i've never written word one about scott peterson, because frankly one murdered woman and infant in california never seemed remotely tantamount to 1500 dead americans and 100,000 dead iraqis resulting from u.s. asshattery (thanks again supine), and therefore didn't warrant much of my attention.
cnn.com made it their lead story time and again, if that signifies the story's actual relevance (and check out todays "big news" - something about baseball players).
as much malice as i harbor for this man, i can't condone executing him; i'm completely against the death penalty. but it's easy for me, someone of no relation to the victim or without any ties whatsoever to the case, to sit back and echo my principles and say that he shouldn't be put to death.
what if i did have some direct tie? what if i were lacy's father or brother or friend? how can i be sure that my ideals would hold up under that level of complete duress and anger?
speculation and uninvolved opinion is all i can offer concerning his sentence. lacy's father said something to the effect that he deserves to die and will burn in hell, and probably a plethera of other scathing remarks. but i can't really fault him.
you have to empathize with everyone before you attempt to claim the moral high ground on any issue (a big difference between liberals and cons).
nothing more about scott peterson ever, promise. ad nauseum.
happy saint patty's day! eire!
my middle name is patrick so i feel obligated to get drunk and vomit in public (that's my excuse and i'm sticking to it). i'm not wearing any green, but i'm alone in the office and thus will receive nary a pinch. send me virtual pinches if you must, but be forewarned - i'm weilding me bludger and will have to send ye a virtual beat-down in response.
i'm going to do my best to avoid a wee bit 'o the consumption. potatoes!