It's been eight years since I wrote about the death penalty, and my opinion overall really hasn't changed for the most part. The salient points:

• It doesn't really serve as a deterrent, because no one seems that concerned about it.
• There's good evidence that innocent people were executed, either because of new DNA evidence or malfeasance by police and/or prosecutors.
• Even if you can get someone sentenced to death, it's at least 15 years before anyone ever gets around to it. It's really terribly costly, all told.

So, those are my reasons for being being opposed to it, and fine reasons they are, but even so, I don't really object to the principle of the thing.  My feeling is not that capital punishment isn't so much wrong or cruel as it is simply misapplied.

I believe that if you have incontrovertible evidence of a crime, video, DNA, more than ten eyewitnesses, I mean really ironclad stuff, then go ahead and kill the guy.  If shaky eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence comes into play, then the death penalty is off the table.

To the point of its misapplication, the evidentiary threshold shouldn't only be applied to capital murder cases.  It should apply to particularly brutal assaults, major financial crimes, rape, and especially child rape.  

What I know of pedophiles is that it seems as though many would, if a therapy was available or a switch could be thrown to stop the urges, would gladly do it.  Most pedophiles don't want to be pedophiles.  (This isn't to excuse any of the behavior.)  My point is that these guys are wired a certain way, and no amount of therapy or threat of prison is going to stop them from doing what they do.  If the proof meets the high bar, then execute him.  Give him the mandatory appeal, but if he's ruled against, he has 48 hours to get his affairs in order.

If you want to know how high a bar I'm setting for proof, I'll put it this way: Without knowing nearly all the details of the case, and based solely on what I've read, Jerry Sandusky wouldn't qualify for execution.  As far as I know, there isn't any proof other than one eyewitness and that of the victims.  There's no visual or auditory proof, and no DNA that I'm aware of.  If I'm wrong about the scarcity of more ironclad evidence, then I gladly nominate that scumbag for the end of a rope.

The same applies for the other types of crimes I mentioned, and probably a bunch more.  A guy who beats the hell out of his wife and kids was probably beaten as a child by his parents, and his own kids are going to end up beating their own children.  Just end it.  Break the chain, and let's put the defective genes to bed.

There are certain people who cannot be rehabilitated or fixed. Given that even rapists who were "chemically castrated" still found ways to commit sexual crimes, there's just no point to keeping these people around if they've been proven guilty to the degree I've described.

I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm a rationalist. My views and opinions are based solely on what makes sense.  You can argue with me about this if you want, just so you know, you're wrong.

It's the Monday following the terrorist attack on a constituent meeting being held in Tucson, Arizona last Saturday, and I've had 48 hours to let things sink in.

I'm sorry, does the word "terrorist" bother you in relation to this incident? Would it make it easier for you if Jared Loughner's first name was instead Jamil? Feel better now? Super. Moving on.

There's a lot of agita spewing as we once again try to pin a political philosophy on a mass murderer, hoping that somehow the Kool-aid the killer drank isn't the same flavor as our own. Now, while some people might assume that he must be one of these gun-toting, anti-immigrant liberals that we hear about so often, reports have surfaced that in addition to Mein Kampf (another liberal must-read), he had a copy of the Communist Manifesto. It might be argued that the only thing we may discern from his reading list is a lousy taste in literature.

It's not nearly as important to understand Loughner's political philosophy (if any), or if it led him to do what he did in Tucson. Ultimately, we're going to learn that he was severely mentally ill, and was going to come to a bad end.

What we need to discuss, and learn from, is what are the philosophies and actions that made this incident, if not possible, certainly more viable?

Loughner purchased his Glock pistol legally under Arizona and federal law. Although considered mentally unstable by many who know him, and with a record of disturbances at Pima Community College, he was able to walk in, pay for and leave with, with no background check, not only a firearm, but also the extended magazine, so he could fire 32 times without reloading, instead of a nearly worthless 10 rounds.

Whose policies made this possible? Who is against background checks? Who has bent over for the gun lobby? Who was paid to fight for the right of Americans to own assault pistols and rifles, you know, for rabbit hunting?

Jared Loughner is obviously mentally unstable. I don't know if he was still on his parents insurance, his own, or uninsured. Did he have access to mental health counseling? If he did, was it an incredibly Byzantine process in order to get it started, as it is with most insurance carriers? Whose policies have made access to mental health providers so difficult, and in most cases, very expensive?

There's already a ridiculous amount of spin coming from both sides, as conservatives and liberals try to distance themselves from Loughner, and whatever it is he believes in. The right is taking it very hard that people are jumping to conclusions that just because he believed in a return to the gold standard, was anti-immigrant (if mostly for grammatical reasons), and a couple of other Glenn Beck chestnuts, the left is dealing with the fact that Loughner was an atheist who was irritated about the military distributing bibles to service members.

Loughner liked his beliefs smorgasbord-style. It may be his only redeeming quality.

It could be a coincidence that he decided to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman (and a Jewish one for good measure), or it could just be that she was the most convenient one available. Maybe if he lived in West Chester, Ohio, he might have blown John Boehner's brains out, or Nancy Pelosi's if he lived in San Francisco. I can't say, all I have are the facts available.

Jared Loughner's beliefs are irrelevant. The question that needs to be answered is, who is responsible for the policies that allowed an obviously mentally ill person to go untreated, and have instant access to a weapon of mass destruction?

Since no one is going to address that question, I'll leave you with another:

Who will be the victims of the next Jared Loughner, and when?

Concerned, as a matter of fact, that we, as a country, may be fucked.

The economy is still very rough for a lot of people, we're mired in a couple of very costly wars, oil rigs are tipping over and exploding, and I can't think of a snappy way to end this sentence.

In the past, when I felt a little down about the state of things, I'd take a step back from it all, remind myself that this country has been in rougher spots, and we always managed to tighten the belts, pull together, and do what was necessary to stop the ship of state from sinking. We'd emerge stronger, wiser, and the next generation would be on its way to doing better than the current one.

Not this time. I can't see it happening. Why? There are a lot of reasons.

First of all, I think we have a fascism problem that needs to be addressed. Some of you are probably smirking in a knowing fashion. "A-ha! He sees Obama for what he really is!"

Sort of. You're right, but for the wrong reason.

Fascism is not when men in garish uniforms stand at podiums demanding racial purity or national superiority. Fascism is much more an economic theory than a political one. Essentially, when the government and corporations collude to determine national policy, that's Fascism. Corporatism would do equally well as a description.

So, when you cry that Obama is a Fascist, it's because you think he's coming after your guns and Christianity. He isn't. If the president has Fascist leanings and policies, and he does, you should at least be somehow content that it's only because he is allowing corporations to write law and policy at the federal level, whether they are good for the citizens of the United States or not.

So, stop calling Obama a Fascist, unless you're actually concerned about the creeping corporatocracy that is ruining the country.

But ignorance of the meaning of the word brings me to another equally large problem that makes me think we're going to have a tough go bouncing back this time: We are getting dumber by the year.

We may live in the information age, but most people only want the information that jibes with what they already believe. The world is only 6000 years old? Of course it is, hundreds of websites and my pastor say so! You can cut taxes and reduce deficits? I've found an entire cable news channel and one-and-a-half major political parties in the US who insist it's so! Evolution is a myth? Damn straight, otherwise monkeys would have human babies, right?

Check and mate.

I can almost live with the willful ignorance. I mean, people are taught a lot of really dumb things as children, and bad wiring is tough to rip out once that house is built. If you were taught that the Bible is a literal record, there's always the possibility that you may, upon reaching maturity, understand that they are loosely historically-based fables. Many have good morals, some have really bad ones, and you can still manage to believe in your deity without worrying too much about whether to eat shellfish, or selling your daughter into slavery.

We're past willful. We've moved on to prideful ignorance.

These are the people who will stick their fingers in their ears, screaming how climate change is a myth, even as reams of data rolls in about the continuing streak of hottest years on record. You show them fossils, they trot out Genesis and stories of how dinosaur bones were put in the ground by Satan to fool us. What great things can you hope to accomplish with dependence on people like this?

So, we're ignorant, and dumber. What else? Lazy.

Now, I don't think it's so much a lack of work ethic. People in this country work hard, many because they take real pride in doing good work and earning their pay, although more do it because they're afraid if they don't crush it every second, they'll find their asses fired.

Our problem is that a lot of us want to believe that there is a magic bullet to solve our problems. Crumbling infrastructure? Someone will fix that, the free market, most likely. We're fat, so instead of eating better and exercising, we wait around for science to invent a pill that will allow us to do whatever we want and stay thin, and erect for more than 15 minutes, but less than four hours.

I don't believe we have the will to pull together and achieve anything important anymore. Could this country, as it exists today, build the Interstate Highway System, electrify Appalachia, the South and West, or send a man to the moon? How could we hope to manage them, when everyone is so insistent that things be done the way they want, common good be damned?

Which brings us to intolerance.

We've actually spent a good hunk of the summer arguing about whether or not American citizens with spotless criminal records should have the right to build a community center on a city zoning-approved site they own, two blocks from where some radical religious assholes knocked down buildings nine years ago.

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The First Amendment is very clear about this. The government doesn't get to decide how or where you pray. A local government can pass restrictions about types of construction allowed, and usage of areas of land, but if you pass muster on the zoning, you get to have your prayer shack.

Why isn't anyone getting in the ass of the greedy capitalist that sold "sacred ground" (near the strip club), to these awful weirdos, who, let me remind you, had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on American soil, or anyplace else?

"Well, turning a profit on real estate is as American as apple pie."

And so it is. A corporation made money on the sale, investors were enriched, and the wheel keeps turning, greased in the same manner we all understand.

Greased, not with the tens of millions of gallons of oil that flowed into the Gulf, while government stood by impotently, as BP was allowed to control beach access and the airspace over the disaster, because they've got more flex than any government agency. The feds couldn't stop it, and it turned out that the almighty corporation didn't have a plan for such a contingency, either.

No plan for trouble was needed. The government trusted the corporation to do the right thing. And BP will deliver on that promise, larger profits when all of this blows over.

Which will be sooner rather than later.

This country lacks the will to achieve anything much greater than finding a more comfortable way to watch television. It will be built in China, and it will be paid for with a credit card.

At 10:56 PM this evening, EDT, it will have been forty years since man first walked on the moon.

John Kennedy gave this speech at Rice University in September of 1962, and pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade.



Less than seven years later, the United States achieved what many thought was impossible. We were motivated to do so.



Sometimes, I think about what great things that this country has achieved since then, and I'm sort of stuck. There have been some nice technological achievements, but I can't think of one thing that captures the imagination like the moon landing.

Right now, Congress is discussing how to provided health care for every citizen, just like they do in other less prosperous countries. It will not be easy.

Do we still possess the capacity to do something as big as this? Even if the taxes of some or all might need to be raised?

Do we still have the will to achieve anything truly great anymore?

The point is, there was no way that the people of the United States were going to get health care, because it was more important for these bought-and-paid-for stooges to protect their corporate masters' short-term profits, than to save a few thousand meaningless American lives. Hell, these people wouldn't even pony up to protect the health of children. But that was then.

Now, we have Barack Obama as president, who is, according to the best and brightest in Conservative thought, a Socialist. And as I recall, an Arab.


The main thing is, he wants health care for all Americans, as do 72% of us here in the US. But here in 2009, Obama has a Democratic majority in Congress who can get it done. Hell, as of this week, with the addition of Al Franken, it's an unfilibusterable (just made that up) super majority. Yay! We're getting a public option for health care NOTSOFAST.

I find it interesting that when anything important needs to be voted on, the Republican party can pull the leash on its members, and get them to vote in unison for whatever they're told to do. I don't like party-line politics as a rule. Truthfully, I have no use for political parties, and would never join one. But hey! If the GOP can get their ducks in a row, then there's no reason that the Dems can't do it to pass something important like health care, especially since, and I can't put too fine a point on this, 72% of the people in this country want a government option. Will we get it? Doubtful.

The problem is that the Democrats in the Senate have a preponderance of members suffering from chronic cases of being too old and too self-important. I'd also like to add "useless." Max Baucus, for example, Democrat of Montana, has said on many occasions that a public option is "off the table." Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has echoed these sentiments, as has Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. I'm sure their boss, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada will pull rank and get these guys in line, right? Because, as you may have heard, 72% of Americans want a government health care option.

Well, Reid has flip-flopped all over the place on this issue, as well as most others of importance, and cannot be counted on to get this done. What can we do? Hmm, wait a minute...

Montana. Nebraska. North Dakota. Louisiana. Nevada.

These are mostly large, windy, empty places, represented by people who resemble that description. What else do they have in common? There are sure a lot of white people in those places who think of themselves as rugged individualist Libertarian types. These states are, historically, red ones, and vote Republican. Louisiana too, now that New Orleans has been rid of so many black voters, thanks to Bush's indifference before, during and after Katrina.

You want to pass real health care reform with the necessary public option, President Obama? Easy as pie, just do this:

Call each of these senators, and any other Democrats who are being weaselly about this, into your office. Ask them if you can count on their vote for your health care plan, and please do not fail to mention that 72% of Americans want this, with a majority even willing to pay higher taxes to get it.

If they are unable to pledge their support on this, make a vow to them. Promise to support a Democrat against him or her who will help you in next senatorial primary in their state. Even if they prevail, it will cost them millions of dollars, and leave them in a weakened position when the general election comes up the following November. Remind them that they are in states that have found it very easy to elect Republicans to office. If any of them are actually stupid enough to ask why you would be willing to cede Democratically-held seats to Republicans, explain the obvious:

"We can still lose without you."

Explain that the American people want to have guaranteed access to health care, and that the fact that we are the only major industrialized country without it is a miserable embarrassment at every level. Make them understand that this is not simply a smart move economically in the long term, but the right thing to do morally.

But mostly, make them understand that if you are unable to pass this legislation, it makes no difference to you whether it fails 59-41, 55-45, or 52-48. You can lose it with or without them, they are not special, and if they are unable to see how vitally important this is to the future of the United States, they are not even necessary.