reductive. There is such a thing as theoretical physics, and it too has a mainstream. And his anecdotal evidence for the prudence of skeptical restraint-- face on Mars, Iapetus' dark side-- suggest his knoweldge of real scientific mysteries is limited. In honor of the great Zecharia Sitchin's recent passing, here's a quick anecdote of a time prudent skepticism came up snake eyes.

The Sumerians also counted planets from the perspective of the space-faring gods on Nibiru, from the outside in, calling earth the seventh, rather than the third rock from the sun. And, with a stunning flash of insight, they wrote that when viewed from “on high” in the heavens, Uranus and Neptune looked like “blue-green watery twins.” Most astronomers assumed anything past Saturn was likely to be a cold dead rock, so it came as quite a surprise to see photographs from Voyager 2 in 1986, and again in 1989, proving the Sumerians were right. Uranus and Neptune were made of blue-green slush.

How could the Sumerians know such things? How could they know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were even there, much less how they looked if viewed up close in space? We didn’t learn about the existence of those three planets until 1781, 1846, and 1930, respectively. How could the Sumerians know about any of it, much less all of it?


More Fuel for the Fire

"Is it enough?" More than enough, Mr. President.

MAD AS HELL. Election season is the best of times and the worst of times. You get oceans of the hackneyed stuff that seems like it could have been written months ago, but you also get some of the best thinking by some of the smartest people, as well as the occasional bit of behind the scenes news. So I'm going kind of InstaPundit today, only without the smarmy bottom-lining. You can do that for yourself. Read this stuff. Seems like a short list but it encompasses the current subversions of  free speech, the constitution, the judiciary, and the American way of life.

Victor Davis Hanson

Thomas Sowell.

Andrew McCarthy.

And Stanley Kurtz interviewed by the Pope.

Celebrate the coming victory, but not too much. Every one of us has to vote. And none of us can forget for even a moment how hard the job of rescuing our country is going to be. The liberal disease is deep and deadly. November 2 will be only the beginning of the necessary counter-offensive against our nation's enemies.

Report back with your own thoughts as you see fit.

P.S. And from the governor you want but can't have as president...

I like the thought. BE impatient.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Mysteries Large and Small:
1 Solved(?), 1 Solvable, and 1 Impossible

It's a mys-ter-ee...

STAY MAD, BUT.... The news today is completely nuts. Time to take a break and remember that life is inherently mysterious. You can go here, here, and here to see big-time mysteries, which are fun even though some of them -- e.g., Dahlia, Zodiac -- may actually have been solved (which is good news). Like this one:

Mystery of the Sphinx

The iconic symbol of the Pharaohs might actually out date them by a good few thousand years. What? How is this possible you say? Evidence related to the positioning of the Sphinx and the type of erosion on the tail versus the head (water erosion from rain versus wind erosion from a dessert climate) are strong indicators.

This one's gotten a lot of attention in recent years. The Egyptologists are really upset about the fact that anyone would question their dating based on something as dumb as geology. Because they know better than geology. The good news? The mystery may be solved. Not by Egyptologists or geologists. But by common sense that makes Egyptologists and geologists both look dumb. Kewl. Funny thing about experts. They're always so damn sure they miss the obvious things all the time.

Robert Temple reveals that the Sphinx was originally a monumental Anubis, the Egyptian jackal god, and that its face is that of a Middle Kingdom Pharaoh, Amenemhet II, which was a later re-carving. In addition, he provides photographic evidence of ancient sluice gate traces to demonstrate that, during the Old Kingdom, the Sphinx as Anubis sat surrounded by a moat filled with water--called Jackal Lake in the ancient Pyramid Texts--where religious ceremonies were held. He also provides evidence that the exact size and position of the Sphinx were geometrically determined in relation to the pyramids of Cheops and Chephren and that it was part of a pharaonic resurrection cult.

The Sphinx isn't a lion. It's a dog. (The pharaoh head was always too small. Obviously.) Why the Egyptologists can find no historical mention of it in hieroglyphics. The monument of the canine god of death Anubis, however, is mentioned repeatedly. Duh.

Next up is something that's apparently only a mystery to me, but it's a galling one. I thought I knew something about cursing. Here's a post by Rich Lowry today at the National Review Corner blog:

It Must Be Election Season!

October 27, 2010 11:59 A.M. By Rich Lowry 
From my fan mail this morning (no, it’s not from Al Franken’s e-mail account, in case you were wondering):

**** *** and your kind you misinforming, obfuscating, partisan, loudmouth *** ****** *******.  I just saw you on Faux Noise spreading your baseless, Obama-hating opinions across America like butter on toast.  This is nothing short of treasonous you ************* ********.  Talk straight or **** *** **** ** - otherwise, **** *** and die you confused *** ** ****.

