WIL WHEATON dot NET: 1.5

Eeeesh, that is a tough one. Similar to what I've had with the in-laws and the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas debate...which I'm much more diplomatic about than at my blog, hah. (sometimes computer illiterate relatives is a good thing)

I go back and forth so much on death penalty, because I know the rational points, and I don't believe people have a right to just put someone to death no matter WHAT they do..but then again my emotions want to "kill 'em" when I hear some horrible story about a child being beaten and sexually abused and all those other things we see on shows like Court TV. I think, though, the rational side does win for me on this one. Why do we need to resort to violence/murder to show that what this person did was wrong, we don't...it's just the passion and rage we feel when something horrific has happened.

"And raped, and beaten by guards, and sold as slaves by prison gangs," I said. "That really sounds good to you? Because it sounds like a pretty lousy life for violent criminals, which is exactly what they deserve."

I'm against death penalty for the same reason(s) as you are. However I don't think prisoners deserve to be raped and beaten by guards. Their life is lousy and yep, they deserve that but no way they deserve to be maltreated.

my dad would probably do the same thing, so whenever he asks me political questions (because i'm the liberal of the family) i won't answer them cuz then i'll have to explain my every move to him. it's just bad.

I enjoy reading your blog, even though you and I would probably disagree about most political/moral/religious issues. This is your place for expressing your views, so I won't even begin to try to debate the death penalty with you. But, if you are going to blame O'Reilly for your dad's thoughts on the issue, you need to be careful.

O'Reilly, the bleeding heart liberal that he is, is OPPOSED to the death penalty. He's very vocal about that. So, you can hate him for all sorts of reasons (as I'm sure you do), but he actually agrees with YOU on this issue!

And no need to watch the commercial on Salon to read the complete article. Just click on the "Print article" button and you'll get the complete version.

Wil probably knows about that but because he's writing for Salon he probably can't say this.

Here's the question: do you support unfair punishments? If Wil steals a cookie and Wil's sister steals a cookie, should Wil get spanked 30 times and grounded for a month while Wil's sister gets telephone privileges taken away for a week? If you can't support unfairness for something this trivial, how could you support it in a matter of life and death?

That must have been a painful moment for you. I'm sorry you had to go through it.
My own family is quite dismissive of my liberal views, or Commie talk, as they put it. I just go out of my way to avoid certain subjects now.
I still find it hard to reconcile the memory of the parents that raised me with the people that fear mongering has now created.
I hope you find an easier way to deal with it.

Tookie didn't steal a cookie. He killed 4 people (at least) and founded a gang that has caused the deaths of countless more innocent people. A jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to death, based on the laws in California. Based on all that, he should die.

If someone doesn't agree with the death penalty for any crimes, they should be sure to elect state and federal representatives who will change the laws about how we should punish the most terrible criminals.

This approach of trying to avoid the execution based on behavior AFTER the crime just is not an effective approach. Everything was done here according to the LAW. If you don't like it, you need to work to get the LAW changed - not to try to circumvent the court mandated sentence at the last minute.

Regarding the racial issues that people have brought up...I don't know if the stats will show that more blacks are being executed than whites, or not. I kinda doubt it. But even if the stats do show that, it doesn't mean that blacks who have been sentenced should not be executed. All it says is that we don't need to be letting the white guys get off easy. They need to be executed with the same degree of diligence as everyone else.

So, I guess I'm on the other side of the argument..I say that we shouldn't let ANYONE off easy. The more liberal viewpoint is that we should let everyone off easy. (easier?)

Wil,

I found this blog post excellent in rebutting pro-death arguments: http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-death-penalty-advocates-want.html

Wil,
People change. Why is it when someone moves from the right to the left (ala John McCain)they're enlightened mavericks? When you go from the left to the right you become a pod person. Your parents grew up. Dennis Hopper SOBERED UP. I got a job, got a check and registered GOP within the year.

Besides, try being a New York Mets fan and a Republican in a family of NY Yankee fans and democrats. It ain't easy.

Take care
Manny

PS - Bill O'Reilly is AGAINST the death penalty. So put down the kool aid on that point. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!!

"I want to make something clear, here: I know I'm not the only 33-year-old liberal who has watched his parents grow older and more conservative."

It's hard for me to say if this is the case in my family - my father passed away when I was 15 and my parents never had the first inkling of a political discussion with me during the formative years. I don't know how, or if, they voted, but in the last couple years my mother has started walking the plank - she doesn't trust Bush, but she's convinced all the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. ("Where'd you hear that?" "On Fox." "Ahhh - you know they were predominantly Saudi Arabian in reality?" "Ehh, they're all the same")

The upshot of all of this is that I never got any of the family indoctrination one way or another and was able to formulate my own views, which I think lay somewhere between the extremes of the right and left which get all the media time these days. Republicans would call me an American-hating liberal and Democrats would suspect me of being part of the VRWC, but the only political ideal I ever took in whole from someone else was from Douglas Adams, who wrote that you should never trust anyone who wants to be elected President. Sure, he was referring to the Galaxy, but the notion scales down well (and I'm not sure our current President believes in the Galaxy - the jury's still out on that)

However, if we are all doomed to become more conservative (or more liberal) as we get older, then we should all be packed off to the centers and turned into Soylent Green at the appropriate time.

The hardest part is not knowing what's worse - the alleged "leaders" from both sides of the partisan divide who are capable of nothing but incompetence, or the browbeaten citizenry that treats them like rock stars instead of the true employees they are.

Manny,

where do you get the strange idea that John McCain has moved to the left?

He has endorsed teaching so-called "intelligent design" in public schools!

Am I the only one who can't get the Salon page to work?

I've tried both Firefox and IE and when I click on the daypass link, all I get is a blank page.

Its frustrating, because I really want to read the article!

Regarding Salon, I think I signed up for it once after you recommended it on WWDN. I've turned on a couple of friends to it, and they're fans of it also. I think it's cool you wrote an article for them.

Oh, BTW, they no longer have weights in California prisons. Got rid of them some years ago due to cops complaining about how big the inmates were when they were released.

Family arguments are always the hardest ones, no matter what the subject. Hope you worked things out with your Dad later.

I'm sorry that you had to experience that - particularly during the holidays, in front of Nolan. I'm wishy-washy on the death penalty myself; part of me can't justify it and feels it's immoral and illogical, but the other part - the irrational, vengeful part - thinks, "It's what they deserve!"

I'm lucky that my parents have stayed fairly liberal and know me well enough to realize that a tirade will only make me more stubborn. But my extended family is a whole different matter, so I consciously do NOT talk politics with them. It's so not worth it - you aren't going to convince them, they aren't going to convince you, and the effort does little but bring up hard feelings.

I hope the rest of your holidays reflect the "peace, love, and joy" that we hope for during this season.

