monique

Woolgathering
2002-03-09 01:32:37 (UTC)

Huh?

Politics is not my usual topic but today it will be. I'm
going to be ranting and raving here just a teensy little bit
so feel free to skip this entry if that's not your thing.

There were two articles in my local newspaper this week
which caught my eye. Both left me thinking *Huh?*

The first was a column about a death penalty conference held
at the University of Oregon in Eugene last week.

You can find the column at

http://www.registerguard.com/news/20020304/1b.cr.mccowan.030
4.html

The conference's keynote death penalty proponent, Robert
Blecker, said he *readily concedes that most people on death
row today do not deserve to be there.* The columnist
followed that with *even the most impassioned proponent of
execution should agree.*

Where did he get that idea and how did she make this
conclusion? First a disclaimer: I have never known anyone
who was murdered or known anyone on death row. Going
further, I have never been the victim of a serious crime and
know no one who has been. I have no personal stake in the
issue except as a citizen.

That gotten out of the way I'd like to know where did the
conference come up with this speaker? This was the best
they could do as a keynote death penalty proponent? My
guess is that the conference organizers wanted to show
they were offering a balanced and fair program. But then
again, no one in their right mind would speak at conference
on campus with a politically incorrect viewpoint. I
certainly wouldn't.

As for the columnist's opinion I wouldn't describe myself as
*the most impassioned proponent of execution* but I don't
agree with that most people on death row don't belong there
or that most people would agree with that statement. I
think there are some people who most certainly belong there.
Society needs this option. Yes, the system needs to do a
much better job in making certain that those who end up
there truly belong there but the death penalty should
remain.

I also remember that the very same columnist had written a
piece when Ted Bundy, serial killer, had been executed in
Florida. She expressed relief. I remember it because I
felt the same way. I wonder what caused her to change her
views?

The real zinger was at the end of the column.

**A robber killing an unresisting victim may well be
heinous, atrocious and cruel, Blecker said. But what about
the robber whose victim resists and is killed after trying
to grab his gun or producing one of his own? *That person
does not deserve to be on death row,* he said. *It's
different when you kill a guy who's trying to kill you.* **

WHAT? Excuse me, if someone is being robbed they don't know
if the robber just intends to rob them or also intends to do
them grave bodily harm. If they have a gun in their hand I
would assume they certainly *could* kill me and if the
situation warranted it I would try to defend myself. The
guy is not *trying to kill you* he is defending himself!
And yes, if a robber did murder someone he was trying to rob
when the victim (remember him?) tried to defend himself he
should be placed on death row.

The second article which caught my eye was in today's
newspaper.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/20020308/1c.cr.nader.0308.
html

This article was titled

*Nader Renews Call to Fight Greed*

Remember that heading as you read the following.

The article stated that there was a *$50- to $100-a-plate
dinner attended by 60 and 70 people. Let's do the math,
shall we? Sixty people at $50 a plate is $3,000 and
seventy people at $100 a plate is $7,000 so this dinner
grossed somewhere between those two numbers. The diners had
a choice between a vegetarian or vegan menu so the profits
must have been pretty good as the most expensive part of any
meal is meat and there was no meat in these meals. The
diners also could have him autograph copies of his newest
book. No information about what these books cost each but
most hardback new books run somewhere between $20 to $30 so
who knows how much he made there. [Note: Ralph Nader's
latest book * Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and
Still Run for President* retails for $24.95.]

The article continued:

**He did have a hard time, though, getting the crowd to bid
on a pen with a pull-out listing the billions the nation has
been spending on the war against terrorism. But eventually
several men ponied up between $100 and $200 each for three
of the pens ** so there was another little piece of change.

It ended with the information that he would be making the
keynote address at the Public Interest Environmental Law
Conference. Registration costs $20 to $50 for general
public, more for attorneys and professionals. No
information on what Mr. Nader's speaking fee was going to
be.

What was the reason again for the dinner, the pen selling,
the autographed book signing, the conference speech? Oh,
yeah, fighting greed. I wonder if Mr. Nader knows how to
spell *irony* ?





Ad: