Right turn

Despite what several people think, if I had to position myself on the political spectrum I'd say I'm a centerist Democrat. There are things that make sense to me, and instead of aligning these positions with a party affiliation, they should be labeled as "common sense."

I know, it's a quaint notion.

I come from a time of wildly liberal thought. And, in spite of the fact I closed down my junior high school for two days by organizing an anti-war protest with my friends Sandy and Mark, who belonged to the Young Socialist Alliance, and whose parents belonged to the Socialist Worker's Party, it's safe to say currently my views don't fall that far left on the spectrum.

Because they don't, they often run counter to my more liberal friends. But I think a lot of opinions - on both sides - are knee-jerk (or in the case of the right, just jerk - BAM! I'll be here all week) reactions fueled by emotion instead of reason.

The point I'm taking the long road making is while I've moved more to the center, I've noticed some of my friends have swung to the way far right. These are people I grew up with. We came from the same circumstances, environment and educational background. We all held the same positions on issues during the years we were in school together.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, they started posting things on Facebook revealing just how far right they've become in their thinking.

It's not just their opinions, which they're certainly entitled to, that disturbs me. It's their seemingly complete lack of compassion and empathy disguised as political opinion. It reflects a hardening towards less fortunate people that's as callus as it is unreasonable. Maybe they always felt this way. Maybe it's the way their parents felt. Maybe they just don't like to think. Or compromise. But the mindless vitriol that spews from them makes me mourn for their humanity. And it also makes me think maybe I never really knew them as well as I thought I did.

Despite how it sounds, I don't judge my friends on their political views. But I do judge those views. It's a fine distinction, but one nonetheless.

What I'm getting at is it just makes me sad. Sad some of my friends, some who I've known since elementary school, have become so hardened in their souls. It seems their true selves are being held captive somewhere in a deep, dark basement at Fox News, being forced to watch the insane, angry, petulant, hostile, aggressive, misinformed, manipulative ramblings of Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly 24 hours a day.

Mental waterboarding.

I'm for the death penalty. I support gay marriage. I don't believe guns should be outlawed. I believe a woman is the only one who should be making choices about her body. And I also believe in compassion for the less fortunate. This casual disregard, Fox News mentality, taking refuge behind comments like "Let 'em pull themselves up by their bootstraps." is all bullshit. You can't do it when you don't even have bootstraps.

There for the grace of God goes anyone who thinks otherwise (during the recession, I knew a lot of people who were one paycheck away from reconsidering their opinion on government assistance).

It's hard to believe Arizona once had a senator who wasn't an angry, old grandpa who traded his dignity and reputation by choosing a uniquely unqualified airhead to be his running mate. But it did. During his tenure, Barry Goldwater was referred to as Mr. Conservative. Today, because of some of the common sense views he arrived at later in life - like a woman's right to choose, accepting gays in the military (His quote was "they don't have to be straight, they just have to shoot straight") and not letting religion into politics - he's been denounced time and again by the right, with their philosophy that you have to think or behave a certain way to be a good and moral American.

If someone like Goldwater, who many consider father of the conservative movement, could eventually arrive at reasonable, common sense views on the issues, maybe my more conservative friends will too.

What took so long

I’ve written about the death penalty several times before: here, here, here, here, here and here. So I won’t make this a long post.

It’ll be just long enough to ask why Richard Ramirez, the infamous Night Stalker serial killer, was given the death penalty then allowed to live another 24 years until he died yesterday of natural causes (and I thought there wouldn’t be any good news yesterday).

He'd been sentenced following his conviction for 13 murders, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults and 14 burglaries. During the entire 24 years after his conviction, while taxpayers were footing the bill to house, feed, clothe, educate, exercise, medicate, marry (yes, he got married in prison to a woman with very questionable taste in men) and fight appeals for this monster, ironically all 13 people he murdered remained dead.

Their due didn’t come until yesterday. And even at that it only came in the form of circumstance, not the justice they and their families waited for and were promised.

Ramirez, and people like him – Scott Peterson, the Menendez brothers – fade out of the headlines once their trials are over. It's easy to forget they continue to enjoy breathing the air for decades, while appeal after appeal slog through the overburdened court system. And their victims families have to live with the injury of the loss, and the insult that their tax dollars are supporting the killer years after they’ve been sentenced.