It's funny because really the only way to have an intelligent discussion about this kind of subject is for neither party to get self-righteous about it. It sounds like your dad crossed the line first, but your reaction ("Where's the compassionate person I once knew?" -- indicating that you feel compassion is incompatible with support for the death penalty, even though your arguments are about practical matters (deterrence, poor people, etc.)) clearly shows that you feel the same way, even if your debating style is toned down. It's an issue with which both you and your father are emotionally involved, rather than logical and removed. It's hard to get anywhere in such a situation. Both sides just end up feeling bad.

But that's not the way it should be. It's a matter of public policy, and therefore something that's up for reasonable debate. There are arguments to be made for both sides, and just because one supports one side or the other doesn't mean that one has been "brainwashed." I could just as easily call you brainwashed by the left wing. It sounds like you're a DNC talking point podperson when you wheel out the "poor people" and "deterrent" arguments.

Just to briefly talk about the deterrent argument: it's a red herring. Nobody commits a murder thinking that they will get caught. They think they will get away with it. That is, if they think that far ahead at all. They're called "crimes of passion" for a reason. So for one side to argue that death/prison/whatever is an effective deterrent, and the other side to argue the opposite -- it's pointless. The real point of prison and the death penalty is to remove criminals from society (hopefully for long enough that they'll mellow out) and possibly from the gene pool. It's not to deter crimes, although that might be a side effect.

And I strongly feel that the epidemic of rape and other abhorrent behavior in prison is far more of a problem in our society (and our criminal justice system) than the death penalty. How many prisoners are there right now, subject to rape and God knows what else? Millions. How many are executed? A few dozen a year, at most? Drop in the bucket. More people are killed by lightning each year in the US (average of 82 per year, 1980-1995) than by the death penalty (65 in 2003). And frankly, I'd prefer to be executed on the spot in the courtroom rather than be subjected to repeated ass-raping in a prison. That's incredibly cruel and unusual punishment as far as I'm concerned.

We need to have a meaningful discussion in this country (something other than a screaming match) about what prison is for. If it's solely punitive, there's little point in ever letting anyone out. People can call me a bleeding-heart liberal all they want, but I've actually visited a maximum-security prison and done a fair amount of research on the issue; money spent on prisoner amenities (and, more specifically, on job training and - no kidding - art appreciation) reduces recidivism once prisoners are out as well as violence behind bars. So a little kindness toward a criminal a) makes it safer and cheaper to keep them incarcerated, and b) makes it less likely that you'll be mugged at the ATM in the future. (Incidentally, the reason they got rid of weights in California prisons has nothing to do with how well-toned the inmates are - it's because they were usable as weapons. Clever inmates get by with Hefty bags filled with water. Those guys are all friggin' MacGyver.)

As far as the death penalty goes, I'm against it. I would be even if we didn't occasionally execute, you know, someone who hadn't committed the crime of which they were convicted. But since we do that with appalling regularity, I gotta say it's an omelette that I am just not interested in making.

Zippy, there are obviously many, many people who work diligently to change the laws that allow executions. It's hard to get anything done in California - the prison guards' lobbying group is the most powerful in the state by a long shot. Regardless, the privilege of the executive to offer clemency is perfectly legal as well, or else nobody would have asked the Governator about it in the first place. I gather from your comments that you don't think much of the possibility of redemption, so good luck, and here's hoping you never need it.

TVsWW, you just got a taste of the family buzzsaw, yo.

I know what you mean. I'm here in PV for a bit with the family. And so far, I've heard remarks about them Mexicans, Thai women, Chinese Buddhists destroying Christmas, black gangstas, on and on. I didn't think my family was racist, but guess what...

They is.

And I have also been running into some really nasty almost-glee at the death of Tookie Williams. Our nation is sick, bro. Me and you. And our families. I mean New Orleans is being ethnically cleansed as we speak and most Americans can't seem to care. They've sent their blankets, canned food, or $25 donations to Some Charitable Non-Profit With Pictures of Poor Kids.

Not only is racism alive and well in our nation, it is as strong and vibrant as it has ever been.

Imo say this again (cuz it's true)... the only reason we are even marginally concerned with the fiasco in Iraq is because American soldiers are dying in unacceptable numbers. If we had lost 100 troops up to now and 1,000,000 Iraqis were dead, I can tell you for absolute gospel that America would hardly notice.

2,000,000?

3,000,000?

No.

We killed that many in Vietnam and to this day all of the books, films, and television programs focus on the psychological turmoil of returning troops.

3,000,000 dead Asians?

Whatever.

Freedom is on the march.

They're not real people.

Americans from the left and the right say that every day. "They're not like us." Dems say that as much as Republicans sadly.

The other thing is this ridiculous "War on Christmas" meme that has so transparently been manufactured to cover up the Alito nomination, Iraq, and Bush's wiretapping. My family has always voted straight Dem. It's not an exagerration to say they absolutely despise the GOP. But since I've been here this inane War on Christmas keeps coming up and I wonder where the hell they get it. They don't watch Fox. But CNN and just about everyone else is riding it too.

You see, even though they are registered Dems, they are really Republicans. Or more specifically, pro-empire. That's the Lieberman Factor. If you really objectively look at the mind and actions of the American electorate, you'll find that something like 85% support our ongoing global jihad. The rest of the planet has known that forever. We Dems continue to labor under the delusion that we actually have a somewhat viable left in this nation. We don't. Haven't really for about 70 years. When FDR grudgingly made concessions to the little people to stave off revolution.

One more thing about LA. This is a particularly racially polarized city. For all of its cosmopolitan world city back-slapping, this place is really a balkanized uneasy confederation of mutually hostile enclaves. I forgot how much of a hierarchy there is in LA. Everyone needs some other ethnic group to look down on and each group will tell you how that OTHER ethnic group is the reason Los Angeles has issues. The Los Angeles experience is about minding boundaries, your place. It's about fear. Your family is reacting to that constant fear by projecting the menacing (to them) changes of LA onto Tookie Williams. In their mind, he's responsible for all the traffic, molestation, drugs, pollution, and riots.

That's Tookie's fault.

Tookie claims he never killed those four people. Meanwhile, in the very same week, Bush says he killed 30,000 Iraqis give or take a 100,000. Snore. Americans don't care.

Yeah. It's fucked up.

Spudnuts:

Wow! Well said! As a displaced New Orleanian I wish you were in charge rather than the ass hats currently running the show!

I don't have legislative views as such on the topic of the death penalty, I can only offer a personal perspective: How we deal with others, irrespective of their actions, is more about who we are, than what they did. Mercy, and grace make us better individuals, even if they must be tempered by social pragmatism.

In that sense, supporting the death penalty damages us as individuals by, more often than not aiding us in giving in to our most base instincts for brutal justice.

No human case is ever black and white, or simple. That does not mean punishment should not occur, or that it can occur in an individual manner, though our justice system tries to produce this effect as best it can. I am not arguing for changes in law, I am arguing on the basis of personal and human philosophy.

