And that's that!

I'm going to expand on this a bit later on, as well as counter some of the clunclusions one might draw from it regarding the kinds of candidates the Democrats should be nominating, but, in the meantime, please enjoy this very succint, well-written piece explaning Why the Republicans will never win another National Election.

Found on my Tumblr...

Yes, I have a Tumblr. (https://www.tumblr.com/blog/niceguyeddiecabot)

FWIW, I also am on Twitter (@niceguyeddiecab) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/eddie.cabot.96)

I am still most active HERE, but if you want to hook up on any of those platforms, there you go. I'm a lot more active on Facebook now that I've been banned from Media Matters (more on that later, if you're interested.) But THIS is still my primary blog.

ANYWAY, something amusing from Tumblr:

sarahseemssilly:

theycallmethemoose:

everkings:

gildatheplant:

pragtastic:

fifty-shades-of-gandalf-the-grey:

leomoriat:

poesdaughter:

Or, y’know, that thing called “Passover.”

Or the whole thing with Noah’s Ark where he killed off everything in the world except Noah and his family, and two of every animal. Y’know, no big deal. Just millions of people.

90% of the Old Testament is about God killing people in temper tantrums

Are we not going to mention Jesus?

Nailed it.

*wheeze* 

Oh my god.

Nailed it.

Will reblog this every time until the rapture!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Last comment mine.)

I'm not suggesting that this is how I view abortion, but I always find it hilarious whenever someone invokes God in an argument and clearly has *NO FUCKING IDEA* what they're talking about.

*a-hem* Not that anyone HERE ever does that. *cough* *cough*

And of course there's the Jesus joke, which is in HIGHLY poor taste and yet really fucking funny despite. (Sorry - I can't account for my tastes, poor as they are! I was born with them after all!) ;)

More wisdom, from one of America's greatest truth-tellers!

America's best Christian talks abortion...

William, you're, um... "talents" are truly wasted here. Clearly I am no match for you with my heathen beliefs and practices and utter inability to cherry-pick the same passages that you seem to think are the important ones.  So I'll leave it to Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, to talk about abortion, and you can take up you're, um.... "sincerely held religious beliefs" with her.

How Pro-Lifers are killing women

Hey, William.... Remember when you said that there weren't any women having their health harmed by the Right's constant attacks on Abortion Rights?

Well, FUCK YOU.

--------------------------------------------------

“Today’s mothers are twice as likely to die of pregnancy- or childbirth-related causes than their mothers were. There is no reason, given our vast resources, knowledge and technology, why we should be going backwards in this area.” – Laura Gilkey, coordinator of The Safe Motherhood Quilt Project, a nonprofit based in Sarasota, Fla. 

Globally, only a few countries have seen a rise in the rate of maternal deaths in recent years. Those include Afghanistan, El Salvador, South Sudan and the United States of America.
--------------------------------------------------

Well done, Republicans, I hope you're happy. First you destroyed the traditional family unit, and now you're actually killing women.

How much longer do we have to suffer these psychopaths, America? How long before more of you start to realize what I've been saying all along: Right-Wing Conservative Republicans only come in two flavors : EVIL and STUPID. One's lying and the other's buying.

How much more damage must we let them do? How many more lives will we let them destroy?

One of those WTF moments...

For fun, among other things, I replay historic baseball seasons on Action PC, by Dave Koch Sports.

Any and all politics aside, I HIGHLY recommend and endorse their baseball sim game, and have heard great things about their other sport sims as well. If you're into sports history and historical sims CHECK THESE GUYS OUT.  Dave himself handles most (all?) of the customer support personally and is a great guy, who's willing to cut some pretty good deals.

I'm currently replaying the 1952 Season, running the Boston Red Sox (who are now out of it) in the American League and the Brooklyn Dodgers (who I won the Series with in '51) in the National League.

And I'm playing a late season game against New York, and for the first time all season, I just noticed the names of my #2 and #3 starting pitchers:

Click to enlarge:

I guess William will be rooting for the Giants.

WILLIAM WAS RIGHT! (And thank you for proving my point!)

Here's the cart I refer to in the video::

My information on morbidity by year comes from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

...while my population estimates come from:
http://www.census.gov/popclock/
http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

And my abortion info is taken from:

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042

How Pro-Life groups are destroying the "Traditional Family"

So, it turns out that the single biggest indicator of the rate of unwed mothers in a given community is not poverty, or welfare, or declining morals, or allowing gay marriage, and certainly no being LIBERAL.  In fact it's quite the opposite: Being Pro-Life has the strongest positive correlation to un-Wed mothers, and the decline of the "traditional family."

Suck on that one, Right Wing hypocrites!

EDIT: Had to tack another one.  Abortion IS good, actually, and necessary to the very idea of women's equality.

The War on Women

A few posts back, Anonymous (dude, seriously, please: Pick a fucking name if you're going to be a regular commenter. If anyone else decides to post anonymously, it's going to confuse the hell out of everyone) told me that there was no Rebublican War on Women. That it was as fictitious as the Liberals' War on Christmas.  Well, I suppose he's half right.

Considering that the Violence Against Women act passed despite Republican inaction and opposition, the fact that the Republican Platform now wants to outlaw abortion WITHOUT a rape exception, that fact that, on top of that, they fight mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives which, as Sandra Fluke so eloquently pointed out last year, puts women's health at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay for their MEDICAL use (such as the treatment of endometriosis) on the ground that they don't cover CONTRACEPTIVES, the fact that the defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of Cancer Screenings, Pre-Natal Care, and Family Planning services for poor women, the fact that they opposed equal pay for Women, the Lilly Ledbetter act and equal employment opportunities...

The only reason that any women should vote Republican would be that she's a religious nut-bag or terminally misinformed. (Or just plain fucking stupid.) If you have any doubts of this, here's a brilliant piece for the defacto mouthpiece of the Right Wing in America:



WOW, right?

Also curious is this...



Yeah, there's no War on Women here!

As offensive as it is that he mocks domestic violence, date rape, and every other form of violence that countless women face every day in this country, and the bill that provides training to law enforcement to properly fight against it, the hypocrisy of this partiuclar stand makes it more disgusting by an order of magnitude:

Estimates of the number of women that are the victims of violence every year range form 600,000 to 6 Million (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/physicalabusestatistics.htm) and yet, this act - which does nothing more that TRAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT, and has been effective in reducing the rate of occurrence of this crime since its passage in 1994 - is treated like a joke.

And yet, this is the same Party that is perfectly happy disenfranchising millions of people, and going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to exercise the FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to VOTE, due to their fears of "voter fraud."  A crime in which actual cases (of in-person voter fraud) numbered in the SINGLE DIGITS in the past few elections.

You know what? Fuck these people! Seriously.



----------FORTY-X-FORTY-UPDATE---------
Date: 3/9/13 (Day 14)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1
Morning Weight: 207.7 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 194
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 403 cal; Rope, 10 min, 253 cal; Bike, 35 min, 271 cal; Eliptical, 13 min, 142 cal. Light/Short weights. TOTAL: 1069 Calories.

What clever sounds like to a stupid person

See... Don't try to be clever.  Stick to what you're good at.  And appearing clever isn't it.  Unfortunately Conservatives are fairly easy to impress, as long as what they're been fed comes from a Conservative.