I've mentioned it in other posts, but it seems worth mentioning here again. The argument that somehow putting him to death as a punishment for his crime, and the murders he committed have some kind of moral equivalency is ridiculous by any civilized method of reasoning. It simply isn't the truth.

Richard Ramirez didn’t deserve to die of natural causes. He deserved to die shortly after his conviction, in a chamber filled with gas or with a needle in his arm and the families of his victims as witnesses.

He deserved to die younger than he ever thought he would, and terrified beyond words.

Just like his victims did.

Enforce the death penalty

Last Tuesday, Proposition 34, which would've repealed the death penalty in California, was defeated. As well it should've been.

In the week leading up to the vote, and early election eve before all the precincts had been counted, some of my well-intentioned friends were posting fast and furious about how Prop. 34 needed to pass. They talked about how immoral the death penalty is. How it isn't a deterrent. That it was costing the state too much.

As if it were about cost.

I love my friends, and appreciate their sentiments. But I'd like to explain why I think they're wrong on this one. Let's take it point by point:

Moral equivalency

For starters, I've never bought the argument that putting murderers, and in particular child murderers, to death brings us down to their level. It is an absolutely false analogy. Violently murdering innocent adults and young children, then executing the murderer as a consequence of their crime are two completely different things. No matter how much you'd like them to be, they aren't morally equivalent.

Not a deterrent

The fact is the death penalty is the best deterrent there is. Not to criminals in general, but certainly to the individual being executed. I guarantee you nothing deters a convicted murderer more from committing another murder than being put to death. Besides, while some corners would have you believe the reason for it is to act as a deterrent, it's not. It's about enacting justice for a heinous crime.

Costs too much

I recognize it's a reality, but it still seems vulgar to me to talk about it in terms of cost. And I'm not sure where cost comes into the equation when it comes to justice. The argument is all the mandatory appeals that go on for years - years that are torturous and cruel for the victim's families - is much more expensive than life imprisonment. Although most anti-death penalty proponents choose to ignore it, when the hidden cost of items like medical care, psychiatric care, educational benefits (yes, benefits) are factored in, especially for convicted killers with a life expectancy of 40 or 50 years, it becomes more costly to warehouse them for life. If people are genuinely concerned about the cost, instead of arguing against the law they should be advocating for the layers and years of appeals to be handled in fiscally responsible, expeditious manner.

It's inhumane

I think the notion that lethal injection - executing a prisoner in the same manner as you'd euthanize a pet - is inhumane needs a point of reference. Inhumane as opposed to what? Stabbing a 4-year old child 50 times in the bathtub? Using the claw end of a hammer to bludgeon someone to death? Decapitating a 7-year old, then for good measure cutting off his hands and feet? It's nice to care so much about the guilty, but I believe the concern is misplaced.

And while we're on the subject of inhumane, let me again mention the victim's family. The real inhumanity is the fact they have to wait decades while the California appeals process runs its course. Decades without their loved ones. Decades of knowing their tax dollars are paying for three squares a day for the monster that killed their baby, sister, brother, mother, father, friend. I not a big fan of Texas, but in 1998 they passed a law expediting the appeals process. People think they execute people like crazy, but the numbers tell you they don't have a higher amount of people on death row. They execute a higher percentage of them because of the expedited appeals.

I also notice many of my friends against the death penalty aren't parents. I'm not saying that in a judgmental way, it's just an observation. I do think, as any parent will tell you, that having children changes your perspective on the issue in ways you never could've expected. I can't even watch movies like Ransom or Without A Trace anymore.

I do agree the system needs to be overhauled, although probably not in the same way my friends do. Again, I think California needs to take a page from Texas' book and reform the appeals process. Expedite it, and reduce the number of appeals given to convicted murderers, especially in cases where DNA is the primary evidence.

If you've followed this blog at all, you know this isn't a new position for me. I've posted here, here, here, here and here about criminals for whom death doesn't come close to being a good enough punishment. Sadly, there never seems to be any shortage of them.

My wish is that nothing bad enough ever happens to anyone I know to change their mind if they're against it.

But I also hope they consider the people who's lives are forever changed by these killers, and think about the only way they and the victims can ever truly have justice.

