Why Tookie Should Die

Here's why Stanley "Tookie" Williams should die. Read particularly pages two through six. His case has become a cause célèbre among the Hollywood crowd, and the Left-wing in general, who insist that his sentence should be commuted to life in prison because he's written childrens' books while in jail over the last twenty-five years.

Their rationale is a slap in the face to Williams' victims. If Williams has actually morphed into a human being during the last two decades and deserves clemency from his sentence of death, why punish him at all? Why not set him free to run Head Start programs or something? It doesn't matter what sort of person he's become in prison (In the event, Mr. Williams' prison experience is rather mixed, see pp.40-42), he killed four people and laughed and bragged about it. It's nice that he writes books for kids nowadays, but that's not such a rare talent that we need to preserve the life of Tookie Williams to insure that it gets done.

The point of putting someone as savage as Mr. Williams to death is to make a statement affirming the value of innocent life. Someone who capriciously and hatefully (he claimed to want to kill white people) takes the life of another has perpetrated one of the worst crimes that can be committed and should be made to suffer the severest punishment. To let him live is to announce to the world that no matter what he did to his victims, the life of Tookie Williams is more precious to us than are the lives of the people he murdered. To refuse to execute a man as bestial as Williams is not unlike refusing to assess a rapist anything more than a fine. By failing to make the punishment commensurate to the crime we tacitly admit that the crime of rape is not important enough to apply any really serious sanction against the assailant. Likewise, to shrink from executing Williams is to acknowledge that the crime of murder is not serious enough to require that the killer forfeit his own life in retribution.

No matter what his other virtues might be, and we doubt there are many, citizens, including the families of his victims, should not have to see their tax dollars spent to maintain the life of a man who has willfully and cruelly wrecked their lives. To let Mr. Williams live out a normal span of days just because he now writes anti-gang books would be a complete miscarriage of justice.

Update On Gold

If you care at all about your financial security, you migh be interested in this article. I urge you to read it in its entirety.

Now, gold is revisiting ... lofty levels and, in the process, catching a lot of interest from a number of sources, not the least those who are surprised that bullion is rising at the same time as the U.S. dollar is appreciating.

According to hitherto conventional thinking, that shouldn't happen.

Myles Zyblock, chief institutional strategist at RBC Dominion Securities Inc., recently authored an extensive report on gold that suggested, among other things, that "there has been a significant portfolio shift out of financial assets and into tangible assets" and the shift began in 2000, just as the tech bubble was set to explode.

In the intervening period, gold has climbed about 74 per cent while the Dow Jones industrial average has fallen about 1 per cent, a development that he attributes to a rise in investors' risk aversion.

"Gold is now in its fifth year of a secular bull market, and if history acts as a useful guide, we could quite easily see another three to five years of solid performance from gold and gold shares," he said.

I disagree with this last statement that a secular bull market will only last three to five years. Typically, they can go 10 to 15 years. Just look at the NASDAQ from 1990 to 2000. We're already 5 years into the bull market in gold which started in 2000 and the price of gold has doubled.

Cl�ment Gignac, chief economist and strategist at National Bank Financial, believes that bullion will climb to $600 in the next 12 to 15 months. And he cautions that is only an "intermediate target," which he will reassess when the time comes. If, as he thinks may happen, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries eventually starts worrying about a weakening U.S. dollar and opts to protect its purchasing power by quoting the price of oil in a basket of currencies rather than just the greenback, then bullion could climb even further.

But the bulk of his bullish case for gold stems from a feeling that the peak in real estate south of the border is behind us -- which, along with rising interest rates, is bad news for the U.S. economy, and by extension the U.S. dollar, but good for gold.

Gold..if you don't have it, get it.

A Proper Spanking

Tom Bethell takes George Will and Charles Krauthammer to the woodshed to administer a proper spanking for their recent columns deriding Intelligent Design and those who advocate it.

We recommend Bethell's entire article which closes with this:

The underlying problem, rarely discussed, is that the conclusions of evolutionism are based not on science, but on a philosophy: the philosophy of materialism, or naturalism. Living creatures, including human beings, are here on Earth, and we got here somehow. If atoms and molecules in motion are all that exist, then their random interactions must account for everything that exists, including us. That is the true underpinning of Darwinism. What needs to be examined in detail is not so much the religion behind intelligent design as the philosophy behind evolution.

It is indeed rarely discussed (though discussed perhaps ad nauseum here on Viewpoint) that ID and modern evolutionary theory are philosophical mirror images of each other. The task confronting the current generation of ID advocates is to repeat this fact sufficiently often that it eventually begins to take hold in the mind of even the most obdurate of newspaper editors and columnists. Perhaps then we will begin to make some progress toward having a serious public debate in this country over the relative merits of these two explanations for biological complexity.

Have They No Shame?

The Republicans' obsequious fawning over Rep. John Murtha has moved Ann Coulter to muse over why Republicans feel such a pathetic need to ingratiate themselves to Democrats:

When Democratic Rep. John Murtha called for the withdrawal of American troops in the middle of the war, Republicans immediately leapt to action by calling Murtha a war hero, a patriot and a great American.

I haven't heard Republicans issue this many encomiums to one man since Ronald Reagan died. By now, Murtha has been transformed into the greatest warrior since Alexander the Great and is probably dating Jennifer Aniston.