(nor am I arguing that the justice system is within a spiral arm of perfect, naturally. I am clearly against the death penalty. I merely claim ignorance of such specifics and hence the right to argue in that area)

Wil,

Excellent post and piece in Salon. I'm definitely going to become a regular reader.

I've had much similar experiences and I think you're observation that the shouting heads are really the ones waging a war on christmas (spirit) is dead on.

I too have wondered about this phenomenon as it relates to highly intelligent people like your father. I visited a friend whose father is an advanced-degree-holding highly intellectual person former priest/teacher, the works. He is a conservative catholic, and has many well-thought out arguments for his views. I was stunned one day to have breakfast with him and listen to him regale me with Rush's latest diatribe. He was positively revelling in it, and as usual it was full of terrible argumentation and irrationality.

It was really stunning. If one of his students had made such poor logical moves he would have downgraded them instantly. But here he was glorying in the sheerest nonsense.

I've also noticed with men like him, and with my own stepfather, who is generally libertarian, an urge to bait and poke, without provocation, on these issues where they know there is disagreement, but are in a certain kind of family setting where heated debate isn't really appropriate.

I usually deal with it alright, but I definitely share the thoughts and feelings you expressed in your post: a general sense of bewilderment, confusion, and incomprehension. Why are you alpha-dogging me here and now of all places?

I think you're attribution of the cause is essentially correct too. I often hear ordinary people using the same exact phrases with the same intonations that the shouting pundits use. its eerie. "raymond shaw is the kindest, most gentle, wonderful human being I've ever known."

i also think that the television format in general degrades thinking on these matters. i've noticed that these outburst conversations rarely last longer than two minutes until the cut-to-commercial reflex sets in and minds wander to other things.

its the "two-minute hate" phenomenon from 1984. Our dads are busy guys who aren't entirely happy (who is?). So you get some guy shouting at you every day for an hour, or even a few minutes, that the name of your pain is Tookie Williams, or homos, or mexicans or whatever, and that's what sticks. The name then becomes a pavlovian trigger for whatever negative emotions exist.

anyway, thanks for bringing it up. its become a regular feature of my visits home, and its at least comforting to know that i'm not the only one getting sandbagged by people i love.

Leave it to a psych major to bring this up: were your grandparents fairly conservative? Despite all that we try to do to find our own way in the world, over 70% of us will slip right back into what we knew growing up in the beliefs area. This is after less than half ever really examine their beliefs in the first place, mind you.

No wonder social changes take so long! ;-) Self-awareness is the key to making a lasting change in core beliefs. I'd recommend Helen Langer's book, "Mindfullness" as a gift to your parents, with a notation that you're glad they raised you as such a free spirit, and hope to see them re-aquainted with their free-er selves.

While I vacillate on who deserves to die, I am glad he wasn't granted clemency. Not for the reasons your dad states, but because I've seen first-hand how a person will expect a shift into "good deeds" or "godliness" to erase the fears and pains they willfully inflicted in the past. His execution was, to me, more about the hell of the gang wars than the murder of 4 people. Doesn't make it right, all those that died or were otherwise injured are still changed, but the human inclination towards vengance was served by his death. (I did say social change takes a long time! I look forward to a humane, effective alternative to prisons becoming wide-spread. That will require a boatload of social changes, as you know!)

I hope your future gathering will be without such dramas, and that your kids will talk openly with you about any confusion they feel over the incident.

I suppose my family is odd, because with the exception of my maybe my aunt and uncle, my whole family, including my 70 year old grandfather are leaning further left, its not really explainible by me, but it seems to work that way, one possible cause is our president, and that little war over in iraq, by the way, I remember meeting you at LosCon 2003 I wanna say, we walked together to the Linux panel (it turned to a Linux vs. SCO yelling match) and your one of the nicest people with fame I have met, and thought I would drop a line and say hi again ^^

heh. yeah. i love my dad and my stepmom, but i can't talk about politics with them.

during the late 70's and early 80's, my mother used to say "i used to believe in the Great Society, but now MY PENDULUM HAS SWUNG TO THE RIGHT."

i'm just waiting for the national pendulum to swing back to the left for a while...

Great piece, Wil. I agree that the Fox News/Right Wing sound machine has as its ultimate goal, polarizing this country and turning a profit while doing so.
As an aside, my husband is a soldier currently stationed in Iraq. He says there would be many soldiers who would love to see you as part of a USO tour. You'd be surprised at the number of geeks in uniform!

I was always very much for the death penalty. Now, one law degree later and with much reasoned debate, I am against it.
The main problem encountered is that people always have strong views on the death penalty and are not willing to accept that they might be wrong. Anyone who cannot see both sides of the arguments, and there are good arguments on both sides, should accept that they are not objective enough to argue the topic!

It's late and I am very tired, so I will keep this short.

The death penalty is essentially the highly potent, supremely motivational human instinct known as Revenge, wrapped in the seemingly logical guise of Rationale. The closure your dad speaks so agitatedly about is, sadly and unfortunately, not possible for the families of murder victims: no matter what else happens, no matter how many killers are killed subsequently in retribution for their horrific loss, they will never, ever be whole again after losing a loved one in this manner.

In the absence or impossibility of such a closure, revenge (rationalized in the minds of both the victims' families and the state as Justice) becomes the only option, a feeble substitute for Justice and closure but attractive to many, borne as it is out of the helpless feeling barbaric acts of conscienceless violence inevitably generate and the need they provoke to do "something," no matter how misplaced or inappropriate. In a strange way, executing the killer is an attempt on the part of society to restore sanity and order to a chaotic and inexplicable chain of events, as if the scheduled, methodical killing of the murderer will somehow offset the (usually) random and unexpected act(s) of violence that precipitated it.

The key to us becoming truly civilized is our potential recognition that more killing, whether it be to "avenge the killers" or "protect society" or "make things right" only perpetuates the numbing, unconscionable cycle of violence that, left uninterrupted, will be the ultimate downfall of our species.

The only access point to real Healing is through the disciplined and mindful practice of Forgiveness. It may not be what some people want to hear, but it is the truth of the matter.

Hang in there, Wil.

I am so glad to hear that you're a Salon reader, too. I gladly pay for my Salon membership. Congrats on writing for them.

Like many others, I've had similar experiences growing up. My parents always voted Democrat locally but Republican nationally. They believe in the death penalty, whether they admit it or not they're racist, my dad is convinced that recycling trucks just go to the same landfill as trash trucks. They swallow FOX News and Rush whole when they are otherwise pretty smart people.

In my case one of the most memorable Christmases involved the fact that my dad had bought my mom a fur coat, one that came in pieces ready to assemble and therefore was affordable. While I'm not quite PETA material, I am against an industry that harvests the skins of animals that don't get used as food and does so in a very cruel manner. I said so, with all the conviction a college freshman can summon. I got mocking laughter as a response, and a little while later my mom snuck up on me to scrub the fur in my face, just to make everyone laugh again as I jumped away in revulsion. The kicker? I found out years later that the fur was fake.