 And there's this from the comments section:

It's what comes after "loudmouth" and "treasonous you" that intrigues me. The rest of them (****) are kind of obvious after a simple count.

uh, not to me. I'm getting maybe half of the asterisk text. Help me out, kids. It's embarrassing but my curiosity is stronger than my humiliation.

Our final mystery is the one represented by the YouTube video up top. Here's the story:

'Time Traveler' Spied in 1928 Chaplin Film

Has someone already gone back from the future?

This week, the makers of Back To The Future kicked off celebrations marking the 25th anniversary of the release of the original movie starring Michael J. Fox. In the same week, an Irish independent filmmaker has gone public with what he says is footage of a time traveller caught walking through a scene on a recent DVD release of Charlie Chaplin's 1928 film, The Circus.

"I believe I'm the first person to find something quite unusual from a bit of film footage from 1928," Clarke said. The scene can be found in the extras menu in Documents, under The Hollywood Premiere.

It's not in the movie -- it's real footage and it features real members of the public in 1928. Or does it, asked Clarke, who spotted a mysteriously dressed stranger walking past the camera talking into what he says can only be a mobile phone.

"The only conclusion I can come to -- which sounds absolutely ridiculous I'm sure, to some people -- is it's a time traveller," he said. "When you're looking at a bit of 1928 footage with an old woman ... on a mobile phone, it's kind of strange. You can't explain it."

I have to admit it gives me pause. What do you think?

We, the Unwashed

THE SCARF OFF YOUR CLOTHESLINE. We're going to take back the House of Representatives. That much is certain. Nothing else is. It will be a holding action for two years. Obama will be able to veto what offends him, and he will. He's no Clinton. He's a true believer, one who hates America and more importantly Americans. The media will remain on his side, because they also hate Americans.

So I'm thinking of this song. I know Tom Waits is probably another lefty wingnut, but it doesn't matter. He's a poet. Ordinary rules don't apply to poets. I'm thinking of this song for half a dozen reasons, only a few which I'll share with you.

First, my wife is a Jersey girl. She's not buying all the Obama crap. Sha la la la la la la la.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is the first man to stand up against the corrupt, overweening ambitions of big government at the state level. He's married to his own Jersey girl. Sha la la la la la la la.

And Tom Waits has always loved the people Katie Couric and Barack Obama deride as dirty clingers to such small things as religion and personal liberty.

We once recommended that Obama take the time to learn something about his country, our great country. He didn't bother. Life and love aren't things they teach you at the Harvard Law School. Sadly, the President of the United States is a dry stick convinced of his own superiority to all of us.

His last chance is coming up after next Tuesday. He can choose to learn about the people who have midnight breakfasts at diners and go back to work on the graveyard shift, or he can join Jimmy Carter in the ashbin of American presidential history. All it requires is seeing human beauty where all you saw before was units in a social engineering project. Sha la la la la la la la.

Sometimes you have to lose before you can win. Another lesson from Tom Waits:

If I have to explain, you'll never understand.

P.S. An afterthought. Why would anyone ever try to cover Tom Waits? It just exposes them as slick, glossy fakers.

Springsteen is a mega-millionaire mogul. Why he shills for the John Kerrys of the world. He has lost any right he ever had  to sing this song. And his version sucks.

And whatever convinced Rod Stewart that it was a good idea to cover this darkly lovely ballad?

Yeah. I bear a grudge. I saw Waits at the Philadelphia Academy of Music. Maybe the best concert I ever saw. He plays the piano like a slumming Chopin. He sings like he'll be dead by midnight.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The Unwashed Couric

Maybe this really is her best angle...

WE ACTUALLY TRIED TO HELP HER. A little gem from Mother Katie:

Rick Kaplan, her executive producer, says that “when she’s on the road—in Iraq with David Petraeus—she has a great way with people. People like her and she likes them. There are anchors who consider being on the road a pain in the butt. She really looks for opportunities to feel the earth and touch people.”

That’s why Couric has spent recent weeks in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and New Brunswick, New Jersey. She is touring what she calls “this great unwashed middle of the country” in an effort to divine the mood of the midterms.

Well, we'll try to wash up before she backs into our neighborhood...

P.S. Maybe, uh, no, well, forget it.

Sorry. Have to say it. Maybe a panty flash or two is superior to mooning the entire country. Just saying.

