I have been contemplating a post regarding the referendum vote this Novemeber 7 on the death penalty and whether it should be reinstated in Wisconsin. My argument has always been twofold: We should not place ourselves in the role of god (or God, for those annoyed by the small "g") and what if an innocent is executed? There is no going back.
I asked a person I know (staunchly conservative) the question about innocence some time ago and his response was a cold-hearted, "So What. Accidents happen." The answer and its callousness astounded me. I guess I should not have been surprised. Like chickenhawk conservatives who support the fiasco in Iraq from afar, though they could serve, too many conservatives are ready to throw the switch ... damn the consequences.
James Wigderson, author of Wigderson Library & Pub, is different. He has written an excellent piece in the Waukesha Freeman on the demerits of reinstating the death penalty. I initially thought it odd that James would be on the con side of this debate, considering he is a staunch conservative. But thinking it over, his being against the death penalty is consistent with his views, and if there is one thing I know about James it's he is consistent.
How is James consistent? James is consistent in his views on abortion and the death penalty ... in both cases, his belief is to stand with life. Without getting into an abortion debate (we disagree about abortion, though I suspect we have more in common that we think) his consistency is admirable ... an area, in my opinion, in which far too many conservative fall short.
And, to be fair, some liberals.
Gen. Petraeus Rebukes White House: 'We, In Uniform, Protect The Rights Of Those To Criticize Us' - General David Petraeus, former Director of the CIA, smacked down the White House for saying it's "inappropriate to question a four-star general when repo...
31 minutes ago