"Keep your Government hands off my medicare, indeed."

I've lost track of the number of times my parents, or one of my Conservative friends, have sent me one of the Right-Wing, anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi, or anti-Democrat emails that Snopes has already debunked. (Usually YEARS ago.) If you think what you're saying (or reading) is too good to be true, and no Liberal could ever possibly have an answer for it?

Keep quiet, and do some research first.

You missed something really obvious. You're wrong. And it will take someone like me about five seconds to figure that out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2/27/13
Morning Weight: 208.8
Pounds Down: 6
Pounds to Go: 34
Days remaining: 204
Gym: Not tonight. (DW has Akido/Iado.)

More on Akin / Moron Akin

...And the shitstain is still running.

What a vile pool of subhuman scum!

First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.


Todd Akin, -R (MO)

Republicans are scum.

Oh, not surprisingly every Right-Wing Politician in the country right now is scrambling to distance themselves from these remarks?  But WHY?!  OK, I know WHY, but doing so is a dishonest attempt to try and hide the fact that this kind of ignorance is fundamental to their Anti-Choice political platform!

What's more, this is just the latest in a long line of vile, venomous lies told about women, gays, transfolk, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, atheists, liberals, the poor, unions, teachers, scientists, etc... They are lying, ignorant scum and these comments are far from out of the norm.


And besides... Why back off of these comments, but not ones suggesting that...:
1) Gays are pedophiles?
2) Transgendrism is merely a sexual fetish?
3) Poor people without health care deserve their poverty
4) That there mustn't be any real poverty in this country, since we have poor people who are fat?
5) Autistic children are just faking it?
6) In a disaster Black "loot" while Whites "scavenge?"
7) Earthquake and Flood victims are being punished by God?
8) AIDS is punishment for being Gay?
9) Islam is not a Religion, and that it shouldn't be protected under the First Ammendment?

Obviously, I could on and on. And it's statements like these, and the fact that they are NOT anomalous, but in fact FUNDAMENTAL to Conservative thynking, that are the reason I'm Liberal! And any media stroy that suggests these comments come from merely the frings of the Right-Wing reveal only their own systematic Right-Wing bias and an allergy to acknowledging simple reality.

And what's the Liberal Equivalent of this? Boycotting Chik-Fil-E because they donate money to hate groups? Refusing to allow their Corporate Sponsorhip to use OUR MONEY to pay the salaries of teh likes of Mike Savage and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?! Give me a break! The Right whines about Christians being "persecuted" when the extent of their "persecution" is that THINKING PEOPLE are no longer willing to give them cart-blanche to LEGALLY PERSECUTE EVERYONE ELSE! And it's about damned time as well! Akin's comment should be hung around the necks of EVERY REPUBLICAN, seeing as how they all want to outlaw all abortions.
This comment SHOULD be the END of the pro-life movement as a political force. It WON'T be, because there is not shortage of COMPLETE FUCKING MORONS in this country who keep voting for these Right-Wing Shitstains.

But it still SHOULD be. Because it reveals the ignorance that permeates the entirety of the Right Wing in this country, on each and every issue.

The only thing "unusual" about these comments is the rarity in which we get a Republican to actually tell the truth about what their Party, Platform and Philosophy believe and stand for.

Scum like Todd Akin are unfit for Public Service. And it is not enough to redeem yourself [Republicans] by distancing yourselves from these COMMENTS. You must distance yourself from the PLATFORM these comments come from and support.

IOW: You have to stop being Republicans.

Every single one of these scumbags should be removed from office. Each and every last one of them. They have nothing to offer anyone on any issue.


--------------
...And to THINK that I almost felt bad for killing this asshole off!

Vagina!

In the weekly contest between Texas and Florida to show who can be the most backwards State, Michigan has apparently chosen to vie for some recognition. Last week, during the public debate on the Republican's latest attempt to outlaw all abortions, without exception, State Representative Lisa Brown (D-Commerce Twp., West Bloomfield) told the Republican led, Male dominated Legislator that "[She was] flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no."

For her use of the medically appropriate term for the particular part of the female anatomy that the Republican Men in the legislature were seeking to regulate, she and Barb Byrum, (D-Onondaga) who also sought to remind  the petulant children on the Right side of the aisle what they were, in fact, TALKING ABOUT REGULATING, were censured and banned from speaking on the floor of the State House, indefinitely, regarding ANY Bills, at all.  And indeed when these ladies tried to chime in on proposed spending bills, completely unrelated to abortion, they were barred from being able to speak.

...Barred from being able to DO THEIR JOBS.

...Barred from being able to REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENCIES!

To speaker Majoity Leader Jim Stamas (R) and House Speaker Jase Bolger (R), I ask if they've ever read the U.S. Constitution and understand the Freedom of Speech was put in their SPECIFICALLY to protect speech in POLITICAL DEBATES. I wonder if thay are familiar with the way a Representative Democracy works, and I wonder if he is familiar with the Michigan State Constitution and how it apportions and guarentees Representation to the Citizens he is now silencing.  (Shit, I wonder if they even know where babies come from!)

In the on going war on women, women are apparently baned from serving.

The bill, BTW, which puts the health of Michigan women at stake, after just 20 minutes of debate.

Majoity Leader Stamas? Speaker Bolger? You are now fascists. Congratulations.

You have stood up for censorship, for silencing debate, for silencing opposition, for curtailing freedom, for destroying the fair representation of the citizenship, and for your Party's absurd war against women.

I don't know if you remember, but the #1 concern on everyone's mind right now is the ECONOMY and JOBS. You mind telling me where you radical anti-choice agenda, which callously disregards the health of the women you claim to represent fits in?

Oh, and, uh... BTW, since you seem to have a problem with the word VAGINA, and I'm pretty sure you will NEVER be able to silence me:

VAGINA!
VAGINA!
VAGINA!

What are you going to do about that, House Fascist?

Here's what VAGINA looks like, italicized!

Here's what it looks like when you say VAGINA boldly!

You got a problem with that, you misogynistic fuckwad?

And while were on the subject:

Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina!

That's a lot of vaginas!

In fact, it 52 - one for every Republican PUSSY, every Republican CUNTRAG, every Republican mewling quim in the Michigan House and State Senate who wants to help "Childbirth" improve it's ranking on the list of 'causes of death' amongst women. 

For some more detailed, and reverent, debate and infomration on this Right-Wing attrocity, I refer you to Think Progress, and HuffPo. 

The Pro-Life Abortion Trap

For those of you who follow the day to day drama that's been playing out in the comments section [and boy has it been busy since William's come to town - 46 comments in one thread, which is more than I've had in any of the 10 previous MONTHS this year!] you might have seen that I laid out a trap for William over in the abortion thread that he walked right into. I'm sure it's not original, but I like to call it the "Pro-Life Trap."  And what I intend to teach him (and any other like-minded folks) is that a principled pro-Life LEGAL position either (1) does not exist or (2) is not defensible.

The Pro-Life trap is simple: DO YOU SUPPORT AN EXCEPTION FOR CASES OF RAPE.

And remember - we're talking about the law and our legal opinions, not out moral ones.  Like almost every one of my readers that I've heard from, I am morally opposed to Abortion. And yes, that includes cases of Rape.  The DIFFERENCE between Conservatives and Intelligent People Liberals on this issue is that we don't labor under the delusion that our opinion ought to be legally jammed down everyone else's throat.  Abortion is only an issue of Life vs. Death when discussing it on a MORAL level.  On a LEGAL level it is an issue of CHOICE vs. NO CHOICE.