Hell Week

Something about our superiors...

PILING ON. Now comes the onslaught of final week political ads. Here in the Delaware Valley we're getting Joe Sestak trashing Pat Toomey between plays of every sporting event. Sestak is the one who cares about all us below-average Americans. Like all them admirals do. As the title proclaims, it's Hell Week.

I'm giving you two antidotes, both designed to keep you from tuning out entirely. We can't tune out. We have to remain focused and be sure to vote, no matter how nauseated we feel a week from today. Got it? So here's the deal. Read the op-eds listed below for your own edification and motivation. The bonus is, identify the link between the pic up top and one of the pieces below and why we should all care, and I'll honor you by name here, plus forward your name to Doc Zero, who's about to (trust me) get more important than he already is.

Yeah, it's a slim incentive. But you shouldn't need any more incentive, now should you? 

NR's The Home Page:

Dennis Prager tells why he thinks this election is the most important since the Civil War.

Thomas Sowell points out that what the Left calls “tax cuts for the rich” are really “tax cuts for the economy.”

Jay Nordlinger continues his Marrakech diary.

Victor Davis Hanson argues that Wikileaks’ selective revelations and carelessness indicate a harmful agenda.

Mona Charen evaluates what the Juan Williams firing says about NPR.

Andrew Stiles profiles Daniel Webster, the man poised to take down conservative bête noire Alan Grayson.

Julie Gunlock observes that Michelle Obama talks like a nanny-in-chief, but won’t follow her own rules.

Michael Knox Beran argues that today’s elites hold a discredited mandarin mentality.

Hotair's The Green Room.
Most of this stuff is red meat. While you're running away from the political ads, keep your anger white hot. Collectively, these pieces should do it. I should add I'll also be favorably disposed to posting smart comments about the op-eds above. Go for it. I have faith in your acumen. Maye we can talk, debate, and argue our way through Hell Week.

ADDENDA: Almost immediately a winner:

Guy T.

Aw man, you gave it away in the post! It's the Beran one with all the stuff about mandarins.

mandarin [ˈmændərɪn]

1. (Historical Terms) (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in the Chinese Empire) a member of any of the nine senior grades of the bureaucracy, entered by examinations.
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a high-ranking official whose powers are extensive and thought to be outside political control.

As for why we should care, first a quote from the article:

<<The sourness of the elites sheds light on their dark romance with an Old World mandarinism in which the citizen (in Tocqueville’s words) is “accustomed to find a functionary always at hand to interfere with all he undertakes,” and a central authority that “says to him: ‘You shall act just as I please, as much as I please, and in the direction which I please.’” Mandarinism assorts [sic] well with the elitist’s low opinion of others’ potential and his conviction that he himself is always the smartest one in the room. At the same time, the power the mandarin derives from his policies does something to make up for the burden of dissembling he bears in selling his program to people who are not intelligent enough to appreciate the virtues of a directing elite.>>

We should care because an American's proper response to a mandarin is not to kowtow to him, but to slap that smug little smirk off his face.

And another good comment:


Only piece I've had time to read was the one about the Comedy Central rally (the links at the bottom don't work, btw; had to go search for it at Hot Air). [Why I put in the macro link...] I've got two predictions about it:

First of all, I think there will be a high turnout.

Secondly, the turnout won't matter b/c the rally will end up as a net PR loss for the left right before the elections.

Beck's rally was successful because of who attended. There were a whole lot of nice, respectful people that turned out and nobody got into trouble. Also, the media attack on it backfired big time because a lot of people had friends or family members that went (like my dad). It was not a gathering of whack jobs.

The Stewart/Colbert rally could end up being disastrous for the same reason: who attends. This is not going to be a family-friendly event (not that it matters since most attendees will not have children, anyway). You're going to have college kids show up expecting a sort of live Daily Show-palooza. They will be there to get shitfaced drunk & party. Then you'll have all the moonbat groups like the Halley Mars Lieber-Groupon-Smith or whatever her name was that was mentioned in the Green Room post. She's the one from the Democrat Students of a PA University exchanging bus rides for community service hours or whatever. Yeah, wow, I'm sure she's the life of the party.

So you'll have drunk college fratboy party kids pissing & puking themselves while the Marxist, vegan, bulldyke ideologues are trying to organize them with bullhorns to get them to tote around some pre-printed "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" signs. That will be the backdrop to a slew of liberal celebs who will be cursing and mocking the Tea Party nonstop for an entire day. In other words, it will be like some sort of mini-France protest of spoiled children on display. That's going to inspire people to vote Democrat? Oh yeah, and most of the people attending the rally have absolutely no intention of bothering to vote next week, anyway.

