Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types V
People with giant hearts like to oppose the death penalty, because they don’t like to condemn people. Sometimes their giant hearts come with teeny minds, which lack the cognitive power to figure out that gosh, maybe their opposition to the death penalty condemns the rest of us to live with people who just can’t be lived with.
I don’t mean by that “you can’t live around them because you can’t stand them.” What I mean by that, is “can’t be lived with” in the literal sense. If you are around them, you might not live. They will kill you.
Case in point, the sixteen-year-old boy in Old Bailey, UK, who two years ago wrote in his diary “Operation new life. Kill family. Lose memory. Get adopted by a rich couple. It all starts.” He then carried out a good-sized portion of Step One, clubbing his brother over the head with an axe and setting a fire which asphyxiated his sister.
He also named his parents, brother and two sisters on a List of Deaths.
He set fire to the house and attacked his sleeping brother with an axe, later telling police a gunman had forced him to do it.
Seven psychiatrists could not agree after examining the boy – his parents had not noticed anything strange about him.
But prosecution psychiatrist Dr Paul Chesterman said the boy was showing psychopathic traits, although a full assessment could not be made until he was 18.
:
Old Bailey judge Richard Horne told the boy: “You have shown no shred of evidence of remorse, nor the honesty to admit your guilt.“In my judgment, this was pre-meditated to a high degree. Your plan was to kill four people. You intended to go from room to room and use the axe.”
Mmmm hmmm…and so what is to be done about this in that cradle of “civilisation,” Great Britain, wherein the death penalty is prohibited? Go back up to the top…
A 16-year-old boy has been jailed for life, with a minimum tariff of 15 years, for murdering his younger sister as part of a bid to kill his family.
Hey that’s some great reassurance to the rest of the population at large. The boy is supposed to spend “life” in prison, with a we-really-mean-it guarantee of a decade and a half!
Bless the anti-capital-punishment brigade for their big hearts and their good intentions. The plain truth of it is, though, that some people lack the scruples needed to live in the same society as everybody else, and always will, just like a stripped gear lacks teeth. No government can provide even the slightest reassurance to everybody else, of the sanctity of their lives, without offing the dude.
Some things that are true, sound nutty, all the moreso because they are true. This is one of them.
By the way, why is it that all around the world, the countries that prohibit their governments from executing murderers, impose little-to-no other prohibitions on said governments? If it’s all about human rights, how come wherever I have the human right to not be executed even if I burn someone to death so a rich couple might adopt me — I am all but assured not to have the right to say whatever I want, or to own a gun? One would expect it to work the exact opposite way, if opposition to the death penalty is about human rights. Country A, unrestricted gun ownership, free speech, no death penalty, Country B, death penalty, no gun ownership, no free speech. But it’s the exact opposite. Wherever the private effluence that comes dribbling out of your mouth, instantly becomes everybody else’s business, that’s where the death penalty is off the table.
Makes no sense, none at all, if a moratorium on the death penalty is about human rights. See, I don’t think it is. I think prohibitions against the death penalty are all about trivializing human life — like, it just isn’t worth defending. It’s a bad thing if your brother burns you up in a house so he can get adopted by rich people, and we hope it doesn’t happen, but if it does, aw gee sorry about that. Shucks. Well, fifteen years for him.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.