from Enigma
I’ve had the opportunity to attend a few anti-war protests in Chattanooga this year, and I have to say that I remain unmoved by the anti-war movement. All I’ve seen in my few visits is a predictable gaggle of lethargic, unfocused, hygiene-optional folks, who have trouble getting their P.A. to work. It is really quite sad. They have also failed to change my opinion that Saddam Hussein is a terrorist-funding mass murderer, and that his removal by force is the only realistic option. I also still enjoy oil.
One protest I attended was before Christmas, and this “anti-war” protest was also a protest to legalize pot, protect abortion rights, protect the environment, and stop hate crimes. See what I mean about a lack of focus? I mean, for crying out loud, pick a cause and stick with it!
There was also entertainment, as a group of young ladies, who I believe called themselves the “Anarchist Cheerleaders,” really got the party started with an unforgettable cheer about “being heard” and “resisting.” I forget how it went. It’s not important, though. For what they lacked in choreography, choral skills, and common sense, they more than made up for in armpit hair.
At another anti-war protest, I was joined by some of my compadres from our TV show, “On The Other Hand.” As a goof, we wore signs protesting against “lactose intolerance.” My observations at the earlier protest led me to want to try this sort of open-air protest parody. While most people we met were friendly, we did meet some resistance along the way. One woman took us to task for our charade, declaring that the war was a very serious issue. And since I agree that the war is a very serious issue, I thought to myself that it might have been better if she hadn’t shown up to the protest stoned.
The views and actions of our local “elites for peace” are represented tenfold by the symPATHETHIC media and an endless list of celebrities. The major media outlets take pride in overreporting about anti-American civil unrest, and those in Hollywood are often the chief instigators. Paid to pretend to be other people, actors are desperate to seem real and relevant. They use tired clichés (“Give Peace A Chance”) and quote tired Marxist, Socialist, and Communist idealogues to create entire movements with the sole purpose of demeaning and discrediting our republic, and everything it stands for. Upon our victory in Iraq, celebrities like Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, and Sheryl Crow will have dug themselves into a hole the size of Michael Moore. And speaking of obese, Socialist, future heart-attack victims, Michael Moore’s acceptance speech at the Academy Awards was as full of holes as his work.
Talk radio airwaves, too, are filled with opinions about the war, and the always-interesting “FRED The Show” page of WGOW’s website even features a link to a website listing some musicians who oppose the war. Musicians like Massive Attack (unfortunate band name for such a list), Jackson Browne (who’s against violence unless he’s beating up Darryl Hannah), and Natalie Imbruglia. Imbruglia’s inclusion on the list is interesting. As she’s now become a proud part of the anti-war movement, I can’t help but remember how I protested the bowel movements that came out of her mouth mislabeled as “songs” when she last had a hit. Five years ago. Or was it six?
What all these people and groups have in common is a desire for “peace.” There is a lot of whining going on about people like myself speaking out against the so-called “peace” movement. “We have a right to say what we want,” they shout. Yes, they do have a right to say what they want. But rights are not the issue here. Decency and respect are the issue here. When, through “civil unrest,” you block the streets and block people from getting to and from their jobs, and disrupt their livelihoods, you are being disrespectful. You are placing your rights above theirs simply because they disagree. And there is nothing peaceful about that.
In the end, what the heck is “peace” and where does it come from? Through hopeful complacency to preserve the way things are (or seem to be) now, or through risky action now to try to ensure the future? It’s a tough question. I tend to want to say the latter. But maybe Tom Cruise could help me out with it.
from Enigma
The recent controversy surrounding outgoing Illinois Governor George Ryan’s decision to overturn the sentences of all 157 inmates on Illinois’ death row has led to some interesting talk around the water cooler, and some unchecked idiocy within the so-called “progressive” and “enlightened” segments of our population.
Ryan, who recently appeared on Oprah, overturned the death sentences chiefly because of the fear that innocent people might be executed. He cites Illinois as being in serious error when it came to convicting the right people. Since Illinois reinstated capital punishment in 1977, the state has exonerated 13 death row inmates, while executing only 12.
“We found out that the error rate (of convicting innocents) was 60%,” Ryan told Oprah. "That's six in ten people...I determined the only way I could be safe in what I was going to do was to issue a blanket clemency.”
While Ryan’s fear is mildly understandable, his actions are questionable.
Despite the flaws and abuses in our legal system that lead to unlawful convictions of innocent people, nobody (including members of anti-death penalty groups) has ever seemed to come up with the name of ONE innocent person who has actually been executed. The ACLU, for example, has a page on its web site titled, “Stop the Execution of the Innocent!” If you actually read the page, however, you’ll notice that, in fact, NO accounts of innocent people being executed are cited – only a few close calls.
While hundreds of people have sat wrongly accused on death row, hundreds have also been set free due to DNA testing. And with the lengthy appeals process now in place, it is practically impossible for an innocent person to be put to death. The three recently freed men who appeared on Oprah with Ryan would likely have been freed even if Ryan had not issued his unjust blanket clemency. Their cases were completely independent of others’ on Illinois’ death row with certain, undeniable guilt. The same DNA testing that can free innocent men from wrongful execution, can also free victims’ families from a lack of justice.
Those of us who support the death penalty often take a good deal of verbal abuse from those of you who don’t. We’re accused of being “cold” and “cruel,” while you pat yourselves on the back for being “compassionate” and “caring.”
And those of us who believe in the death penalty but are also against abortion are accused of being “hypocrites.” As one local writer recently put it, we must be “blissfully unaware” of the “implicit hypocrisy of our positions.” If this writer’s statement weren’t so sad, it would be ironic and humorous.
People who are pro-abortion choose to downgrade the value of human life by refusing to call innocent, unborn children, “babies.” They instead call them “fetuses” or “cells,” and label themselves the friendlier and meaningless “Pro-Choice,” further denying, and sterilizing themselves from, the truth of what they really support. Those who are “Pro-Choice,” and who decide to have abortions, most often do so to “correct a mistake” so that they can “get on with their lives.” And when opposed on the topic of abortion, they accuse those in opposition as having “no right” to tell them what “they can do with their bodies.” The last time I checked, it wasn’t their bodies that were being sucked into a sink.
Regardless of where you stand on abortion, or what you choose to call yourself or the unborn child, the fact remains that EVERY unborn child who has ever been aborted was innocent when it was killed. At least 40 million have died since Roe vs. Wade. And that’s not counting abortions in other countries, unreported abortions, or abortions performed before Roe vs. Wade.
The death penalty is different from abortion. Plain and simple. Those who are put to death are guilty of murder. They have forfeited their rights, and are punishable by our laws. And while it is a travesty that many innocent people have spent many years on death row, those guilty of murder are no less guilty because the system bringing them to justice is flawed.
Everybody is talking about “rights” these days. Some argue that women should have the “right” to have an abortion. Some would argue that killers have a “right” to live after denying somebody else’s right to live. The right to life, whether it’s the life of an innocent murder victim or the life of an innocent unborn child, is the most precious of all rights. The death penalty, if nothing else, reinforces respect for that right to life.