In response to Murtha's demand for the "immediate withdrawal of American troops" -- as The New York Times put it -- President Bush called Murtha a "fine man, a good man" who served with "honor and distinction," who "is a strong supporter of the United States military." He said he knew Murtha's "decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops ... was done in a careful and thoughtful way."

Vice President Dick Cheney called Murtha "a good man, a Marine, a patriot."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Murtha is "a fine man, I know him personally ... and it's perfectly proper to have a debate over these things, and have a public debate."

National Security Adviser Steve Hadley called in his praise for Murtha from South Korea, saying Murtha was "a veteran, a veteran congressman and a great leader in the Congress."

During the House debate on Murtha's insane proposal to withdraw troops in the middle of the war, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said Murtha deserved an "A-plus as a truly great American," and Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said "none of us should think of questioning his motives or desires for American troops."

On the House floor, both Republicans and Democrats repeatedly gave Murtha rousing standing ovations. There was so much praise for Murtha that one of his Democratic colleagues asked him if he still had to attend Murtha's funeral.

What is this? Special Olympics for the Democrats? Can't Republicans disagree with a Democrat who demands that the U.S. surrender in the middle of a war without erecting monuments to him first? What would happen if a Democrat were to propose restoring Saddam Hussein to power? Is that Medal of Freedom territory?

I don't know what Republicans imagine they're getting out of all this love they keep throwing at Democrats. I've never heard a single liberal preface attacks on Oliver North with a recitation of North's magnificent service as a Marine. And unlike Murtha, who refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts, we know what North did. (These Democrat military veterans are hardly shrinking violets when it comes to citing their medals, but they get awfully squeamish when pressed for details.)

We also know what Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., did to earn his medals. One of only two American Navy aces that the Vietnam War produced, Cunningham shot down five MiGs, three in one day, including a North Vietnamese pilot with 13 American kills. Cunningham never did something as insane as proposing that we withdraw troops in the middle of a war, but this week he did admit to taking bribes.

And yet, no Democrat breathed a word of Cunningham's unquestioned heroism before rushing to denounce him as "the latest example of the culture of corruption" -- in the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy didn't issue a 20-minute soliloquy on what a wonderful man Judge Robert Bork was as a human being before attacking his judicial philosophy. Kennedy just laid into Bork like he was George Lincoln Rockwell.

Speaking of which, George Lincoln Rockwell, former head of the American Nazi Party, served in the military during World War II. Are we obligated to praise his war service before disputing his views?

CNN's Bill Schneider summarized the Republican love-fest for Murtha by saying that House Republicans "started calling him some very ugly names -- cowardly, shameful, he wanted to cut and run, he wanted to surrender to the terrorists, emboldening the enemy." Are we all looking at the same "intelligence"?

The only Republican congressman who did not offer to have sex with John Murtha on the House floor was Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio. While debating Murtha's own proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq in the middle of a war waged to depose a monstrous dictator who posed a threat to American national security, Schmidt made the indisputably true remark that Marines don't cut and run. (She was right! Murtha voted against his own proposal.)

Schmidt's precise words were: "I received a call from Col. Danny Bubp. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Bubp later said -- pointlessly -- that he was not calling Murtha a coward. Neither was Jean Schmidt. (These guys are very brave facing down the VC, but cower before the MSM.)

Now Schmidt is Emmanuel Goldstein, subjected to the liberals' Orwellian two-minutes hate, and not one Republican will defend her. If Republicans were one-tenth as rough with the congressman who wants to withdraw troops in the middle of a war as they are on a congresswoman who calls it cowardly to withdraw troops in the middle of a war, we might have a functioning Republican Party.

Coulter is correct. Republicans are shameless about sacrificing their dignity and even their own members in their persistent and futile attempts to appease the Democrats. They did essentially the same thing to Trent Lott when he made the simple remark at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond that he would have made a good president. The Democrats and their allies in the MSM went ballistic that the Senate majority leader would have said such a thing about the old racist warhorse and the Republicans, instead of telling the Dems to get a life, stripped Lott of his post. This, mind you, to mollify the party of former klansman Senator Robert Byrd who has enjoyed numerous positions of power and influence in the Democratic party over the years, including the post of majority leader.

Some people call Republicans the stupid party for the inept way in which they wield the political power of their majority status, but perhaps a better appellation would be the gutless party.

How to Destroy America

We recently came across this speech by former Colorado governor Richard D. Lamm which we cut and paste from the site (which is why it's in caps). It packs quite a punch:

I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY AMERICA. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE." HERE IS MY PLAN:

I. WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY. HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL. ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:

"THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY. CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE. PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED. NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION. FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS."

II. I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL: THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT. I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY. EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.

III. WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT. THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY. AS BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:

"...THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY. WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER."

I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.

IV. HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED - I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION. I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.

V. I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY. I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY. I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY - I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.

VI. I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES. I WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD. IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES. DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA. LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS. DORF'S WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:

"THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS. ALL GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI. A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY. YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED POLITICAL DIVISIONS . . .)"

IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.

VII. THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS - MAKE IT TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE 16TH CENTURY - THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING. WORDS LIKE "RACIST", "XENOPHOBE" THAT HALT ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.

HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF "VICTIMOLOGY", I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA - "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.

VIII. LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR DAVIS HANSON'S BOOK MEXIFORNIA - THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS - IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. SO PLEASE, PLEASE - IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED - PLEASE, PLEASE - DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.

This speech deserves to be widely read. Lamm has certainly distilled much that is troubling about our nation into a potent critique.