Since then, most of my holiday family gatherings have been a matter of attend and stay as far out of the action as possible. It saddens me greatly that I don't wish to spend more time with my family because of this divide, but it hurts just as much to be ridiculed for what I believe. A no-win situation.

Thanks as always for sharing this, Wil. I admit I've been skimming or skipping with all the poker stuff lately, but you reminded me why I so enjoy reading your writing. I hope the rest of your holiday season is wonderful.

So, what does Mr. Wheaton think of your essay?

Nice Essay.

I have to say that I am lucky... my parents are getting more liberal as they get older.

It's sad that you had to have this clash of opinions on a day that is supposed to be all about love and sharing time with your family and maybe being religious.
But maybe it helps to look at it this way: Mabye people who are pro-death penalty simply express a certain amount of helplessness (as one of the other posters already pointed out, it's about revenge because revenge is all that is left since there is nothing to bring back those that were killed) - you have this really bad crook and there is nothing in the way of repairing what he has done, but something HAS to be done, right? So they revert to the Old Testament and even have some justification for it (ignoring that there is a sequel to this BIBLE - the first part that says otherwhise).

And if you look at what happens in prisons, murders, drugs, rapings, beatings, corruption, humiliation - is that so terribly different from putting people to death "by law"? What about human rights there? I know, this is not officially happening, but still, what is the difference to some Guanta... err... unnamed third party torture camp? It's terribly dishonest, that's what it is. We don't put people to death but we subject them to years of all kinds of hell in a "civilized" prison... as if that is going to make those who are non-lifers fit for release - no sir, I don't think so.

It's a huge catch22 society as a whole is in.
Punish criminals? -Absolutely.
Lock them away? -Absolutely.
Guard the human rights of prison inmates as closely as those of innocent citizens? -Well, but they're crooks, murderers, rapists, so...
Let prisons become brutal, lawless dungpiles? -Hmmm.
Let conditions in prisons degrade to a level that forces inmates into law-of-the-jungle type gangs, definitely taking away any chance for resocialization? -Well...

Don't get me wrong here, I do want criminals to be punished, not petted. Yet, if the only thing the punishment accomplishes is to drum into them the lesson that the only way to survive is to brutalize everybody else, then I am not so sure where all of this is heading.
Most of all, mistakes are still made by judges and juries. What do you say to a man who innocently went to a nightmare of a prison? And what do you say to somebody who was wrongfully executed?
Oooops.

Keep your head up Wil, so that your kids keep looking up to you.

Gee. How not to sound like a preaching asshole responding to this one?

Here is something (I am not a religious man in any way – okay sorta Zen-ish, but that’s as far as I go) from the Bible – I think. Worthy quote wherever it originated from.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Sounds like simple logic, and I think you would agree with that one, Wil?

Now, if somebody abducted my six year old daughter, raped her, killed her, chopped her into bits to hide the evidence, then was caught and “without a shadow of a doubt” convicted -

- I would say take the bastard, ram a telephone pole up his ass, chop his carcass into bits for fertilizer and use it to grow crops to feed some decent human beings without enough to eat.

Am I being too harsh? I don’t’ think so. My “opinion” is just this; if you knowingly and vindictively kill in cold blood, you have forfeited your rights as a decent human being and should suffer a like fate – same as your victim.

Or, we can just slap their wrist and say “you shouldn’t have done that” and here is a nice prison cell for you to sit in for many years to think about what you have done.

Now for the real issue. Our judicial system sucks the major wang. It’s corrupt and wallows in technical crap which allows real criminals to go free and convicts innocent people.

What is the answer? Well there isn’t a simple one. I’m just giving my opinion, not solving the world’s problems.

And Wil, come on, you mean if somebody killed Nolan because Nolan looked at him wrong – you would be all for not venting some major killing whoop-ass on this individual? Really? I’ll tell you what. You say capital punishment doesn’t work?

Well I say, that any “without a shadow of a doubt” vindictive SOB that murders in cold blood (and is disposed of) won’t ever be doing it again to anybody else’s loved ones. And there are many cases of repeat offenders to back up these claims.

And war? Well “opinion again” everybody has choices to make. And “I was just following orders” went out about the time of Nuremberg. Now if somebody gives you a gun and says “go kill that person over there,” you have a choice. And if you are killed or disciplined for not killing – then we are really living on one totally fucked up world.

Tough one Wil – and yes, I most likely came off as some “holier-than-though” asshole.

But you opened this can of worms – I only gave them a stir.

I'm lucky, I suppose. My father, an Episcopal priest, has always been true to his own beliefs. He spends a LOT of time talking about them. And we generally agree on most political issues - I'm a bit more foaming-at-the-mouth on gay rights, while he is a harder-core opponent of the death penalty.

I agree with Dennis Miller - the older, funny Dennis Miller. We should never advocate the death of another human being, but some of these assholes stopped paying their dues a long time ago. I'm not talking about Tookie, here - it seems like he was, at least by the time he got THE SHOT, if not before - a decent man, trying to do his best, who maybe got sidetracked along the way.

One of the fundamental questions of government, it seems to me, is this: When is it moral for a society to do that which it is not moral for a member of that society to do? If you examine that, and people's answers to it, you find out where they stand, and where you stand.

Can't remember the last time I've laughed so hard while simultaneously re-living the Great Thanksgiving Tragedy of 2004 (aka: The Stay The Course In Iraq Dinner Debacle) or the Harvey Family Birthday Meltdown of 2000 (otherwise known as the Dick Cheney: Genius or PsychoDevil Debate).

Hope you don't mind - linked to the article on our website (I'm co-host of the Bill Press Show, a national lib chatshow on Sirius). Thanks again for the random boost of support on the day i head home for the holidays - merry christmas.

How surprised I was to click on Salon and find an essay by Mr. Wheaton! Bravo!

It is curious that your parents are moving to Montana. This may not be the right-wing paradise they imagine it to be. Google "Brian Schweitzer" and you'll see what I mean.

Perhaps this desire to move to Montana can also be ascribed to a subliminal implant. Only this one happened many years ago, under the influence to the evil weed and Frank Zappa's music.

Ask your dad if he's going to raise him up a crop of dentil floss!

Merry Chrismahannukwaanza!

Funny enough, your first response was the best one: "I guess we'd better not talk about this."

There are some topics that are fruitless to discuss with family. Nothing will get resolved, feelings will get hurt, and they will just result in a big holiday freakout. Kind of like the one you described.

Luckily this is the internet and we have no such restrictions. :)

I'm solidly anti death penalty, regardless of circumstance. We talk a lot in this country about the importance of life, but most don't mean it.

Here's an excerpt from my recent post "Why the Death Penalty is Wrong" that fairly well summarizes my view: "Principles that fall in the face of difficult circumstances aren't principles at all. They are rhetoric. . . . The death penalty, by definition, requires our society to acquiesce in a killing. It requires us to put aside our sense of the sanctity of life--all life--and basic human rights in favor of our desire to feel safe and compensated. Capital punishment reduces us."