What's more, if Williams (or anyone else) wants to argue with Pro-Choice folks that DO have insane opinions about abortion, he/they should go over to Jezebel or Feministing. Though, if he does, he should be warned: They will eat him alive. 

ANYWAY... William chose the easier answer saying in not so few words, "Yes."

What followed was a combination of Conchobhar stealing my thunder and William falling back on that old RightWing tripe trope of claiming to have been taken out of context.  Well, whether he is aware of it or not: he wasn't. And Conch had it 100% correct.

See...

Consider the idea that "Human Life is sacred," and thus therefore never be unnaturally terminated.  Next, consider LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TEST they apply to the fetus in an effort to PROVE that it is, in fact, HUMAN LIFE, and thus worth protecting. Well, partially out of laziness and partly out of a desire to not limit the discussion to only those tests that I might come up with off the top of my head, I'm not going to start listing them out.  Just PICK A FEW. Whichever ones you want to.  Can you think of a SINGLE TEST for "Human Life, thus worth protecting" that a Fetus will pass, if it was conceived consensually, but somehow suddenly and magically fails if it was conceived forcibly?

Well, I can't.  DNA, living cells, exothermic, grows, replicates, heals, responds to stimulus, develops into a human (OK I lied: I named a few after all) ALL of these apply to the children of the most loving and happily married parents and to the spawned offspring of the most deprave serial rapists EQUALLY.  As one fails, the other fails. And as one passes? So does the other.

So you see, William, while you may THINK that you don't "support abortion as a means of birth control?" On the contrary: YOU DO. You absolutely do. What else do you think is going on here? What... do you think that when a rape victim gets an abortion SOMEONE ELSE delivers the baby? Um... NO. It is, in fact, the very DEFINITION of "birth control" regardless of how you choose to characterize or rationalize it.

In fact, while your position is the already the same as mine MORALLY SPEAKING, (and yes, I say that having read your entire commentary on the matter) the fact is that there is also very little difference in our positions, LEGALLY speaking. You ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances. (Just like me and EVERYONE ELSE HERE!) And the ONLY DIFFERENCE between your position and mine/ours? Is that you choose to draw the line in a slightly different place.  That's it. It is absolutely not one iota more profound a "Pro-Life" position than mine. It is just a slickly stricter Pro-Choice position - one in which you merely delineate the acceptable circumstantial criteria a little differently. The fact remains that YOU HAVE DECIDED that it is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE to kill a fetus REGARDLESS OF IT'S LIFE AND HUMANITY and all you done is chosen a different set of criterion for it.  The only difference between you and me? Is that you think a woman needs to get YOUR PERMISSION and satisfy YOUR CRITERIA BEFORE you'll support her legal rights!  (And actually... OMG! So do I! Look at that! The principles of our respective positions are, in fact, ABSOLUTELY THE SAME: We simply draw the line in a different place.) (So either your pro-choice or I'm pro-life. Take your pick.)

So calling yourself "pro-life" if it helps you sleep better at night, but your political and legal position is NOT "pro-life" in any principled way. And there is no need for me to debate you any further on this matter, because anyone and everyone is free to read your comments in the previous abortion post.  Unless you have something REALLY FUCKING GOOD to add to the conversation, I'm inclined to let my work, yours and Conchobhar's speak for itself.

 Now, of course there's another side of the Pro-Life Trap. It's arguably more principled, and attempting to defend it requires both more courage and more stupidity that Williams likely possesses.  It is the position that would, for the sake of not in fact merely being a Pro-Choice-lite position, answer my question, "NO."

No exception for Rape.

And hey, you got to admit: It's principled.

The problem is? It also ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PSYCHOTIC.

It is referred to, very accurately, in Liberal circles as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights."  And it truly and undeniably defines the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, once again, as not being so much about LIFE as they are about CHOICE.  Not allowing Rape victims access to abortion? Completely denies women the right to decide if, and with whom, they will bear children. It says, on no uncertain terms, that it is completely up to ANY AND ALL MEN which women will bear children, how many and when.  It says, on no uncertain terms, that I could go out and RAPE THE SHIT out of every woman I choose to, and while I will be punished fro my action, my progeny - all 257 of them, if I've gotten enough rest - will be protected, and MY GENES shall LIVE ON.  And as for those women?

"FUCK 'EM!" says this position, regarding their rights to control what happens to their bodies.  Reproductive Rights are no longer a matter of legal protection, but rather one of BRUTE PHYSICAL STRENGTH.

Now... This was not William's position, and I do not, for a moment, suggest that it is. (After all - I've already proven that he's almost as 'Pro-Choice' as I am! *wink*) But the morons in good people of South Dakota DID, in fact pass a law that did exactly this in 2006. Unfortunately for rapists the world over, the law was repealed by the end of that same year.  (And for fuck's sake READ THAT before you tell me that 'no one' is in fact trying to pass those kinds of laws!)

--------------------------------

BTW... I refuse to add "or incest" to "Rape" when talking about the exception issue. If the incest in question was not consensual (or statutory) then it can simply be called 'rape' and no further information is necessary. Done. And if it was consensual (*ew!*) then why should it require an exception under a pro-life framework? "Incest" is simply an unnecessary and superfluous addition to "Rape."

Some unfiltered opinion about abortion

I've been away for a while, so this is going to cover a lot of stuff.  Bear with though, me because it all comes back to the 'pro-contraception' / 'abortion is a complex issue' theme that I wanted to pick up from the Sanger post.

First of all, let me say that I am relieved to see that Mississippi's"Personhood" measure was shot down by voters.  And while I did share pretty much all of the same concerns voiced by ClassicLiberal, I must say that I am not entirely surprised by the outcome.  While the pro-life camp has had their share of legislative and judicial victories, the historical record is largely filled with examples of public backlash anytime core abortion rights are threatened.  And that's what was happening here regardless of how much politically correct, verbal diarrhea the MI Legislature was trying to dress it up in.  They might rank 50th in adult literacy, but apparently the Republicans still can't overreach in Mississippi.  And let's face it: If you can't win an anti-abortion battle in Mississippi? YOU'RE OVERREACHING. And if you read the rest of that article, you'll see how Ohio voters responded to their anti-Union proposal, not to mention a recall-election, and a few others that went for the Democrats.  And this is coming off a HUGE win in 2010 and leading in to the 2012 election season.  Nice going, Republicans!  I'm seriously conflicted as to whether or not I want them to learn a lesson from all of this.  Part of me wants them to keep fucking everything up for themselves, but then that same part of me remembers just how mind-bendingly stupid and gullible the average American voter is.  Still: They've overreached, and the public spoke.  Every now and then? The good guys WIN ONE.

Now I wanted to say something about JLarue's comment from the Sanger post.

As far as abortion goes...  IMHO, morally speaking, it is simply never justified, with the exception of when it is being done to SAVE A LIFE.  Unless SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE, I simply do not believe it is a morally justified course of action. And NO, that judgement does not change when it come to RAPE.  That being said? I am pro-choice. Period. Without a second thought. And why? Because in contrast to the funny-mentalists on the Right, I do not labor under the delusion that anyone else should have their own behavior bound or limited by my opinion. My opinion, my principles, my beliefs all affect exactly one person: ME.