Crazy control

Just when I said I didn't feel strongly enough about anything to post for awhile, this happens.

I didn't hear about the shootings at the midnight show of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado until this morning. My first thought was about the horror and sadness the victims and their families have been exposed to in this tragedy.

My second thought was that my son had gone to a midnight show last night, and thank God it didn't happen here. Of course the sad truth about that thought is it can happen anywhere. Unfortunately, crazy doesn't pay much attention to state borders or jurisdictions.

It knows how to travel when it needs to.

I won't try and make sense of it - there'll be pundits galore all over cable news tonight doing that.

I do know it wasn't the movie's fault. Warner Bros. has cancelled the Paris premiere, and pulled some of the advertising for the film indefinitely. Two things I believe they shouldn't have done.

For all the talk there's going to be about gun control, for me, here's the bottom line: more gun control laws wouldn't have helped. Colorado, like most states, already has a number of them on the books. But when crazy wants a gun, crazy gets a gun. You can argue a background check and waiting period might've prevented this, but crazy is also skilled at not looking crazy when it needs to. Ever see the neighbor interviews?

"He was always such a nice guy." "He was quiet but friendly." "He used to wave and smile when I saw him."

He bought the guns in his possession legally - in compliance with all the gun laws - from local gun shops. He purchased the ammunition legally off the internet. You simply cannot close all the loopholes.

For my pals against the death penalty, this is why you're wrong. He may plead crazy, but he was lucid enough to put on bullet-proof armor and buy tear gas first. There's no reason for this monster to be walking the earth. Hopefully it won't be years before the courts come to this obvious conclusion.

And while I'm on the subject, I think there should be a special category of execution for crimes as horrendous as this. In the same way that labeling something a "hate crime" makes one murder subject to a harsher penalty than the other, I think by creating a separate category of crime we could execute these abominations in the way they deserve to go.

And it isn't peacefully with an I.V. line in their arm.

All I keep thinking about, besides the victims, is the parents. As if there aren't enough reminders in the day you can't protect your children from everything evil in the world.

In the aftermath, all we can do is hug our kids, let them go to the movies and teach them that even though bad things happen, life goes on. Teach them fearful is not a way to live. That's what crazy wants. Don't give it to him.

And for as long as you can, hold the people in Colorado affected by this tragedy in your hearts, thoughts and prayers.

They're going to need it.

UPDATE: TDKR director Christopher Nolan's statement on the shooting:

"Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of "The Dark Knight Rises", I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families."

No sir Sirhan

If you've had even the most remedial course in recent history, you know the initials RFK are shorthand for Robert Francis Kennedy.

Of course after reading Sirhan Sirhan's latest attempt at a get-out-of-jail free card, no one could blame you for thinking they stand for R u F#@%ing Kidding me?

After 44 years, his attorney's are pushing their "second gunman" theory. Again.

Let me know how that works out for you.

As I've posted about before, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. But even if I was going to subscribe to this one, it wouldn't be easy what with the smoking gun - literally smoking gun - in his hand as a crowd of onlookers watched him kill Robert Kennedy.

Here are a few of the more - oh, let's call them convincing facts - we know about Sirhan Sirhan.

On January 31 1968 his diary entry was "RFK must die."

He decided to elaborate on that on May 16, 1968 with "My determination to eliminate RFK is becoming more of an unshakable obsession."

Then on June 1, 1968 he decided he needed to pick up a few things, so he went shopping for two boxes of .22 hollow point ammunition.

And of course, on June 4, 1968, Sirhan waited for Robert Kennedy in the kitchen at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. When Kennedy was leaving through the kitchen after his California primary victory speech, Sirhan repeatedly fired his gun at the Senator, fatally injuring him.

He died the next day.

Apparently though killing one Kennedy wasn't enough to satisfy his "unshakable obsession." In 1977 he offered a fellow prisoner a million dollars and a car to kill Edward Kennedy.

I'm not easily offended, but reading the article about his lawyer's new strategy - and how unjustly his client has been imprisoned - comes pretty close.

Sirhan has been denied parole 14 times since shooting Kennedy. Some guys just can't take a hint. The truth is he's never getting out no matter what theories his media-whore attorneys decide to bring forward.