@Nyarl

I was afraid I would provoke people the way I provoked you. I can absolutely sympathize with you in some respect - I don't want to get as personal as you were, mentioning names and all, but if I were in a situation where I caught somebody maliciously threatening one of my loved ones - God have mercy...

But that's not the point. Everybody would react very forcefully in such a situation. Every death penalty is issued "without a shadow of a doubt" (at least I sincerely hope so) - but still there are issues in some cases. As much as you think some people deserved to die, imagine for a moment you are the person that for whatever reason is wrongfully convicted. So rather lock people up, in conditions that are strict - no arguing with that - and in some cases, don't ever let them out again, but take care that you don't invalidate what civilization stands for. Imho, if that means "providing" prison inmates that will never see the other side of the wall again with the "luxury" of human rights (there still is the Constitution), that's the price we have to pay.

Sorry for the Xmax ruckus, I just felt like adding this.

P.S.: See, we're all in the boat - the Real War on Christmas is on everywhere... ;-)

Personally, I don't agree with the death penalty, but my wife has even more conviction about it. She was two blocks away from the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, and *thought* she wanted McVeigh put to death for the murder of 168 people. When the time came, and he was gone, she realized that it changed nothing; in fact, it just added one to the bombing's death toll.

For an interesting and poignant treatment of the death penalty phenomenon as related to OKC, look up Terry Bission's science fiction short story, "macs". It's worth the read.

"Well I say, that any 'without a shadow of a doubt' vindictive SOB that murders in cold blood (and is disposed of) won’t ever be doing it again to anybody else’s loved ones. And there are many cases of repeat offenders to back up these claims."

Something I hadn't considered as a pro-argument for the death penalty. Sure, you could just lock the perpetrator (purple traitor?) up for life...but then subjecting him/her to rapings, etc...would that be BETTER or WORSE than the death penalty? Hard question. A lifetime of misery...or putting them OUT of their misery? Hmm...

This is something I wrote in my blog a week and a half ago. It probably says a lot of things already discussed here; but since I'm such an opinionated @s$hole, I'm gonna post it. >:-D

(PS: the first part is quasi-satirical...I'm sure it'll piss some people off, but it's meant to make a point and NOT to make light of those who were murdered.)

---
So, at 12:35 AM PST, "Tookie" Williams was finally put to death ...

... and then a miracle happened! In contrast to the old saying, Albert Owens was just seen crawling out of his grave and walking to the nearest 7-11 to buy a Big Gulp and a hot dog! And the Yangs were spotted shopping at the local supermarket only minutes after the execution! And, oh my goodnes, Ye-Chen Lin was found dancing at a local night club, still in burial clothes!

It's true! It really DOES bring the dead back to life!

...

ha ha ha ha.

But seriously. I do not mean to belittle what happened to those four poor souls in 1981; but the fact of the matter is, killing Williams will not and did not bring those four people back to life. So, what's the point?

There can be only one logical answer: closure for the families of the victims. It is NOT justice: it is nothing more than legalized revenge. But it still creates closure...and considering Williams' assistance in his own execution, I begin to wonder if he was eager to end it all due to some hidden guilt for REALLY having committed those murders some 24 years ago. It is an interesting thought.

Regardless, the execution of Tookie brings up the differences between what is "right" and what is "correct;" because there is a difference. Gov. Schwarzenegger's final decision to deny clemency, in my opinion, was technically "correct." That is, there was more than enough evidence (let's ignore the fact that the defense team supposedly found a witness that could have exonerated Williams) against Williams, and other arguments to support that Williams was not only guilty, but not truly remorseful for those crimes. To top that off, even if Williams was (God forbid) innocent, to stay the execution would continue to use taxpayers' dollars and not give the families of the victims closure (which, in my mind, is the only excuse for the death penalty). So, it was convenient as well, and therefore "technically correct."

It was, however, not right. If people think humans should stop playing God, then they should do so in every arena; from stem cell research to the death penalty. The whole spectrum. But, I guess, that makes "right" and "wrong" a matter of black-and-white (a typical human assertion). However, every time I think of the entire concept of the death penalty, I'm always reminded of what Gandalf told Frodo in Lord of the Rings: "There are those that live that deserve to die; there are those who die who deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

The scales are not balanced. In the end, there are only five deaths instead of four. To quote an old saying, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
---

Hey Wil, I can't help but think about that episode of TNG you were in called "Justice" where your character is sentenced to death for falling on some new plants. Are you reminded of that episode at all when this debate comes up? There's some really good points brought up in it, on both sides of the debate, but I especially liked Picard's line at the end, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions." ;)

Please, please, please stop saying Bill O'Reilly opposes the death-penalty. Like most other things that spew from his mouth, it's a lie. A simple google search is all it takes to find proof that that's a line he keeps in his pocket to throw at anyone who dares call him a conservative.

The other day, I heard a cover of John Lennon's Christmas song in which the refrain bearing the TITLE OF THE FLIPPIN' SONG had been replaced with "Mer-ry-Christ-Mas-Hap-py-New-Year" and it made be sad and angry. Guess what, folks: it is now and always will be called "War is over if you want it." It's a profound statement, and it doesn't deserve to be buried in a homogenized false sentiment.

Two years ago I was in the hospital after having a pacemaker/defibrillator implanted. Needless to say I wasn't up to a political debate, which was just when my oldest sister (ex-hippie chick now super-ditto-head) decided to rail on Clinton, the "socialist-communist" ex-president. When I lifted my head from my hospital pillow to remind her that this so-called "socialist-communist" signed the crippling welfare reform act, she acted as though she'd never heard of such a thing. Families. Go figure.

I loved to read the story. Its really well written, if I can say that. I should read more of your novels or assays. Don't have so much time, though. Maybe at Christmas. Do you have a regular column or are you going to get one in Salon? Thats probably difficult.
And would you ever consider going into politics? Maybe not, because who would be mad enough to do that.

Merry Christmas to you all!

cripes, man. never, never discuss politics at christmas with the family. regardless of what's said or who said it. it's just dumb. discuss aunt molly's new boyfriend or the way your mom's changed her hair or the latest catchy commerical, but never, never politics.

That must have been tough, not to mention awkward. The death penalty is a hard issue to discuss with anyone. Just goes to show that even something as strong as families can be divided by issues as serious as politics and religion.

Personally, I'm with you on this particular case. The guy is in prison and will be for a long time whether he is put to death or not. Plus, isn't this the same guy who did a lot of good in the community by writing children's books that discourage just the type of gang violence he used to be involved in? That should count for something, I think.

Just my two credits.
Happy holidays.

And great point "mraymer".
"I especially liked Picard's line at the end, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions." ;)"

TNG always had moral lessons in it and that's one of the things that keeps me watching the same episodes over and over again. I remember that episode terrifying me when I was little, and it should have. Absolute laws with no thought to individual circumstances are a scary thing.
Great point. :)

I've thought carefully before I posted.

