Thursday, June 26, 2008
Barack Obama actually got it right. The Supreme Court's ruling that the death penalty for child rape cases violates the Constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" has prompted criticism from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and provoked the possibility that the Pendragon will support him actively rather than merely sit out the election in hope of a better matchup in four years. Of course, the ruling as usual is so far out of the mainstream of America it is no surprise that the good senator would need to distance himself from it. But unlike McCain, Obama actually has a record to back up his rhetoric here. As a state senator, he supported legislation to give the supreme court greater authority to review death penalty cases, but opposed legislation to ban the death penalty altogether. His reasons for doing so are in complete line with the Pendragon's.
Obama admitted he does not know whether the death penalty actually deters future crime, but argued in his autobiography, that some crimes are "so heinous, so beyond the pale" that society is justified in expressing their outrage by meting out "the ultimate penalty." Agreed. Most psychatrists now believe that while many criminals can be saved, pedophiles seem to be beyond rehabilitation. Does this mean that executing one will deter another with those inclinations from acting on them? I don't know. I don't care. What it does mean is that one person who has so grossly overstepped the bounds of common decency is dead and I, the moral American taxpayer, do not have to shell out for his feed and water for the next thirty years or however long it takes the SOB to die. As for the argument that it is cruel and unusual punishment, as far as I can figure, the electric chair is probably less cruel than forced castration which is what some death penalty opponents think is better. Even prisoners in this case are more moral than the Supreme Court: look up the statistics of how many baby rapers are killed in prison by hardened criminals. Is it more cruel to be beaten to death or electrocuted?
So what does this mean for the great state of Louisiana? They should ignore the ruling. Andrew Jackson once commented on a Supreme Court ruling, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." They can't. They rely on the respect for law that most Americans have. But this latest ruling makes a mockery of the law. And it's not final. The justices won't be on the bench forever.
Obama admitted he does not know whether the death penalty actually deters future crime, but argued in his autobiography, that some crimes are "so heinous, so beyond the pale" that society is justified in expressing their outrage by meting out "the ultimate penalty." Agreed. Most psychatrists now believe that while many criminals can be saved, pedophiles seem to be beyond rehabilitation. Does this mean that executing one will deter another with those inclinations from acting on them? I don't know. I don't care. What it does mean is that one person who has so grossly overstepped the bounds of common decency is dead and I, the moral American taxpayer, do not have to shell out for his feed and water for the next thirty years or however long it takes the SOB to die. As for the argument that it is cruel and unusual punishment, as far as I can figure, the electric chair is probably less cruel than forced castration which is what some death penalty opponents think is better. Even prisoners in this case are more moral than the Supreme Court: look up the statistics of how many baby rapers are killed in prison by hardened criminals. Is it more cruel to be beaten to death or electrocuted?
So what does this mean for the great state of Louisiana? They should ignore the ruling. Andrew Jackson once commented on a Supreme Court ruling, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." They can't. They rely on the respect for law that most Americans have. But this latest ruling makes a mockery of the law. And it's not final. The justices won't be on the bench forever.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
With the worst electoral matchup at least since Ford-Carter, if not Smith-Hoover in 1932 now official, the Pendragon decidedly turns my back on it and ask my readers to consider the true nature of business. As with the military, understanding the true nature of this enterprise will help to guard us against disappointment when it doesn't live up to our imaginary expectations.
Put simply, the end of business is to make money. I work as a supervisor in a chain bookstore and I deal with this all the time--customers who think the goal of the store should be to save them money, or employees who think that the goal of the business is to provide them with free stuff and vastly discounted goods. I would love it if that were true, but the fact is, the only goal for a business is to make money. Is it immoral? It's amoral at least--nothing good or evil about it. If a business chooses to make money in a way that is illegal or immoral, then certainly sanctions are in order. I am not in favor of unleashing pure laissez-faire, but I believe that since the goal of business is to make money, we should not expect businessmen to worry about how to house the homeless, cure diseases or anything else of that sort. If a businessman or woman does it, that is a bonus and a personal responsibility, not a fiscal one. It is a business' responsibility to make money; it is the responsibility of an individual human to take care of others. But when we expect corporations to ignore what their own purpose is, we open ourselves to great disappointment when either they do not, or they try to balance both and end up satisfying neither. We also open the door to allowing individuals to get out of their responsibility. If big business with all its money is responsible for the poor, how do you get Bill-Next-Door working a blue-collar job to help out his less-fortunate counterparts? So as the buck passes back and forth while the financially-challenged sit and wait for help and business gets blasted for ignoring obligations it never had. But an understanding of the role of business will help the poor more than legislating the crap out of it.
Put simply, the end of business is to make money. I work as a supervisor in a chain bookstore and I deal with this all the time--customers who think the goal of the store should be to save them money, or employees who think that the goal of the business is to provide them with free stuff and vastly discounted goods. I would love it if that were true, but the fact is, the only goal for a business is to make money. Is it immoral? It's amoral at least--nothing good or evil about it. If a business chooses to make money in a way that is illegal or immoral, then certainly sanctions are in order. I am not in favor of unleashing pure laissez-faire, but I believe that since the goal of business is to make money, we should not expect businessmen to worry about how to house the homeless, cure diseases or anything else of that sort. If a businessman or woman does it, that is a bonus and a personal responsibility, not a fiscal one. It is a business' responsibility to make money; it is the responsibility of an individual human to take care of others. But when we expect corporations to ignore what their own purpose is, we open ourselves to great disappointment when either they do not, or they try to balance both and end up satisfying neither. We also open the door to allowing individuals to get out of their responsibility. If big business with all its money is responsible for the poor, how do you get Bill-Next-Door working a blue-collar job to help out his less-fortunate counterparts? So as the buck passes back and forth while the financially-challenged sit and wait for help and business gets blasted for ignoring obligations it never had. But an understanding of the role of business will help the poor more than legislating the crap out of it.
