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.

Like most reasonable Americans, I usually watch The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. I was watching Jon Stewart talk about NY Congressman, Peter King, and the hearings that are being held to investigate the radicalization of Muslims in the US. Aside from the fact that these types of spectacles tend to cause the thing they claim to wish to prevent, Stewart looked into King's long time support of the Irish Republican Army, a group which has been on America's list of terrorist organizations for decades.

King's response? The IRA never carried out attacks on US soil, and his only loyalty is to the United States.

So, I guess that those civilians blown up in Harrod's in London in 1983 weren't killed by terrorism. They all died of blunt natural forces complicated by not being American.

But I don't really want to talk about Peter King. I want to look more at what how people like him can say one thing, and do pretty much the exact opposite without ever appearing to notice the contradiction.

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.

Like most of us, I've spent the past week looking at pictures from the Gulf Of Mexico, and the spread of the oil after an offshore rig blew up on April 20th. It's a disgusting thing, seeing oil floating in the Gulf, and made worse by the fact that BP isn't anywhere close to shutting off the flow, even after something like a million and a half gallons have been spilled.

I'm old enough to remember the Exxon Valdez spill, and how grotesque and widespread the damage was. I've seen footage of enough oil spills to know how damaging they can be. Interestingly, this is the first large one I recall since the advent of Facebook.

I've noticed a few people "sending prayers to the plants and animals in harm's way." 12 people are missing and presumed dead in the explosion that set off the spill, but I think I understand why no one has much sympathy for them or the bereaved left behind.

They were complicit, right? Their hands were, quite literally, dirty, no? Would you be so bold as to suggest that they got what they deserved? I hope not.

The "drill, baby, drill" crowd is, in a moment of reasonableness, largely keeping their simpleton mouths closed on this one. Truth be told, I'd prefer it if someone in a position of responsibility would make a sensible case that justifies this inevitable result of a backward-looking US energy policy, but I likely won't hold my breath.

The Gulf Coast is about to be inundated with toxic sludge, and should the tides fall badly, a lot of inland areas, lakes, streams, wetlands, will suffer catastrophic damage. It's even possible that this floating cesspool may drift into the Gulf Stream, and let a whole lot of the rest of the world share in our special brand of energy security.

Also this week, after nearly ten years, the people who want to build an enormous wind farm off the coast of Nantucket, finally received the go-ahead to do so. My feelings about the project are mixed, although not for the normal reasons.

On the pro side: Hey, wind power! Neato! The stuff is out there, let's harvest it.

On the con side: Wait, there aren't any places left on dry land to build these turbines? There are vast areas of North Dakota, Texas, and other areas in the Southwest to build these things. The cost of building a 440-foot high structure in the ocean is far more expensive than doing it on dirt. Let's grab the low-hanging fruit first.

What I don't care about is people on Nantucket bitching about their view being ruined. I've seen projections, and on a clear day, if you stare way the hell out to the horizon in just the right spot, you might be able to see these things from shore. They aren't going to be 50 feet out in the harbor.

And a special dishonorable mention to Ted Kennedy and his powerful family, who have been instrumental in holding up the process. I have a great deal of respect for the late senator, and the decades of great work he did for the country in his service. But for my money, on his list of shameful acts, this isn't up there with Chappaquiddick, but it makes the top 5.

Getting back to the energy question, I was reading a column by David Brooks this week, and one of his figures jumped out at me.


Technology companies spend 5 percent to 15 percent of revenue on research and development. Energy companies, on the other hand, spend only one-quarter of 1 percent. The federal government spends $30 billion on health research, but only $3 billion on clean energy research.

BP's first quarter profit rose to $6.1 billion in the first three months of this year, which I suppose is nice, because even if they spend a billion dollars trying to clean up their own mess, everyone is still going to walk away with nice fat dividends.

But getting back to Brooks' column, my question is, why doesn't the government use a gigantic stick & carrot to get us on to the next thing?

The oil companies, in an adorable attempt to appear green, have re-branded themselves as energy companies. Well, I should hope you are, we need a great deal of it. Maybe you ought to consider spending more than one dollar in every 400 on researching what the next viable method of providing energy will be.

So, how about this? For every dollar of revenue you put back in to research on solar, wind, tidal, more efficient methods of moving electricity over great distances, etc, you receive a 1-for-1 free pass on your profits. Let's say, for the hell of it, you make a profit of $6.1 billion dollars in a quarter.

Ridiculous, I know, but I'm in a silly mood.

If you want to have 20% of it absolutely untaxed, all you have to do is put $1.2 billion into research. Not only have you effectively lowered your overall tax burden, you've also kicked some money into a future, where you'll have to opportunity to continue making fat profits, only on cleaner, safer forms of energy that don't require the fouling of our coastlines, or funding of insane people who want us to pray like they do.

Besides, you're going to want to get that tax break, because the taxes on revenues from carbon energy sources are going to rise significantly. I'll set it up so that you can continue to make a ton of money, but only if you start realizing those profits from cleaner energy sources. It'll be in your interest to make it work, because otherwise, you'll be taxed out of business.

So liberals, don't take too much shameful joy in this shaming of the Palin philosophy and the energy companies. And conservatives, don't become too fearful that I am trying to steal your way of life and ability to make a good living in America. You can still charge me too much for your energy services, you're just going to need to stop fouling beaches and exploding rig workers while you do it.