And it it the very fact that the choice is mine to make that I value and will vehemently protect.

(Pretty much the same way I describe my position on Gun Control as well: I despise guns, but I value the fact that the decision of whether or not I own one is mine to make. I don't own one, and I likely never will. But I will fight, kill and die to keep that decision mine.)

Now...  JLarue goes on to describe how much abuse has been received regarding [what I perceive] a very moderate pro-choice / moderate pro-life position.  And I've encountered this as well, particularly on extremely feminist websites such as Jezebel and Feministing. (Two of my all-time fav's, BTW, to be sure. But it suffices to say that I don't agree with the bulk of their readership on this particular issue.) To suggest that a woman in labor can have an abortion up to the moment that the chord is cut? Well... it's every bit as psychopathic as it sounds: Which is to say, ENTIRELY. And yet? You'll get that!  I've gotten that!  DW has gotten that!  And it's completely, and utterly batshit insane!

Now, I'd LIKE to think that this kind of completely batshit insane extremism on the pro-choice side is purely in response to the completely batshit insane extremism on the Right, in general.  IOW: We have to take a hard-line, because they will absolutely, positively never stop!  They will never concede ANY GROUND, and they they will never stop clawing away at our rights no matter how much "common sense" / "common ground" we concede.  They will not stop until all abortion is punishable by death (by stoning, of course), sentence to be carried out immediately, without trial, followed by a Congressional declaration that the person now burns in hell.  In truth? That's where the political pro-life camp pretty much is, in the mainstream.  So, to be fair, I would like to think that any extremism on our side is nothing more than a reaction to that mentality on theirs. (I really would.) Unfortunately? No - we have our whackos too, Im sorry to say.  And even if a proposal (like the one I will present) would satisfy the Right forever (yeah, right!) you would probably find someone on our side who would say that I'm drinking the kool-aid.  They're idiots, yeah.  But they exist, sad as it is to have to acknowledge them.

Now... If you want to know how I feel about Abortion as a legal issue, as opposed to a moral one, you can click the on the Abortion Page at the top, check any of my past writings on the matter, or read the short version here.  This is what I would propose:

1) First Trimester: Abortion is legal, including federally funded as applicable, no questions asked.

2) Second Trimester: Abortion is legal when the health of the Mother is threatened.  And Congress would be obligated to define a list of health threats that would need to then be diagnosed. (Obviously, this list would be a source of continued debate, but I think that's OK. IMHO, this is really where the dabate should be anyway!)

3) Third Trimester: Abortion is legal only when the life of the Mother is in immediate jeopardy, and all other reasonable, commonly practiced options have failed, or have be ruled too risky. Doctor's judgement, but they may have to defend it.


An exception for Rape is not needed: It's covered in the first trimester.  Partial Birth Abortion?  Ugh.  COMPLETELY BANNED, at least until an ACTUAL MEDICAL Doctor provides me with ONE EXAMPLE in which this is actually needed, and explains to me why at that point a full vaginal birth, or C-Section could not be performed.  I've been told it can happen, but in all my reading I have yet to come across a single, definitive example.  And I can be tatlly flexible here. All I need is one example, spelled out for me in words that a product of the American Educational system can understand. So far? That hasn't happened. (And seriously... If you're an OB/GYN who's reading this? PLEASE feel free to educate me here! I'm 100%, dead serious! I really do want to know!)

And the problem with the "personhood clause" is that it not only would effectively outlaw abortion, but open a legal can of worms regarding stem cell research, IVF, and various forms of Contraception. Not cool.  I'm not going to get into a stem cell research debate here, but if you're interested you can read my proof.  Short version?


Until that embryo is fully implanted in the uterine wall, you haven't even reached the threshold of potential for life, let alone life.  (And please comment THERE if you feel you must, as I'd prefer to keep THIS POST strictly about Abortion and Contraception issues.)

And I don't fuck around when it comes to Contraception issues.  You might have gotten that feeling for my last post on Sanger, but... yeah.  I really don't fuck around there. And that absolutely includes this bullshit idea that Pharmacists should be allowed to choose not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, based on their  religious objections. As far as I'm concerned, this is nowhere near a protected right of theirs, but rather grounds for them to lose their license and business. Period. I'll spell it out for anyone stupid enough to have a different opinion on this matter...

HEY, ASSHOLE: YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AFFECT AND DICTATE THE BEHAVIOR OF EXACTLY ONE PERSON: YOU! AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION PROTECTS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE TENETS OF YOUR RELIGION, OR INDEED ANY RELIGION THAT I DON'T BELONG, OR DO BELONG TO YET CHOOSE TO IGNORE. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO ANY FORM OF CONTRACEPTION: DON'T USE IT, AND DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO IS! PERIOD. END OF STORY. NOW GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FUCKING FACE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP BEFORE I HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!

I really don't think I could say it any more clearly. LOL.  And the Hatch Amendment has to go for exactly same reason.

(And if you disagree with me on that, you're either an idiot or you  just haven't thought things through completely: If there exists a legal medical procedure that costs-less than a covered alternative?The Government has a moral obligation to the tax payer to fund it! If you don't like abortion , don't have one! That fact that your political party has failed in it's efforts to outlaw is of no consequence to me, nor are that religious taboos to you choose to honor, but which have no bearing on anyone who does not. If you don't want it funded? Outlaw it. If you can't, because the majority of America is against you? Too bad. Suck to be you. The alternative is live birth which costs more. Abortion and contraception are low cost, L-E-G-A-L alternatives to that, and until that changes there is not reason to dick around on the periphery of it with things like funding.)

But I got to thinking over the past week... Why exactly is Contraception so important to me? I mean... sure, yeah: Copious amounts of consequence-free sex. But, in all seriousness... there's got to be more to it than that, doesn't there?

And I think there is.  And I think it goes beyond a parent's obligation to properly care for, raise and educate their children, and beyond our societies limited educational and social resources, not to mention our planet's finite environmental resources.  That's all fine and good, but I don't see any of it as a reasonable explanation for why I have such visceral feelings on the matter.  I mean: Environmentalism is a largely an academic issue to me.  It's a voting issue, yes, but I'm no eco-warrior.  I'm not going to get into a fist fight with anyone over it.  But you know what?  If a pharmacist's car were to get set on fire over his forcing his religion down his customers' throats because he refuses to fill birth control prescriptions? I'd sleep VERY well that night, and with a SATISFIED SMILE on my face, psychotic as that sounds.  My blood seriously boils that much over this.

And I'm not saying that to scare you.  (And I'm totally not kidding.) I just mean it to illustrate how strongly I feel about it.  As far as I am concerned:

Any restrictions on contraception, up to and including emergency contraception (aka: the morning after pill) I consider as a HATE CRIME against all women. 

You may feel that's an exaggeration, but it's how I feel.  And I think I can explain why.

I'm a feminist.

Not a political one in every way, perhaps... though I'm sure we'll agree on a lot of issues. Almost all of them, in fact. Just not one so extreme as to share any of the more psychotic opinions about abortion.  But you know what? I just value and respect women so much more than... well, than just about every single man I know.

A recent example of what I'm talking about...