Tookie's first victim, Al Owens, was my wife's uncle.

So let me say this, being pretty close to the front lines as an average Joe can be in this.

My father-in-law is the kindest, sweetest, most gentle soul I have had the privelege to meet in my lifetime. I always considered myself fairly liberal, but he takes the cake. I've watched him slog through interview after interview these past few weeks as every news and infotainment outlet contacted him for his story. Many times, each radical faction berating him for not taking "their side". Now for the record, he's very much against the death penalty.

But he wrote to the Governator requesting that clemency not be granted. Why? Well, I don't claim to know every reason, but it settles partially in California Law. Even if the sentence were commuted to "life in prison without possibility of parole", that doesn't discount that Tookie could continue to utilize the legal system to fight the original charges or even the conviction. Plus there were numerous appeals and reviews already which proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Plus, he never took responsibility for the deaths. My father-in-law knew there should be no way this person should have a chance to get on the street again because he would continue his ways. he /knew/ that. In his heart. How could I, generally also against the death penalty, disagree with him with that sort of conviction?

Like you said yourself, Wil: I'll drop anything to be with my family. And on this, I do have to stand with my family.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Blessed Yule, Grievous Festivus and generally Happy Holidays to all.

As a 24 year old Republican myself, I have to hear the same insanity from my father that is spewed on these talk radio shows. I don't buy most of what they say especially the War on Christmas garbage that has come out. It bothers me so much what they say and that the people just go ahead and listen.

Wasn't Blades of Steel the best hockey game ever? My only objective while playing that game was to get into fights.

Wow, I think its so great that you posted here, jslicer!

Wil, I was so pleasantly surprised to see "by Wil Wheaton" when I made my morning rounds at Salon.com. I also have loved the site for years.

My father is what I think of as a "financial" Republican, he is conservative when it comes to taxes and money and whatnot. However, my father was also drafted in the Vietnam War which left him with a healthy distrust and dislike for the military, war and warhawks, especially warhawks that are so eager to start wars when they themselves used their class privilege to get out of serving their our country when so many other young people of my father’s generation gave years of their lives or their lives themselves in service to our country.

So somehow these last few years have been the first time I have been able to politically agree with my father and it has been a nice bonding experience. However, I have to admit that I look forward to the time when my father and I can agree to disagree because that will mean that the biggest political issue of the day is something about social services and not this awful, awful war and the politicians that brought it upon us.

at least you can still find some aspect of enjoyment of the family Christmas experience...

I cannot. I have avoided spending any holidays with my family for the last 13 years. Just the thought of spending any holidays, occasions or even being on the same continent with them sends me into convultions...

I'm not interested in being fair or being objective or even being a nice guy... all I care about is preserving my sanity and never subjecting my kids to the true pod people... born-again Evangelical Christians.

If they start into their Jesus nonsense I swear I could take the turkey carving knife and slit my own throat. I absolutely can't stand it. Does that make me a bad person...? Probably. I guess I can think long and hard about it during my eternity in hell... well, according to them anyway.
As I said, it's not about being tolerant of other people's religions, or points of view, or any of that BS, at least not for me.
I grew up believing in the Rapture and believing that anyone who was left behind would have to recieve the mark of the Beast or have their head chopped off. We all believed in the Seven Years Great Tribulation, Armageddon and the Final White Throne Judgement...
All I ever wanted to do was be an artist. But nothing I ever drew really "glorified God" the way it should. So if THEY found my drawings, I would have to throw them away and repent. Not to do so was to invite the forces of darkness into our house and our lives.
This is the indoctrination I grew up with. It put me in a neurotic state of obsesive/compulsive behavior. I can control it now, but I have never fully recovered from this. I have bouts of manic depression that leave me almost imobilized with fear and doubt.
It almost goes without saying that my family are Bush voters. Born-Againism and Republicanism fit so hand in hand I'm starting to believe that Hal Linsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" was some kind of psy-ops campaign for the minds of the semi-middle class who fill the ranks of the true believers.
It's sad because those in my family are basically nice people. But how does one break bread with nice people who are convinced they are going to spend eternity in their exclusive heavenly country club and you will spend eternity buring in an everlasting Lake of Fire simply because you find it impossible to believe in their invisible magic friend who helps them find their car keys...?
There's just no reconciliation point that I can see...

If it makes you feel any better, I AM a family member of one of the victims, and Tookie's death brought me no closure; I knew it wouldn't. All it did was take another life. Unfortunately, there were many reasons to believe that, if he had not been executed, he would have eventually gotten out on the streets where he could have hurt or killed more people (I don't believe he changed, too many people who would know were saying he was still involved in the gang). My family, though, kept hoping, up untilthe end, that there would be some magical third option that would appear at the last minute and change it so that he didn't have to die, but people would be safe from him. Sadly, that was not the case.

Wil,

Your dad and my step-dad could hang. Last year I got trapped alone with my mom and step-dad and it felt like they were trying to do some sort of political intervention on me. It was bizarre and sickening. The more I tried to be polite and rational the more angry and irrational my step-dad became. The weird part for me was that my mom was like your parents - a total liberal back in the day.

A couple of years ago she tried to pull that, "Honey, you just get more conservative when you get older" theory on me, but I just arched my eyebrow and said, "Explain dad."

My dad is the man who called me after the 2000 elections and was already concerned about the 2002 congressional elections. He said, "If those idiots vote in a Republican controlled House and Senate they'll get what they deserve." "What's that, dad?" "McCarthyism," he whispered darkly. "McCarthyism..."

I have to say that dad had a point.

Meanwhile, I found something this week that made quite a bit more sense to me than conservative vs. liberal or republican vs. democrat. John Hibbing's theories on absolutists vs. contextualists. The scary part being that he thinks there is a biological basis for these pre-dispositions. I don't think I can put links here so you can probably go google for his theories.

Good luck with your father, Wil. It's a scary, scary thing.

Wil,

That was one of the best pieces of writing I have read from you yet. Really moving and excellent.

I really hope - for you - that your Dad knows how much the WAY he talked to you was hurtful. I hope he reads the article and knows it, or you tell him straight out.

Reminds me of my discussions with my pro-death-penalty mom. I just couldn't let her fall back on the vengence position, esp when living in a Nation of Laws. I'd argue that justice was an infrastructure that needed constant maintenance, and worrying about people's emotional state was just so much 'codependency' (sorry -- I hate that word). In the end I had convinced her that if the ultimate punishment was the epitome of our justice system, then we are all in serious trouble as a society -- personal notions of morality, just a cruel joke.

Before you blast O'Reilly Wil, you need to gather some facts first about him. He isn't a cram it down your throat idealogue, he does have some good points to make. But he does leave room for disagreement and doesn't berate you for it. All he is after is trying to get you to question the news media, the goverment, authority, even Bill O'Reilly himself. I think your dad's stance on the death penalty is coming from some other place and maybe it would be a bonding experience for you to sit down and try and find out where this viciousness is coming from. I highly doubt it comes from talk radio. He's too smart for that. Merry Xmas Wil!

