CROSSING CROSS CURRENTS (PART 1)

1. Tookie — Goodbye and Good Riddance, by Toby Katz

Angry white woman, Toby Katz celebrates yesterday's execution with a few loud and lusty rounds of the Bloodhound Gang's great hit: "Tookie. Tookie. Tookie's on fire. He don't need no water let the @&!*# burn!!!"

...until the always sensible Gil Student tells her to put a sock in it.

Toby, You don’t believe in teshuvah? OK, I’m going to have to post about the mahlokes regarding a beis din punishing someone who does teshuvah. But certainly when punishing a repentant criminal, “good riddance” is not the proper attitude. We trust that Hashem treats the repentant criminal with the appropriate mercy.
Comment by Gil Student — December 13, 2005 @ 1:24 pm

That's a very good thought, Gil, and it is immidiately echoed by Lumpy Rutherford:

Good riddance? Isn’t that attitude a bit callous? An execution is meant to be part of the atonement process for an offender. The offender confesses, does teshuva and his death serves as an atonement for his offense. Dancing on his grave isn’t part of the equation.
Comment by Lumpy Rutherford — December 13, 2005 @ 4:09 pm

Undeterred, Toby continues:

Yesterday I heard a self-professed Christian on a talk radio show. He complained that the host of the show was a quote “hypocrite” because he was pro-life yet pro-death penalty. The caller also said that executing murderers would be “playing G-d.” When I hear Christians talking like that I want to ask them, “Mister, have you ever read the Bible? ”

Nice catch Toby! Few people know that the Pope, who opposes the death penalty, never reads the bible

Back to Toby:

Why have the media over the last few days tried to make us feel sorry for this creep?

Where has the media done this? I read through 234 articles about Tookie and not one had a headline like "WE COMMAND YOU TO FEEL SORRY FOR TOOKIE." Typically, Toby supplies no names making us suspect this bogus complaint was just an attempt to establish her bonafides. After all, no piece of conservative claptrap is complete without an unsubstantiated dig at the media.

She continues:

As for the argument that if you don’ t think innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs should be killed for their mothers’ convenience, then you should not want to execute convicted murderers either—what can I say? I can’t make any sense out of that position at all. Where is the moral equivalence between an innocent baby and a convicted killer?

Oh yeah, it’s those people who can’t tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, jihadis and American soldiers, criminals and police. But how come THEY are so inconsistent? They think we pro-lifers should be pro-life for murderers, too. Why then aren’t THEY pro-death for criminals as well as for fetuses?

It is flat out dishonest for righties to conflate the death penalty with abortion.

No one on the left wants to line up all the fetues and inject poisenous chemicals into their little veins. Also, people who are pro-choice do not believe that a fetus is a life. You’re free to disagree, but it’s foolish and unfair to call them "inconsistant" when they aren’t using the same defintion for life that you are.