Last week, I was in a bar in Tempe, Arizona with four of my colleagues, travelling on business.  These are Engineers: educated people who's intellect and opinions I trust respect.  Now... We're all engaged in an activity that four guys would normally be engaged in, in a bar in Tempe: Ogling women.  (And no, I'm not proud to admit that, but I'll be honest here.)  (And what's more, considering that we're all middle-aged and married?  It crossed the boundaries of both sad and a little creepy as well! LOL)  And believe me when I say that  there was no shortage of extremely conventionally attractive women there, no matter where you looked.  Lot's of beautiful women there, no doubt about it.  (And four pretty pathetic guys, no doubt about that! LOL)  And amongst all this, I noticed a girl sitting just off my 3:00.  Short, dark hair - very short pixie cut, with a single long, thin braid on one side. Very little makeup.  Tee-Shirt with holes in it.  The slightness bit pudgy. Not obese, just having noticeably more jiggle than most of the girls in the bar.  Eyebrows were bit unkempt (though nowhere nearly uni-brow territory - come on!) Nose-ring. A plain face, I suppose. I hope you get the idea. Basically? A slightly frumpy, artistic-looking, possibly lesbian woman, who I had no doubt my co-workers would be turned off by, in a bar full of cheerleaders and barbie-doll types.  Do you know what my first (and only) thought was? 

Of all the women in that bar that night - she looked by far to be the most interesting.

That's it. That was my only opinion.  And, sure, maybe it was based on cliches as much as there's were, but of all the people there, if I was going to make the effort to talk to ANYONE, she was the only one I was the least bit interested in: Because she what the one who looked the most interesting.  And when she left?  One of my co-workers muttered, "What a train-wreck!" To which another replied, "The Lesbian? Yeah, I know!"  And that's the real difference between me and pretty much every other guy I know: I was interested in HER. Her, the person. WHO SHE WAS was something that interested me.  They were only interested in how people looked, and only then if they conformed to the "barbie doll" standard of beauty. It was a object lesson in the objectification of women.  And sure - I could have been wrong: After all I was going only by appearances as well.  But I didn't feel the need to say disparaging things about the other women.  Indeed I didn't feel anything negative about them at all.  At worst? I felt neutral, because I felt there was simply too little to be gleaned from their conformance to the conventional standard of style and beauty.  That's not a BAD thing, but it doesn't tell me anything beyond what I can already see: THAT THEY LOOK NICE.  Which... Just isn't all that important to me.

I've said it before, and I'll stand by it: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. I find so much more beauty (not to mention ugliness) in who people are than in what they look like. And that alone doesn't make me better than anyone else, at least  until they feel the need to unload disparaging comments on someone just because they don't give a shit whether some forty-year old, half drunk, married man in a bar finds them attractive.  But someone who refuses to play that game? Well, hey: THAT'S someone I'd look forward to talking to!

ANYWAY... I guess I just put that story out there to describe what I mean when I call myself a feminist. I simply respect and admire women as people, and I don't overly value physical appearance in women, anymore than I value say... money (for example) in men. It's just not important to me and does not define who you are. (Which is really all that matters.)

And so, for me, I think that explains why I feel so strongly about contraception.  Because as I see it there are three things, three accomplishments, that brought about the equality of women in society. (Which, it shoudl be apparent by now, I hold as an inherent good):

1) The first was the invention of firearms.  This may seem an odd choice, but consider it on a Darwinian level.  When your survival depends on hunting Mastodons with spears? There is no question that, by and large, men are better suited for that activity. When societal conflicts are settled in duels and in wars - both fought with swords, and possibly in armor as well - again, there is little doubt that men have an inherent advantage.  But two people with guns?  Well, hey: that's a 50-50 proposition, my friend!  And there is nothing about the basic physiology of men and women that gives one any inherent advantage over the others.  Unless you use you penis to help steady your shot, the FACT of the matter is that, given equal practice and equipment, there is no reason a women won't be every bit as good as shooting things as the man.  No so with spears, swords or even BOWS - since the power of the bow is in direct relation to its required drawing force. Physical strength, speed, agility and endurance gave men every advantage in hunting and in battle... Until the invention of the great equalizer: GUNS.

(That may also help explain my 2nd amendment stance as well, who knows? LOL.)

2) The second is women's suffrage.  And that one's pretty obvious.  Because proving that you can now do every important job every bit as good as a man (by shooting one, for example) will mean very little without a mechanism and the matching political clout to set things right.  So that's #2.

And #3...?

3) The invention, mainstreaming and full legalization of all effective forms of contraception, up to and including abortion.  Because even given the first two?  There is still no question that the sexes are not equal when it comes to pregnancy.  When two people have sex, at the moment of climax, the decision of insemination is ENTIRELY in the hands of the male, regardless of any previous agreement that may have existed.  (This is a particularly brutal reality in the case of rape.)  But ultimately? Absent of contraceptives, the MAN decides if pregnancy is going to be a possibility in any particular sexual encounter. And from that point on? It's the woman who carries the child. The woman who risks all the health implications of pregnancy. The woman who bears all of the all the lifestyle impacts of pregnancy. The woman who goes into labor. The woman who risks all the complications of delivery. (At one time accounting for up to HALF of all deaths amongst women, mind you!)  And until recently, it was the woman who was expected to either raise the child or surrender it for adoption.  Illegitimate fathers? Largely disappeared, up until a generation or two ago. And even now, it's the woman who takes the unpaid leave from her job to care for her newborn. And if she DID try to stop the pregnancy? The risk of death from abortion was entirely borne by the woman as well.

Contraception levels the playing field in the one area where things still remained inherently uneven.  Every discrimination law in the world cannot lesson the impact on a woman's life that a single unplanned pregnancy can have.  So I hold Contraception as a central pillar in the foundation of female equality in society.

Now... Getting back to abortion.  JLarue laid out what I think is arugably the ULTIMATE pro-life political principle: Do what is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy's in the first place.  [And if anyone opens their pie-hole about preaching abstinence, I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick. The FACT. FACT. FACT. Is that even in States that saw a reduction in teen pregnancies when their school's had abstinence-only sex-education, they still trailed behind the rest of the country in that reduction. It just doesn't work, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!] And there are so many areas that we agree on here.  Here's MY anti-Abortion plan:

1) Mandatory, comprehensive sex education in the schools.  This would begin no later than ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average menarche for girls, and ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average boy becomes capable of getting a girl pregnant. If those grades are different? PICK THE EALIER ONE.  It would include a discussion of ALL forms of contraception, including a frank discussion of how they work, how they can fail, and how often they DO fail.  And, just to show any religious folks that I'm not a complete dick to their beliefs, it would include the FACT that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself 100% from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. (STD's, of course, would also be discussed, in depth.) AND? You can also have a frank, objective and factual discussion about what prohibitions exist in various religious circles.  This would, of course, be presented as  a matter of FACT, and not as an endorsement of those views. (The teacher can even share their own beliefs, but must also then remind the class that they are obligate to defer to the student's family's and the student's own personal judgement and values in these matters. It is simply not their place to moralize.)

2) EASY, CHEAP, and even SUBSIDIZED or FREE access to various forms of Contraception. Keeping Condoms out of schools will not stop teenagers from having sex.  Period. Just ask Sarah Palin.  Burying our heads in the sand on this point will only INCREASE the number of abortions that happened, completely independent of the legality there of.

3) STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF ADOPTION.  This is a big one for me: I'm adopted myself!  And it's hard for me to get specific about this (the post is getting too long as it is) but I have heard countless stories of birth parent's rights winning out over adoptive parents right's in so many case that take it to absurd levels due to the vagueness and weak language in adoption law. This does a great disservice to ALL parties involved, primarily the child.  Add to that the stigma that still exists when someone decides to give a child up for adoption. This has to be such a soul-crushingly difficult decision for someone to make.  And yet, what is the most common response from friends and family? "Oh, you should KEEP IT!  We'll help you!"  Um... No. No, you won't. You'll BABYSIT occasionally, and give a lecture about responsibility whenever you feel too much is being asked of you.  Fuck that.  Don't fall for that charade, unwed mothers of society!  If your life's plans didn't include children? Your choice is adoption or abortion. Period. And we really need to do a better job encouraging the former, and otherwise minding our own fucking business. Grandchildren are NOT a right!  What's more? There's a TEN-YEAR long waiting list for healthy, white babies in this country. Shit - that's what it was ten, twenty years ago! I'll be honest: I don't even know what it is now! So, seriously folks: They're not going to the orphanage.  That kid was adopted before you were even old enough to get pregnant.  S/He'll go to a good home.  (And before anyone tells me about foreign adoptions, make sure you've done your homework regarding the COSTS, RISKS and your LEGAL RIGHTS regarding those!)  But people really don't know very much about the process of adoption; public or private. And that's a shame. I think that's a huge problem.

4) STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE PARENTS.  I put this last, because I would completely prefer [number three] over the risk of incentivizing this kind of parenthood.  But the fact remains that if the person just can't bear the thought of adoption, society has a far greater moral imperative not to incentivize abortion.  So for all the Right's bed-wetting about Welfare Queens?  Either PAY UP on welfare, or SHUT UP on abortion.  You can't have it both ways. And having sex should not condemn you to a life of poverty and/or charity.  This is the United States of American not a fucking Charles Dickens novel. So get over it.

INFORMATION. ACCESS. ALTERNATIVES. and SUPPORT.

Now THAT'S a Pro-Life stance that doesn't need to even TOUCH Roe v. Wade!

"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

If you took Human Sexuality in college, that line may sound familiar to you.

I want to clarify a small part of my last post.  As I was going through my list of examples of social progress that the Conservatives had instinctively fought against and/or sought to undo, I mentioned "Reproductive Freedom."  And based on the ascending chronology of the items in the list, it would be reasonable to conclude that I intended that as no more than a euphemism for "Abortion."  Well... yes and no.  Sadly, YES, Abortion is part of what I'm talking about.  And admittedly it's curious thing to consider as "social progress" and to defend as such. However, while I feel that Abortion is a sin and a tragedy to use as a mere form of Contraception, it must be considered is part of the overarching issue of Contraceptive Rights, and the right of a woman to have a say in whether or not she will bear one man's children, or indeed ANY children.  Take away abortion, and what you've got left is something that was beautifully, and rather appropriately, characterized by Keith Olbermann as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights."  (Note: I'm sorry - I cannot find a proper attribution of that epithet. I first heard it from Olbermann, but it may well have been first said by someone else.)

No before we get sidetracked or a discussion about Abortion alone, I would like you to read the following exert from the autobiography of Margret Sanger - a feminist, nurse, reproductive rights pioneer and founder of Planned Parenthood.  More of it can be found here. I read this in college, and remembered it clearly, because it just about destroyed me.  THIS is the world that the other side of the slippery slope - the one that would limit a woman's reproductive freedom - leads to:


Then one stifling mid-July day of 1912 I was summoned to a Grand Street tenement. My patient was a small, slight Russian Jewess, about twenty-eight years old, of the special cast of feature to which suffering lends a madonna-like expression. The cramped three-room apartment was in a sorry state of turmoil. Jake Sachs, a truck driver scarcely older than his wife, had come home to find the three children crying and her unconscious from the effects of a self-induced abortion. He had called the nearest doctor, who in turn had sent for me. Jake's earnings were trifling, and most of them had gone to keep the none-too-strong children clean and properly fed. But his wife's ingenuity had helped them to save a little, and this he was glad to spend on a nurse rather than have her go to a hospital.


The doctor and I settled ourselves to the task of fighting the septicemia. Never had I worked so fast, never so concentratedly.


Jake was more kind and thoughtful than many of the husbands I had encountered. He loved his children, and had always helped his wife wash and dress them. He had brought water up and carried garbage down before he left in the morning, and did as much as he could for me while he anxiously watched her progress.


After a fortnight Mrs. Sachs' recovery was in sight. As I was preparing to leave the fragile patient to take up her difficult life once more, she finally voiced her fears, "Another baby will finish me, I suppose?"


"It's too early to talk about that," I temporized.


But when the doctor came to make his last call, I drew him aside. "Mrs. Sachs is terribly worried about having another baby."


"She well may be," replied the doctor, and then he stood before her and said, "Any more such capers, young woman, and there'll be no need to send for me."


"I know, doctor," she replied timidly, "but," and she hesitated as though it took all her courage to say it, "what can I do to prevent it?"


The doctor was a kindly man, and he had worked hard to save her, but such incidents had become so familiar to him that he-had long since lost whatever delicacy he might once have had. He laughed good-naturedly. "You want to have your cake and eat it too, do you? Well, it can't be done."


Then picking up his hat and bag to depart he said, "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."


I glanced quickly to Mrs. Sachs. Even through my sudden tears I could see stamped on her face an expression of absolute despair. We simply looked at each other, saying no word until the door had closed behind the doctor. Then she lifted her thin, blue-veined hands and clasped them beseechingly. "He can't understand. He's only a man. But you do, don't you? Please tell me the secret, and I'll never breathe it to a soul. Please!"


These were not the words of someone trying to get a job, or borrow something from a friend, or asking the bank for a few more days to make their payment.  This was a mother, wife and human being who was looking for a way NOT TO DIE.

"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

And while you're mulling that over, consider that this took place in 1912: A time when 1% of women - 1 in 100 - still died in childbirth in the U.S. (Roughly 100x as many as today's rate of 11 in 100,000).  And Condoms and Diaphragms? The only existing forms of contraception, which had been around for thousands of years in one form or another? WERE ILLEGAL. And they remained illegal until Sanger "won" a court battle in 1918, appealing her 1917 Conviction for disseminating information (!) about birth control. I say "won" because her Conviction was upheld (!!) but the court issued a ruling that finally allowed Doctors to prescribe contraception.

Think about that.  So strong was the movement AGAINST this basic tenet of Woman's Right's that it took a COURT CASE to allow even DOCTOR'S to prescribe it!  (Meaning that, even in the case of LIFE THREATENING MEDICAL NEED, they had previously been barred from doing so!)

Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

That was their answer.  That was society's answer. 

And before anyone tries to explain to this humble blogger that the modern Conservative movement has nothing against Contraception (as long as teenagers never get a hold it, anyway *facepalm*, *shakes head*) and only one modern Church (the bass-ackwards and psychotic Catholic Church, which I am sorry to say I was raised in) opposes it's use, remember that I said that it was not ONLY about abortion.  Just as the modern (Republican) church opposes abortion, who do you think it was that lead the crusade against contraception before and at the turn of the century?