I talked to my dad before this essay was published, because I didn't want him to be blindsided by it.

I have to make something excruciatingly clear: I don't only love my dad, I like my dad, and I love being with him and my mom whenever I get the chance.

This essay is less about a political disagreement with my father than it is about the current state of political discourse in the USA. Also, when you get down to it, has nothing to do with the death penalty.

I get the sense that most people understand this, but for the few who don't, (including some idiot who left a comment at Salon where he called my dad all sorts of names) I wanted to be crystal clear.

My dad knew about this story before it went to press, and he told me that he was proud of me for writing it, and having it published in a prestigious publication like Salon.

And, despite The Great Eye For An Eye Explosion of 2005, I'm meeting my parents for dinner and games tomorrow night at their house, with my siblings and my wife, and I can't wait.

Hey Wil, I have to agree with your stance on O’Reilly, and furthermore I can’t believe that some posters here have defended him, but of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and your article goes into something beyond the original catalyst of the death penalty (which I am against on the grounds that “revenge” is not a penalty that we should support).

Like your father, I grew up with my “cool” father, who almost always voted Democrat, and while with some conservative values, none of them deled into the social issues that plague society. But has my father aged, living in a small Upstate NY town, he opinions have drastically changed. I love my father to death, but he seems to be glued to the FOX way of things. It’s pretty sad because my father was once a man or reason, once a man who engaged in critical thought. Now I avoid political debate because he is of the mindset that has tainted a lot of people’s thoughts.

IMO, FOX is an entertainment channel that is the “Bizzaro world” opposite of the Daily Show, just not funny, and they try to pass themselves off as real news. They should force a disclaimer that their “fair and balanced” reporting is far from that.

I wish there was a solution, and I am glad to see that this blowup between yourself and your father was just temporary.

To those of you who are criticizing Wil for not knowing O'Reilly's stance on the death penalty, GO BACK AND READ HIS ARTICLE AGAIN!!!

Never once does Wil say that O'Reilly supports the death penalty. Wil is talking about O'Reilly's style and, as he says above, the current trend of political discourse.

And to say that O'Reilly doesn't berate people that disagree with him is just plain wrong.

Wil,

Lesson #1 from this - And this has NOTHING to do with the Death Penalty, pro or con... NEVER discuss politics with family members, especially around the holidays, when emotions and stress run highest. Nothing beneficial or positive can come from it. Keep the talk to Uncle Fred's hairpiece or the football games or the kids' school functions. Few things will kill the holiday spirit like a political debate.

hey Wil,
First let me say happy holidays to you and yours! I belive that A highly spirited political discussion in our homes is vital to the continuation of our democracy. As far as the death penalty is concerned, I understand the need for a final penalty for crimes against a civilized society however, the reasons behind the creation of the need for gangs is because certain segments of our free society feel unsafe in their neighborhoods. so maybe the solution is for people to take a more vested intrest in our poorer communities. If people feel safe in their neighborhoods then perhaps the need for vicious gangs would be eliminated. we should start electing officials that have ties to these communities and can maybe enlighten the public at large as to what we might do to help....that's my opinion for what it's worth. feliz navidad..et al

Wow. In light of all the huge comments, I think I'll keep this brief. I've posted a story of my own over at my blog that draws a parallel to Wil's article in a basic sense. You can find it here.

For the HTML-impaired...
http://blogprophyts.blogspot.com/2005/12/holiday-home-havoc.html

Despite the chaos, I hope everyone here has a Happy Holiday, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, or a Joyous whatever you celebrate!

Groucho said it best:
"Home is where you hang your head"

If someone claims to be a Christian, how can they possibly support execution? The fifth Commandment is:
"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

"An eye for an eye" is Leviticus - you'd best read all the rules you're signing up for... like stoning people for infidelity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus

Yes, Tookie killed four people. He's spent all his time in prison ATONING for his crime and PREVENTING more deaths. That has to count for something.

I thought the purpose of prison was, ostensibly, REHABILITATION - not warehousing for subsequent eradication.

One last note:
"Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord"

-it's not our place.

Love to you all this season - all let's try and make it last all year.

Doog

Hey Wil, I hope you make it down here past all the comments that seem to have missed the point. This isn’t about the death penalty, or Tookie Williams or Bill O’Reilley. You just bared his soul in front of everyone, and decided to deal with the way your parents were breaking heart rather than ignoring it. Some might accuse you of being cowardly for writing about it online rather than dealing directly with you parents, but I think writing that article was not only admirable, but gutsy as hell.

I come from an extremely ‘normal’ family. Mom, Dad, Sis and me. We were always happily middle class, and I was never abused or neglected. But there is so much stuff that we just all blissfully ignore rather than deal with, and as I approach my first third of a century, I wonder if we should deal with it. Dunno if your article will give me the courage to do so, but at the very least it got me thinking about it.

I'm not going to say one way or the other about the death penalty, but I will point out one thing. One of the other commenters posted something about "REHABILITATION" and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you can't rehabilitate people against their will. You especially can't rehabilitate serial killers. (I'm not saying Tookie is one, I'm just stating something research has shown.)

A lot of people think that these criminals are poor souls that were never treated right and all it will take is a program and they'll be all right. It's only partially true. The human psyche develops in stages and if those stages are disrupted, it takes a lot to fix that and sometimes you can't reclaim it at all. Also, you can't change someone who doesn't want to change - you can only force them to behave for fear of punishment.

That's not to say that some don't change. They do and I for one don't believe in holding it against someone if they've done their time in prison. But it was a choice THEY made. Thinking it is possible or even likely that most will make the same choice isn't supported by the research done on programs that actively try to rehabilitate.

Wil, great piece in Salon. I hope it doesn't cause more problems between you and your Dad.

About the death penalty; whether one think some criminals deserve to die or not, the fact that innocent people can be, and have been executed should be foremost in the debate. The execution of an innocent person is a double crime by the State: murder, and almost certain freedom for the perpetrator (bureaucracies HATE admitting they screwed up).

Get civilized, America.

There seem to be a lot of replies regarding the death penalty, but I just didn't see that as the real subject of the essay. It's kind of ironic that there's so many posts on the "hotbutton" issue and few on the real subject of your essay. The death penality, like abortion is a topic most people seem to have an opinion on, so it's easy to reply to.

What I find a lot more interesting is your parents change from what sounds like hippie left wing boomers to O'Reilly watching conservatives. I'm really not trying to be insulting, but anti-nuke activism and O'Reilly watching conservatism has a striking similarity in both being pop culture politics of the time and being based on fear.