I can't imagine how trashed the Mall is going to be in the aftermath, especially if that porta potty shortage happens.

Keep'em coming. I'll notify the Doc after he springs his surprise.

Stay mad. Everything depends on it.

Monday, October 25, 2010

All Juan, All the Time

Who's this? Pauline Kael. We'll explain.

THE PERILS OF PAULINEVIVIAN. Can't decide what order to do this in: the Setup or the Punchline. Because in this case, they're actually kind of interchangeable. In some sense, the Setup is the Punchline, and vice versa.

Oh well. I've always been a contrarian. Thus we begin with...

The Punchline.

This weekend at Fox News has really been "All Juan, All the Time," and it was a four-day weekend at that. Since his Wednesday firing, Juan has been a guest on the O'Reilly Factor and Fox & Friends, a guest host on Friday's O'Reilly Factor, a guest on Sunday' night's Huckabee, a panelist and topic on Fox News Sunday, and a subject of discussion on Hannity, Megyn Kelly, the WSJ Report, Media Watch, and, well, every other show on Fox News. Along the way, not even a casual watcher could have missed footage of NPR's Nina Totenberg wishing that Jesse Helms's grandchildren would contract AIDS, NPR talk host Terry Gross denouncing all Republican candidates in the mid-terms as "extremists," and NPR correspondent Cokie Roberts jumping ugly on sundry Republicans about various other aspects of their evil natures.

It was all very funny, but it's hard to categorize what it was exactly in its essence. A victory lap? A show of brute force? Or, perhaps more cynically and accurately, a welcome mat for all the suddenly irate NPR listeners who had never watched Fox News before but only heard about it from NPR and the other liberal sources who have also told them how awful Rush Limbaugh is. (Whom they also know only from other non-listeners' descriptions of him.) I'm inclined to think it was all three. All payoffs of the same joke.

Because the real punchline is this: What NPR did to Juan Williams guaranteed that people who had never watched Fox News before did so this weekend, if only to see for themselves, finally, what this Great Satan of the news biz was really all about. While shooting itself in the head over its paranoia about Fox, NPR boosted the ratings of -- TA DA --  Fox News. HA HA HA.

A subtler part of the same punchline may have been that while CNN failed to cover its own controversial firing of anchor Rick Sanchez, Fox News was unafraid to recognize that its own approach to news coverage and commentary could also be a legitimate news story. For example, they booked Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, who was willing to argue that NPR's blatant lefty bias was no reason for the federal goverment to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Which raises the question, What did NPR think it was doing when it fired Juan Williams? How could CEO Vivian Schiller not have foreseen the obvious but unintended consequences of her hasty action and her arrogant characterization of that action? Which leads us back to...

The Setup.

It's called the Kael Effect. Here's how Wiki describes the analogous event, which involved New Yorker movie reviewer Pauline Kael:

Kael is frequently quoted as having said, in the wake of Richard Nixon's landslide victory in the 1972 presidential election, that she "couldn't believe Nixon had won", since no one she knew had voted for him. The quote is sometimes cited by conservatives (such as Bernard Goldberg, in his book Bias), as an example of the alleged cluelessness and insularity of the liberal elite.

Nobody at NPR watches the Fox News Channel. Nobody they know watches the Fox News Channel. Therefore, the Fox News Channel does not actually exist as a potent media force, whatever the ratings might indicate. Somehow the reality of their dudgeon was more real than Fox News itself. ALSO therefore, a show of dominance by NPR would serve to put the hapless propagandists in their place. With one bold stroke, NPR figured it could get rid of a liberal Quisling and embarrass the sinister cabal from which he collected his 30 pieces of silver. Win-Win.

Uh, Lose-Lose. As it turns out, more people know Juan Williams from the Fox News Channel than know him from NPR. Including liberals. In fact, Fox News has as many liberal viewers as conservative viewers. Those liberal viewers no doubt regard Juan Williams as a hero who speaks truth to conservative powers like Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. So what kind of lefty would you have to be to (try to) lop his head off for debating conservatives in the only forum where conservatives and liberals actually do debate? Are they too ignorant to have heard of the Kael Effect? No. They're just too smart to take the lesson it offers.

Here's the kind of lefty you'd have to be to make Juan Williams the most famous black intellectual liberal in the country by attempting to humiliate and ostracize him (from the same Wiki entry that describes the Kael Effect and in the next breath tries to explain it away):

There are variations as to the exact wording, the speaker (it has variously been attributed to other liberal female writers, including Katharine Graham, Susan Sontag, and Joan Didion), and the timing (in addition to Nixon's victory, it has been claimed to have been uttered after Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984.)