Unfortunately California ruled the death penalty unconstitutional at the time he was convicted, so Sirhan will get to spend the rest of his life behind bars, at taxpayer expense, where I imagine he'll die of old age.

Which if there were any real justice, is the way Robert Kennedy would have gone.

When the death penalty isn't enough

For those of you who doubt the existence of evil, or believe that it doesn't walk among us, you might want to have a seat and alter your thinking.

I don't have a term strong or accurate enough to describe the piece of white trash pictured here. His name is Jeremiah Lee Wright. What did he do to stir all this negative emotion? He decapitated his 7-year old son, then for good measure cut off his hands and feet.

His son had cerebral palsy and heart problems, and was confined to a wheel chair. And 'ole Jeremiah just got tired of taking care of him. (If you want more details, you'll find them here).

This isn't the first time I've posted about human garbage. I did it before for another animal equally deserving of being wiped off the face of the earth. The frightening thing is that psychopaths like this are like ants - you can never really get rid of them all.

As a parent writing this, and I'm sure if you're a parent reading it, the size of the unimaginable sadness is only matched by the desire to lock our kids away and protect them from everything, and everyone, bad in the world.

Which of course we can't.

I don't often do this, but I'm going to quote myself from that other post on the death penalty:

Here's the thing: I don't buy the argument that putting him to death brings us down to his level. It's a false analogy. Murdering innocent adults and young children, then executing the murderer as a consequence of their crime are two completely different things. They are not morally equivalent.

While it would be nice if the penalty worked as a deterrent, I don't really care whether it does or not. What does matter to me is that by putting him to death, one less monster walks among us.

A little bit of evil bites the dust.

So that's how I feel. And in this case in particular, I hope the way this guy eventually gets taken out causes him to feel as much pain and terror as he caused his innocent son.

For starters.

Score one for the death penalty

I'm going to be getting up on my soapbox in this post, so you might want to take a couple steps back.

Not only am I going to disappoint some of my friends here, I'm also going to be politically incorrect - two things I manage to do on a regular basis.

Buckle up, here it comes: I'm in favor of the death penalty. Especially when it's applied to someone like the piece of human garbage you see here.

This is Rodney Alcala. He was convicted in February of kidnapping and murdering a 12 year- old girl in Orange County, and raping and murdering four Los Angeles women in the 1970's. Without going into the finer points, some of his instruments of choice were a rock, the claw end of a hammer, a shoelace, a nylon stocking and a belt.

For those of you keeping count, this is his third death sentence for these crimes. He was caught, tried, convicted and sentenced to death twice before. But the convictions were overturned, once by the California Supreme Court and once by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The good news however is that in this third trial, they had irrefutable DNA evidence. That's what finally did him in.

Here's the thing: I don't buy the argument that putting him to death brings us down to his level. It's a false analogy. Murdering innocent adults and young children, then executing the murderer as a consequence of their crime are two completely different things. They are not morally equivalent.

While it would be nice if the penalty worked as a deterrent, I don't really care whether it does or not. What does matter to me is that by putting him to death, one less monster walks among us.

A little bit of evil bites the dust.

The death penalty isn't handed out the same way sample cigarettes are on a street corner. You have to earn it. The sadly ironic thing is that once you do, the state then gives you years of automatic appeals to prove you don't deserve it. Many prisoners have been on ("languished" is far too sympathetic a word) death row more than 25 years in California while their appeals wind there way through the court system.

I wonder how many years that girl's parents will have to wait before seeing justice done. To bad there's not a bonus round where those years could go back to his victims.

Maybe it's just the parent in me because one of his victims was a 12 year-old, but I can't find a reason to justify his continued existence. He isn't mentally ill. He wasn't on drugs. He's not legally insane. He wasn't just sitting in the getaway car while the crimes were being committed.

And while it's probably true he did have a bad childhood, I'm just gonna call bullshit on that excuse.

A lot of people will say just the fact he's a human being is reason enough not to execute him. But see, that's another false argument. Obviously he's isn't.

The sister of the young girl Mr. Alcala viciously murdered said, "If there is a hell, I hope Rodney Alcala burns eternally. I wish he would experience the terror he put his victims through."

Ditto.