Death to the Death Penalty!

Nobody has ever come up to me and said that death is quintessentially American; though if they did, I would be hard-pressed to argue.  Our militarism abroad is matched only by our support for it at home.  We boast a nation chock-full of hunters and murderers.  Thanks to the recent expiration of the assault weapons ban, I can drive up to New Hampshire and pick up an automatic assault rifle at the local gun show - legally with no background check and no questions asked.  Contrast this with other industrialized nations such as Japan, where civilians and not allowed guns period.  When Osama Bin Laden was killed several months ago, the celebration (of death, mind you) in the streets of Boston rivaled those of sports championships.  Should this national celebration of death be extrapolated to the actual death penalty?

Rick Perry certainly thinks so, and the audience seems to agree - talk about a celebration of death.  You would think religious conservatives such as Perry would be conflicted, what with that whole "thou shalt not kill" commandant.  Though he and others would likely point to the bible for justification, specifically "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Matthew 5:38).  It's true that most do not wish to die, so supporters of capital punishment argue that it acts a deterrent, figuring someone considering murder will think twice about it when faced with possibility of being murdered themselves.  They additionally proselytize that the death penalty is appropriate as a means of deterring potential murderers already serving life sentences; and that paroled inmates or escapees would have another opportunity to kill if not executed.  It is also an albeit wry solution to the very real problem of prison overcrowding, as states need not house those no longer alive.  Still, the argument most championed is simply that it provides closure for the families of murder victims.

Back in the real world though, the contention that capital punishment discourages murder is utterly laughable.  Not only have there been nearly nine-tenths of a million murders in the United States since 1960 (Federal Bureau of Investigation and Matthew White), but among states with the top twenty murder rates in 2010, sixteen had the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center).  If capital punishment does serve as a deterrent, it isn't a very effective one.  Financially speaking, it actually costs the government more to execute people.  From the lengthy appeals process to the last meal, it can sometimes take twenty years from conviction to execution, as it did in the much publicized case of Troy Davis.  Which brings us to the most important point: the indisputable truth that not all on death row are guilty.  In fact, 138 innocent death row inmates have been freed since 1973 (Death Penalty Information Center) - we can only imagine how many are now dead because they weren't freed.

But aside from everything else (the "cruel and unusual punishment" language in the Bill of Rights for example), there is still a more than convincing argument against capital punishment on strictly moral grounds.  How is it that we as a society have yet to move beyond the primitive idea of revenge killing?  With few exceptions, the rest of the industrialized world certainly has (they've also bothered to give their citizens universal heath care while they're at it).  The death penalty does not bring victims back to life and two wrongs do not make a right.  Why kill to prove killing is wrong?  That logic seems awfully contradictory.  Thank goodness conservatives are able to wrap their heads around this level of hypocrisy, because I certainly can't.

Wrangling over Warming

In the days of Walter Cronkite and the like; the American public would manually turn their channel-changing knob and receive what are colloquially referred to as "facts."  People would then take these agreed upon "facts" and formulate opinions based on them; oftentimes disagreeing with one another.  In other words, Americans auguring is nothing new; but the distinction between then and now lies in what we argue over.  Opinions are subjective and ripe for disagreement; but we now live in a country where actual facts are debated, as if the term even allowed for such a thing.  Aside from the universally-held view that Osama Bin Laden was at least somewhat of a jerk, is there nothing Americans can agree on in this hyper-polarized climate?

Speaking of climate, this is an area that provides one of the better examples of this phenomenon.  Global warming, or climate change as it is now often called; consists of something called the "greenhouse effect."  This effect is actually quite natural, though not in the levels we find it occurring today.  The burning of fossil-fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, in turn warming the planet over a period of many decades.  97% of scientists believe climate change is both real and man-made (USA Today).  This is about as close to a consensus as is humanly possible today, as one would likely find difficulty garnering that percentage of people to agree it's October.  Despite this, only 30% of self-described conservatives believe global warming is affecting the planet (Associated Press).  No doubt taking a cue from those numbers, this view is even reflected in several high-profile politicians currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

So how can a universally accepted belief among actual experts translate into skepticism of it among a substantial portion of the populous?  The answer lies in the financial and political clout of what we'll call "old energy."  Today in the United States, fossil fuels account for 84% of our total energy consumption (United States Department of Energy).  New technologies, or green energy may be less harmful to the planet, but they're very harmful to the bottom line's of those who've made a fortune in old energies like fossil fuels.  Thanks to their lobbying and hundreds of millions in campaign contributions over the last 20 years, the oil industry has succeeded in killing every attempt at meaningful climate change legislation.  Given that the United States consumes a whopping quarter of the world's energy, this is an unfortunate development for the planet's current storm, drought and flood-ravaged denizens - let alone future earth inhabitants.

Conservatives argue that alternative and renewable energies are too expensive to meet the needs of the nation.  They say regardless of its potentially devastating effects, implementing regulations on carbon emissions would be too steep a price for the country to pay economically (interesting considering "cap and trade" has always been a Republican idea).  Some conservatives do favor non-traditional energy sources, so long as they aren't too green (fracking, anyone?).  Many also favor the expansion of existing energy sources such as increased domestic exploration for off-shore oil drilling.  They contend that increased domestic production will decrease our dependance on foreign sources of oil.

Of course, the only true way to lessen our dependance on foreign oil is to lessen our dependance on oil, period.  Thus, the government should invest in renewable energies so they can compete with the established titans.  Only then will our nation's actions match the level of crisis the planet faces.  Like everything else in America, money and politics will probably get in the way; but if there's one issue that everyone has a stake in, one issue that should unite literally all 100% of us - shouldn't it be the future of our world?