There is, in fact, no record of Kael stating or writing this exact sentiment. The story most likely originated in a December 28, 1972 New York Times article on a lecture Kael gave at the Modern Language Association, in which the newspaper quoted her as saying, "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." [boldface mine]

The way they think. There's some difference between what Kael may have said and what conservatives like to remember. Therefore, the Kael Effect is simply an urban legend. Liberals are too smart to be taken in by urban legends. Which means they can be safely disregarded.

How it shakes out. Conservatives opine to NPR, "Your view of Fox News is like Pauline Kael's view of Richard Nixon. Just because no one you know pays any mind doesn't mean that that's the smart thing to do."  To which the logical secularist replies, "That's not what Pauline Kael actually said. You're an idiot."

Well, sometimes the facts aren't exactly the facts. Sometimes there's truth in legends that aren't, strictly speaking, true. And sometimes the truth speaks more eloquently from the facts that are true: "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."

I can feel them. A more damaging statement than anything in the urban legend. What was Juan Williams fired for? A feeling he has on planes. Why is NPR the newest laughingstock of the nation? A feeling they have about anyone who would dare to consort with conservatives. Sometimes being too smart is just plain damn dumb.

My guess is, they have "more than a feeling" right now about who conservatives are and how much power they possess.

Ignoring Nixon didn't actually help Pauline Kael. And ignoring Fox News hasn't helped NPR, either.

Further perils await. Perhaps they should get in touch with their psychiatrist. And they definitely need to fire their publicist.

Politically Correct Images (NSFW)

BEHIND THE MAGIC DOORWAY. I imagine this video won't be available for long. It has to do with abortion. If you feel you can watch (and don't assume...), watch it quick. Here's the story:

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reports:   An anti-abortion candidate running for D.C. delegate to the U.S. House is airing what is arguably one of this election cycle’s most provocative TV campaign ads, featuring extremely graphic images of aborted fetuses.

The 30-second ad for Missy Smith will air 24 times on local broadcast network affiliates across the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It is so explicit that it's preceded by a 15-second warning that was added by the stations’ administrators.

Over gruesome images of bloody and lifeless premature bodies, Smith says she had two abortions but has turned against the practice.

“I was told it’s not a baby. They lied to me. They exploited me. Then I learned the truth and I’ve suffered for years,” she says. “And believe me I am angry. My heart has been ripped out. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Norton – they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women by abortion. It’s time to make child killing illegal again.”

YouTube has pulled the video from its site, posting a notice that it amounted to “a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.”

Shocking and disgusting? Yes. And we're all much better able to decide this issue without ever seeing what the reality looks like? No. I concede it's easier to spout platitudes if you don't ever confront the reality. But I don't concede that an abstract, hypothetical question is more surely answered than a specific, fully documented question. Should cheating boyfriends be killed? Maybe. How about this cheating boyfriend?

I'll get in trouble for this, I know, but since we're being open and aboveboard about troubling images for once, I feel I have to put some real stakes on the table. Mrs. IP is opposed to the death penalty. I'm not. We've seen more than a few of the documentaries about real murders and murder trials. But I've noticed they never show the real crime scene photos. What people really do to each other. No gore makes it easier to be opposed to the death penalty. Mrs. IP can't even watch the autopsies on the CSIs.

I'm not saying gore would change her mind. She knows what she thinks and believes and why. But it would change my mind. I believe there are things people can do that deserve the death penalty. And in my simple Scottish mind, those things are not about closure, Old Testament "eye for an eye" cant, Christian compassion, or revenge. They're about justice. Kill willfully in some cause other than self defense and what? You've forfeited your own right to live. You're a failed soul the rest of us shouldn't have to fret about. You just need to be put down like a rabid dog.

I feel the same way about abortion. Sorry. That doctors could do this...?

Or hadn't you thought about the morality question with vivid pictures in front of you? They're crime scene photos. Nothing else.

It's not about choice. It's about murder. (As is 9/11, Which the MSM also doesn't want us to see anymore. Because it would upset us or distort our judgment or make us suspicious of muslims or something. Something they know better about. Like abortion.)

I know "no one cares about the social issues this time." Except that a lot of us still do. At least 30 million babies have died this way since Roe v. Wade.

I'm for the death penalty. For murderers. And, no, in my heart of hearts. I see no contradiction in terms.

Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to Learn More