Why, who else? That great bastion of Conservatism, the MOTHERFUCKING CHURCH!  (Who, at the time, also considered it a sin for a wife not to avail herself to the sexual advances of her lawful husband, don't forget!)

Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

And in case you are wondering? There IS more to the story, and it does not end well...


The telephone rang one evening three months later, and Jake Sachs' agitated voice begged me to come at once; his wife was sick again and from the same cause. For a wild moment I thought of sending someone else, but actually, of course, I hurried into my uniform, caught up my bag, and started out. All the way I longed for a subway wreck, an explosion, anything to keep me from having to enter that home again. But nothing happened, even to delay me. I turned into the dingy doorway and climbed the familiar stairs once more. The children were there, young little things.



Mrs. Sachs was in a coma and died within ten minutes. I folded,her still hands across her breast, remembering how they had pleaded with me, begging so humbly for the knowledge which was her right. I drew a sheet over her pallid face. Jake was sobbing, running his hands through his hair and pulling it out like an insane person. Over and over again he wailed, "My God! My God! My God!"


So let me rephrase the sentiment that I was trying to express in my lats post:

At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.

Or, to put in a less artificially politically-neutral way:
 
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the social progress, tradition has placed 10,000 Conservatives to hinder it.

And remember the statement on the Bumper sticker that led to the whole rant:

Evil flourishes when good men doing nothing.

Well... If anyone still has issues with my labelling of "Reproductive Freedom" as a great and defensible milestone of profound social progress, or for that matter any of you Right Wing Pricks who would spread all manner of lies about Planned Parenthood, and even Sanger herself, just to score cheap political points from the abortion (*see below) issue, please, by all means, come on over here a second so I CAN HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!

Do you see what's been written on the back of it?

"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

(And... uh... I think I also wrote "Fuck You" on the other side...)


----------------------------------------------

*It is worth noting that Sanger herself was opposed to abortion:

...we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in An Autobiography, 1938

So, really, all you people who are out there (on the 'Net, or in the Media) lying about Sanger?
I've got a brick here with your name on one of the remaining sides!


More on Margret Sanger.  More. And more.

Capital Punnishment

NOTE: I've written this an re-written it, three times in total, and it's still a disjointed, disorganized mess.  What can I say? It's a complex issue with a LOT of considerations to balance.  BUT, I'm just going to post it as-is becuase there's other things I want to write about, and if I let it go too long, I'll never get around to putting this up.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I did not intend for that one throwaway comment in my Casey Anthony post last week to turn into a death penalty discussion, many thoughtful, principled and pragmatic comments about the death penalty ended up in the comments section as a result of it. And, after reading them, I was motivated to do a little digging, a little exploring of the issue, and maybe clarifying both to you all and to myself where I really stand on it.


Although politically ironic, but from my own POV logically consistent, my position on the Death Penalty, as a general practice, is almost a perfect mirror to my position on abortion. With abortion, I feel that the practice is completely immoral in all cases (yes, you read that right) where the life of the mother is not in immediate jeopardy.  BUT, as this is just my opinion - and since I don’t share the Right’s mental illness that compels them to force everyone else to live according to their opinion - I have no desire to see abortion made ILLEGAL, just becuase I see it as IMMORAL. With Capital Punishment, it’s kind of the opposite: I do not oppose the practice on general moral grounds. BUT… as a PRACTICAL MATTER I do see much that is wrong with how we go about administering it. So I never cheer-lead for it, as some do. And I do see a reduction in executions as a good thing. But I stop short of a complete abolitionist stance, based on moral objection.

This puts me immediately at odds with posters such as jlarue, who feel it is simply an immoral practice. And you know what? You’re absolutely right. I’ll concede on all moral points right now: It’s wrong. And yet, I still feel the way I do. And, going back to the abortion parallel, I’ve never heard an argument, EVER, that convinced me that abortion was ever morally justifiable (in any case in which the life of the mother was not in imminent danger.) But again: What we believe to be moral and what we will support the legality of are not always the same. This happens to both Liberals and Conservatives, and hits me up from both sides of both of these two issues. The bottom line is that the execution of someone who has taken the life of another? Just does not bother me enough to change my opinion. If that makes me a bad person? Then so be it. For what it’s worth, I concede the moral high-ground to your admittedly more principled position. 

(Just an aside: In admitting that being “pro-death penalty” - one of a very few Conservative positions that I hold - is a moral failing on my part, it’s funny to me just how many Conservative positions in general (almost all of them, in fact) can be described that way.)

So… morally I concede, though that doesn’t change my position. What about those practical concerns? The administrative details?

Poster ClassicLiberal gave me a pretty good quote, about how “the government can’t even keep potholes filled” so he’d not going to trust them with such grave matters. That’s a nice sentiment, and while I have no intention of arguing that the practice is air-tight, I will point out that this is the same basic argument that Conservatives use to argue against a Nation Health Care system, so you’ll have to better than that. Fortunately, he did: The politicization of the Judiciary.

Now, I hear you when it comes to the ELECTION of judges. Hoo-boy, that’s a HUGE problem. And it affects so many aspects of our society. There’s just SO MUCH worng with that, in particular the very perversion of our Democracy that you describe the pro-industry and pro-corporatist groups doing. But, much as with our disagreement on filibusters, it still sounds to me (rigth or worng) like you are opposing a practice IN GENERAL because of how ONE GROUP has decided to abuse it. (And let’s please take up the filibuster/reform issue again another time, because I’ve been sitting on a counterargument for your loast post on that for like a year now,  but just haven’t felt like writing about it.) Anyway... IN THEORY, the election of judges shouldn’t be done on Political grounds. Of course, that’s gone completely by the wayside, but I’m not sure what else we should do. APPOINT them? To LIFETIME terms? NFW. And as counters I submit that Federally appointed Circuit and Supreme Court judges are every bit as politicized as local judges, and there’s an additional problem: WE CAN’T EVER GET RID OF THEM! What’s more, the judiciary is meant to act as a counter-balance to the Legislature and the Executive branch. But how will we get that when the judges are nominated, confirmed and appointed by the very bodies they’re meant to be opposing? I’ll see you and raise you two Scalia’s and a Thomas that this is a much worse way to go. This way, electing them? If a judge REALLY SUCKS? The will of the people, and the power of Democracy can be mustered to fix the problem. I just cannot belieev that because industry and corporations pervert Democracy, this is a reason to scrap the practice. Much as with terrorism, we must RESIST those forces, not allow them to trick us into dismantling our Democracy. If you have a third alternative, I really would like to hear it, but the immediate alternative, to me, seems like it can only be worse.

But it bring us to the crux of the matter, at least for me: Has this politicization, inefficiency, prosecutorial maleficence or any other factor actually led us to execute an innocent man?

