Osama’s Been Laden with some lead in his head.

So Osama Bin Laden was killed yesterday. Now what kind of political blogger would I be if I didn’t post something about this? (btw: to me, this doesn’t count as a post, Mr. Fleming) ([update] this kinda does).

Let me first say that, as a Christian, I can’t jibe condoning killing of any kind with the Bible. That said, the world is certainly a better place without that monster and his death does not grieve me in the slightest.

Now some people have had interesting reactions to this news. The Wikipedia section on his death states “In Pakistan some people were reported to be shocked at the unauthorized incursion by US armed forces.” Really? If they know Osama was the target, are they actually surprised that we went in without their permission or knowledge? Pakistan isn’t exactly a staunch ally and Osama didn’t exactly throw a shoe at the President.

Now, of course, there’s the subject of who gets the credit. Naturally, Obama is receiving no small amount of praise for this. Honestly, I don’t think any President deserves any significant amount of credit. They don’t work sources for intel or fly the choppers to the target or participate in the firefight. They basically do little more than sign off on the mission. Even so, my first reaction was that Bush (or even Clinton) should get more credit because he at least started the search for Osama, whereas Obama has professed for the longest time that we should be out of the Middle East. After a little more research, it appears Obama does deserve some credit, as he was somewhat involved in the days leading up to the operation; he certainly deserves credit for not letting on about what was going on (something I doubt I could have done), although I find this to be a disturbing pattern in this President:

The president made the decision to undertake the operation at 8:20 a.m. on April 29th in the White House’s Diplomatic Room before he left to survey tornado damage in Alabama. Tom Donilon, his National Security Advisor, prepared the formal orders and convened the principals at 3 p.m. that same day to complete the planning.

The next day, without giving off a hint of the weighty operation being planned, Obama prepared for and delivered his address at the annual White House Correspondent’s Association dinner. The next morning he played nine holes of golf.

So, all in all, Obama may deserve some credit, but remember that if America had gone along with his original wishes, Osama would not only still be alive, but possibly even able to operate openly with a lack of any kind of American military presence.

Now some jokes have popped into my head while writing this and, I’m sorry, but I just have to get them out.

First, there’s the post’s title. Get it? “Laden,” as in, “burdened with”? …..shutup, you stupid crickets…

Osama Bin Laden to rest

And finally, the gamer in me just wants to say: BOOM! Headshot!

Death Penalty & SCAAC Record

It has come to my attention that SCAAC has received thirty-two views today.  Since, so far, SCAAC’s all-time high is thirty-eight, I decided to publish this post in a shameless attempt to break my own record, small as that may be.  And if I can do that at midday on a Wednesday (the record was set on a Friday), I’m just that awesome.  So here goes.

The death penalty is one of the few areas (including foreign policy and drug legalization) where I don’t totally agree with the traditional conservative viewpoint.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand the reasoning for the death penalty and don’t really disagree with any of it, but I have two problems with it.  First, our justice system is imperfect.  It’s unlikely that an innocent would be given the death penalty, but the American justice system is a human, and therefore flawed, institution and it is therefore possible.  Second, I don’t see how we have the right to decide who lives or dies.  A murderer is a menace to society, sure, and should be kept away from the public for the remainder of his life, but I don’t know that we have the right to say that he should die.  I’m not saying he (or she) doesn’t deserve it.  As Zo says, someone who kills someone else has forfeited his right to live.  That’s not my question.  He doesn’t have the right to live.  But my question is, do we have the right to kill him?

If all who deserved to be killed were killed, the environmentalists would be thrilled, because humankind would cease to exist.  The apostle Paul would never have preached or written a single Biblical letter.

So basically, my take on the death penalty is similar to my take on torturing terrorists: I would never do it myself (even if I had the stomach for it); I would never condone someone else doing it; but I’m not going to waste much of my energy protecting these sorts of people.  Ultimately, a candidate’s stance on the death penalty would not affect my vote one way or the other unless he and his opponent were nearly identical on everything else.

Oh, and one more thing.  I’ve seen the following on Facebook (Flair) several times:

Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?

The answer?  We don’t, you liberal wuss!  Do we kill a murderer to show people that killing is wrong? No, we kill the murderer to ensure that he never kills anyone again.  This is a common misconception.  Criminals are not incarcerated for their convenience, and they’re not punished (generally) to set an example for others!  They’re punished to deter crime, and nothing more.  1) The criminals are off the street, preventing them from doing more crime.  2) The punishment keeps others from becoming criminals.  We don’t care if the would-be criminals think the crime is wrong or not; we just care that they don’t perpetrate the crime!

So come on, let’s get seven views on this one!