Jacoby on capital punishment

Speaking of Jeff Jacoby, he offers this point on the recently-revived capital punishment debate:

“This week the Justice Department released ‘Capital Punishment 2001,’ its latest annual survey of death penalty statistics. … It is striking that a controversy so large revolves around numbers so small. The death penalty is available in 38 states and the federal system, yet only 66 convicted killers were executed in the United States last year. That was fewer than the 85 executed in 2000, which in turn was fewer than the 98 executed in 1999.

“… But whatever else might be said about these numbers, they are eclipsed by a far larger and more heartbreaking number, one not mentioned in the Justice Department’s report: the number of murder victims. In 2001, 15,980 Americans lost their lives to murder–a death toll hundreds of times greater than the small body count of executed murderers. Year after year, the number of inmates put to death by the state–usually painlessly and after years of due process–adds up to a minuscule fraction of the number of Americans purposely shot, beaten, strangled, knifed, poisoned, burned, drowned, hanged, and tortured to death by murderers.”

Jacoby’s musings

Jeff Jacoby’s latest column notes a wide array of topics, including the fact that the war between the enlightened West and militant Islam has been raging a lot longer than most of us think.

Lies my protesting newsperson told me

Now I could lay in to the various news agencies for their highly-skewed slant on the various anti-war protests over the weekend, but the Media Research Center has already done an oustanding analysis of the various stories.

I would like to note that the protestors in Damascus, Syria, that ABC News pointed out in its commentary were anything but peaceful, shouting, “Our beloved Saddam, strike Tel Aviv.”

I would also like to note that the group responsible for organizing the protests this past weekend is a radically leftist organization far more interested in seeing our national security forces dismantled than in seeing a corrupt, homicidal dictator rendered militarily impotent for the safety of the world.

Please do not construe any of this to mean that I am opposed to the protestors or the protesting in general. That is their right in this country, hope they had fun with all of their whining, misguided though a lot of it may be.

What I have a problem with is the irresponsible reporting that cast some sort of legitimacy on these pro-communist hippie throwbacks, purporting a “significant” portion of mainstream America is now beginning to throw its weight behind their antiwar movement. And don’t comment me with, “What about polls?” Polls are about worthless unless you start getting numbers and demographics really representative of the population. (Hint: this generally means a sample size of more than 3,000 people, and you don’t call all 3,000 within the New York or Los Angeles metro areas.)

Addendum to definition of a liberal

“A liberal is one who opposes racial profiling in matters of national security, but believes it is a useful standard in matters of higher education.” –your humble host

Americans

“Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” –George Washington

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad.

“But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul.

“Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

“…The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.

“… For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic. ” —Theodore Roosevelt, 1915

So, too, would I include those would refer to themselves as: African-American, Hispanic-American, Arab-American, Asian-American, et al. We are one people of many ethnicities, but one unique culture: American. If you feel you cannot refer to yourself as such without hyphenation, then do as Roosevelt suggested and leave. (Thanks to Rick for the link.)

Open Secrets

Now you may be wondering, “How did the MRC find out those economists were Democrat contributors?” It’s called OpenSecrets.org, and you can search for campaign contributors.

Busted

Gee, what possible agenda could ABC, NBC, and CBS have for trotting out financial experts and accountants who poo-poo on the President’s tax plan, when those experts and accountants are heavy Democrat contributors?

This week’s “Leftmedia Busters” Award

“In the 1979-80 season, 75% of all TV sets that were turned on in the early evening were tuned to the network news programs on CBS, NBC or ABC. By 2001, that share of the audience had dropped to 43%. …Any business that lost nearly a third of its customers would be out of business or close to it. Those running it would seriously restructure their product or the way they provide their service. This has not happened at CBS, NBC and ABC. The arrogance of liberals makes it impossible for them to conceive that they are doing something wrong.” —Alan Caruba, via The Federalist

I know one can make the argument that in 1979-80 many American homes did not have cable, and the CBS/NBC/ABC ratings drop could be attributed to more people tuning in to cable news stations, such as CNN. That’s extremely valid, except within the past few years, CNN’s viewership has been dropping as well. Caruba’s point still stands.

How true

“It is almost pathetic to see the emerging lineup of Democratic presidential hopefuls slobbering all over themselves in search of a defining issue —anything—to justify their pursuit of the land’s highest office. When you watch these guys explaining their decisions to run you can’t help but get the impression they are trying to convince themselves they have a legitimate reason to displace an exceedingly popular president during wartime.

“…Unless things go way south with the war and the economy, Democrats will be in trouble because they have no constructive solutions. So they’ll fall back on their tired strategy of demonizing Republicans and scaring and dividing voters, along economic, race, gender and religious lines. The more bereft they are of ideas, the nastier they will get. Which means it’s not going to be pretty.” —David Limbaugh

Sharing the sacrifice

“The first thing to keep in mind is that it is almost impossible to cut any tax without making the people who pay that tax richer. And, rich people pay a lot more taxes than poor people do.

“According to the Tax Foundation, more than five out of every six dollars collected by the federal government were paid by the top 25 percent of taxpayers. You need a gross adjusted income of $55,225 to qualify as a member of the top quarter. Now, if all these people qualify as ‘rich,’ so be it. If cutting their taxes makes them richer, so be that, too.

“The top 1 percent, by the way, pay 37 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. Democrats keep talking about how little poor people will get from an income tax cut. That’s true—because poor people pay so little in income taxes.

“How about creating a tax system in this country that makes everybody feel like they’re paying their fair share? I don’t want to raise taxes on anybody—I want to cut them for everybody. But having a system where vast segments of the working population are clients of the government and a small number are funders of it is not only institutionalized class warfare, it’s the exact opposite of shared sacrifice.” —Jonah Goldberg [emphasis added]