Unlike Conchobhar, I have not served on a jury. In fact, I’ve only been in court three times in my life: Once when my parents finalized my sister’s adoption, once for a traffic ticket and once when I was being sued. (I won, if you’re wondering.) (OK, and I was called in for jury duty once, but I wasn't selected.) And our history, much like the UK’s, is rife with examples of officially administered injustice. And convictions are overturned ALL THE TIME when examination of the DNA evidence after the trial completely proves, beyond any doubt, that they had the wrong guy. (Remember: With a match, there’s STILL a 1 in 20 Million chance you’re wrong, but with a MISMATCH? Unless the lab-tech bled onto the sample, you KNOW the right answer. )

And you certainly have a good point, arguably THE point, when a verdict comes down to nothing more than which witnesses appear more credible: The guys who’s facing life or death and is on the stand for the first time in his life, facing a suspicious and skeptical jury; or the career law-enforcement officer (and trusted, heroic public servant) who’s in court every week, has testified hundreds of times and faces no personal or professional risk if should the case go one way or the other. And because “real-life” is never as neat and clear-cut as Television’s CSI shows, perception will thus determine reality. And that’s a huge problem, as matters of perception and personal feelings inevitably end up being given a weight disproportionate to their accuracy or value.

But there’s another side of that perception vs. objective evidence coin. It has been suggested that the preponderance of legal shows like CSI, Law and Order, etc… has had the effect of making us more skeptical as a people. That juries expect cases to look a lot neater and air tight before convicting. Now – I don’t KNOW if that’s true. Admittedly, I can’t find the original piece I had read. (I think it might have been a Slate piece.) And for all I know it could have been written by a disgruntled prosecutor who just came off of losing a big case. But as useless as anecdotal evidence is, case like Anthony (and O.J. Simpson and many others in between) do see, to suggest that there are juries out there for whom “erring on the side of caution” means an acquittal, when in doubt. Which… is exactly as it is supposed to be!

As I looked into this, I came accros a few other things, that can be interpreted in different ways…

For the years that I could find data for reasonably quickly (2006-2009) there were 186 executions in the U.S. In that same time period there were 65,642 murders. Now, committing the same error as when they calculate the divorce rate, that works out to a 0.3% execution rate for murderers. I find the size of that number – being so small – striking in a few different ways. If were trying to be a “tough-on-crime” Right Winger (never! LOL) I might cite this as evidence that we need to DO MORE to prevent violent crime. (NOTE: I’M not saying that. I’m just saying that you could imagine someone making that argument.) A death penalty opponent might use it to point out that very little would change if we DID eliminate the practice: It would result in an almost imperceptible uptick in prison populations, in exchange for KNOWING we NEVER executed an innocent person. Which is a pretty good trade off, I must admit! And a moderate supporter, like me, looks at it and is inclined to view it as a relatively small problem: 1 execution for every 357 murders? I don’t know. I guess I just thought it would be a LOT higher, by at least an order of magnitude. (BTW, my numbers were taken from a few different sources, which is why I haven’t linked them. If you have different figures, I’ll freely admit that I just grabbed the first set of data I could put together.)

I also found that, due to the (thankfully) small number of people we execute, trying to determine what kind of “deterrent” effect this has, if any, is impossible. One rather disturbing study showed that there’s only a discernable deterrent effect is places with very high execution rates. Meaning that, for this to work, we got to start executing MORE people. I might support the Death Penalty in theory, but putting that kind of reasoning into practice is just psychotic.

But putting aside any “benefits” we might see, no one should accept the possibility of executing an innocent man. So I did some poking around, looking first at overturned convictions. Of course, there are TONS of stories out there, and an interesting (though rather incomplete) list could be found on Wikipedia. I went through this list, trying to focus only on case where physical evidence exonerated the suspect, rather than them just being posthumously pardoned or something like that. (Where there was doubt of guilt, but not proof of innocence.) And there certainly is no shortage of cases where people sat on death row who were UNDENIABLY innocent. And one can certainly look at all of these MISTAKES and argue that such an imperfect system simply cannot be trusted. BUT… every conviction that gets overturned is also evidence that the system WORKS – that if someone is innocent, then the truth will come out. That may sound weak to some, and I’ll gladly admit that I’d feel better if we got it right the first time, every time, but it is significant that there ARE so many self-correcting mechanisms. The imperfection is mitigated by the fact that we recognize it.

BUT… Do they work? Was there ever a case where we KNEW we executed the wrong guy?

Well… A couple of names on that list jumped out at me.

First, there was Charles Hudspeth. He was hanged for the murder of her lover’s missing husband, who was found – ALIVE - a year later. Thing is? That was in 1892! And I have a hard time imagining a scenario like that happening today. So… it’s an EXAMPLE, but I’m not sure it’s still relevant. We’ve made SOME progress in the last 120 years.

There was also Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italian Anarchists convicted in 1920 in what many considered to have been a show-trial, rife with anti-Italian prejudice that was more common then than it is now, and executed in 1927. But at this point it’s impossible to PROOVE that they were innocent. A bad conviction? Well, Governor Dukakis certainly thought so, when he pardoned them in 1977. And I AM inclined to agree with him. But a definite “execution of the innocent?” Impossible to say.

Going from there to the wrongful execution article, I found a few more examples. There were several from the U.K. and Australia, but nothing from the U.S. The closest was Ellis Wayne Felker, who’s DNA evidence was re-evaluted after his execution. Butthe results we’re found to have been “inconclusive.” And that’s too frustrating. It’s not that I’d celebrate an innocent man being put to death, but putting aside that absurd result from 1892, at least ONE BONA-FIDE example of the State executing an innocent man would pretty much change me over to the abolitionist camp. That’s it. Just one. There are many cases where there has been doubt of guilt – and I DO NOT support the Death Penalties use in case like that – but so far no indisputable examples where we can prove innocence. And that means that it cannot be PROOVEN that our system is so profoundly flawed.

There was a case like that that got my attention many years ago, and that became very emotionally involved with.

The suspect’s name was Roger Keith Coleman. He was a coal miner in Grundy, Virginia, not far from where I was going to college at the time. And based on what the media presented at the time, I was convinced was innocent. Oprah had him on her show, and I found him to be very persuasive. At a minimum, the questions he raised and the apparent incompetence of his lawyer suggested that a new trial was appropriate. And he might have gotten one: Had that very same, publicly appointed lawyer, not filed his appeal ONE DAY AFTER the deadline to file had expired. Which, IMHO, pretty much speaks right back to that Public Defenders own incompetence! In any case, I was convinced he was innocent and beyond that convinced beyond any doubt that his original trial was flawed. But Virginia’s piece of shit Governor at the time, Democrat Douglas Wilder, (sorry, I really HATE that guy, and so does DW) refused to grant clemency, a even stay to allow the appeal about the appeal to go though. Coleman was executed and on that day I was convinced we had executed an innocent man. 100% convinced.

So, a decade later when Republican Governor Mark Warner decided to re-open the case and examine the DNA evidence which had NOT been presented at trial, I followed the story in anticipation that Roger Keith Coleman would finally be exonerated. Instead, the DNA evidence put him at the scene of the crime. He was lying. FUCK. I was angry, not so much because I WANTED to have seen an innocent man put to death, but because I had become so emotionally involved with his story. I got “sucked in,” if you will, and he was nothing more than a liar, and a murderer.

Anyway, I realize that our system of justice is imperfect. All of those overturned convictions DO point to mistakes of ALL KINDS being made. (Though over-zealous, political-motivated prosecution seem to be at the heart of many of them.) But saying that something COULD happen, is different form saying that it HAS. Finding errors, and the potential for errors, and FIXING THEM when they are found suggests that we have to have safeguards in place. Are they adequate? It’s a hollow sentiment, but so far? In this country? They appear to be.