I obviously don't know your parents other than the simple two page character study you've written. But is it possible that your parents are prone to adopting the "fashion of the day" politics? You blame Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly for creating the atmosphere, but what is it about your parents that makes them watch this garbage? That's not to say that conservativism is all garbage, only that the techniques and style of these guys is just.. well criminal. I could go on, but I'm more interested in your thoughts on the matter. How is it that someone can be transformed into someone who can "objectively look at the facts and draw his own conclusions" into a political reactionary driven by talk radio guys?

One book I'd mention is passing is "The Culture Of Fear". There's a few things in it I don't totally agree with, but the general ideas of the book are spot on. It's one of my pet theories on what's really driving much of the mentality in the US.

I'm very sorry you had to have such a quarrel with your father over that subject. Sadly that isn't too far from what happens when I bring up something vaguely social and political with my parents. They aren't extremely liberal nor are they annoyingly conservative. I've learned now to just keep quiet because if I express my views to them my parents suddenly transform into people I cannot recognize. It's very, very hard for my boyfriend and I have civil conversation when all I hear from my parents are "Those damn Mexicans and Asians, blah blah blah". I remind them that people of all races, ages, and genders are capable of being jerks just as much as being genuinely awesome folk. The rifts growing between this generation and those before us are shaped by both what we were taught in contrast to what we observe in reality. I wish my parents would see they did a fabulous job of raising me to be an open-minded, understanding thinker that can see the whole forest and not just the trees.

Unfortunately they continue to descend into anachronistic cynicism as the world is changing around them in ways they can't quite grasp or do not want to accept. At least that is what I believe.

I hope you and your family have a wonderful holiday and a prosperous new year, Wil.

-Denise

Disagreeing with people you love is so much harder than disagreeing with strangers. And when they really disagree with you, it's scary, like, did I ever know this person? I'm glad you and your dad aren't letting this keep you from loving each other.

My dad and I realized we had this sort of discrepancy in world view years ago. There are any number of topics on which we just agree to disagree. He's still my dad; I'm still his daughter; we just don't discuss things like: Which is an impeachable offense, spying on Americans without a warrant and going to war under false pretenses, or having an intern give you a blow job?

Personally, as to the fate of Tookie Williams, I thought it was a miracle that Tookie was still alive after all these years, so he was already on borrowed time, but in general, there are better options available.

I'm kind of on the fence about the death penalty myself...while as a Christian, I only believe that God is the one to judge on who lives or who dies, but I also have to admit that there are people in this world that would do everyone a great favor just by snuffing it. I will also admit to having the occasional rage tantrums where I actually envisioned killing someone over what I considered to be a vile act. People are entitled to their opinions...family even moreso. If we didn't have anything to argue about, there'd never be a reason to come to terms and realize just how much we love our families and they love us despite our differences of opinion.

In any case, hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and a great New Year...along with blessing from the Poker gods for ya! :)

When ever my Grandfather comes to visit me I have to remove the bumper stickers on the car so that we can actually enjoy our time together. He too spends his afternoons glued to Fox News.

I go through the same sort of crap day in and day out when trying to discuss, well, pretty much anything with my brother and sister-in-law. Though I can't explicitly speak for my sister-in-law, my brother used to be able to think for himself. He used to be able to critically evaluate evidence and information. For lack of a better way to put it, he used to be able to think for himself.

It's to the point where, sadly, I've just short of given up on him as a lost cause.

Sidenote: Nice to see you're still floating around, oh Spudnuttiest of them all.

I go back-and-forth on this issue - and being in the UK it's not a subject I often need to think about.

I think the bottom line is that he knew the death penalty existed when he did the crime; There is no way he did not know the consequences of his actions when he commited them, and although it's not RIGHT for him to be killed (two wrong turns don't make a right, as the doorknob says in Alice in Wonderland,) it is important that the justice system remains consistent.

Though I'm not one to start spouting scripture (being an agnostic, for one), seeing the hypocrisy of christians claiming that the Bible allows for / encourages the idea of "an eye for an eye" reminds me how poorly many people understand the foundations of their faith.

So, for the record, it's in Matthew 5, verses 38-42 that it's made clear that the idea of "an eye for an eye" is an old testament concept, and is not to be applied by true followers of Christ. The exact text is as follows:

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

There's a lot of anger out there in the world today. Sometimes, I wonder: does talk radio (and that kind of thing) influence people to angry, shouting discourse, or is it, rather, a reflection of what an angry, shouting society expects? Same sort of question as whether or not videogames cause violence, or whether they simply reflect a violence that exists in society already.

Either way, the society has some issues.

And some of those issues I just don't discuss with some members of my family.

Especially around Christmas.

Oh yeah.

>> Nice to see you're still floating around, oh Spudnuttiest of them all.

JSc, MrsVet, what is the word, my peeps?

>> encourages the idea of "an eye for an eye" reminds me how poorly many people understand the foundations of their faith.

I think it's even a deeper misunderstanding than that. As I understand it, the old testement "eye for an eye" was a LIMIT placed upon revenge. It's ONLY and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The take-home was supposed to be you don't visit more punishment on someone than they inflicted on others. It wasn't meant to be a justification for vengence.

You know, no matter how hard you try, no matter if you're looking for it or not, if you spend time with family, you will always find that ONE thing that you will never agree on.

(Full disclosure: My dad, life-long professional scientist has just admitted to me that he's now a creationist. Yeah.)

I have my opinions on the death penalty (mainly that it's an interesting idea, but it's just not practical on a moral or economical level), and I also have changed my opinion on whether or not rehabilitation works.

I used to have more of the attitude that people don't change.

I respect the point of view from the victim's family's standpoint, of "why should this guy be allowed to better himself, when the person I loved is gone."

It makes a kind of logic, but it's all based in revenge.

Justice is about what's right. Revenge, let's face it, is all about YOU.

Was Williams doing any good in prison? Was he really trying to make things right? Was he actually remorseful, if not for the four murders (which, in all fairness, he's never admitted to, nor cooperated with the investigation) but for his role in creating the Crips?

Or, to put it this way, is one second's worth of relief (to be followed by a lifetime of guilt for cheering the death of another human being) worth destroying the possibility of answering these questions? To undo any good that he might have done?

And if he didn't redeem himself, or even try, is it worth it to kill him, to look at yourself a year from now and say, "Wow. I wanted a man to die. What does that make me?"

Oh, and Hi-diddily-ho, Spudnuts.

Bobby!

D00D!

(I just found a disk with a a bunch of the Spud mp3s, BTW)

Why is Tookie put to death, and Charles Manson allowed to live? The uneven application of the punishment is just one part of my problem with it. The other being the lack of remedy when it is applied in error. You can free someone who has been exonerated of the crime... but you can't unkill them.

My father would react the same way Wil. But he has never been very passive or understanding. But I agree with you about being against the death penalt. I do believe in forgivness and extended time in jail is also cruel. I also believe that the man in question might do some good things if let out on parole. He was very young when he did those things and is old now. With the time he has spent in jail I feel that he has done his time.As to closure, It is really only vengance. Which I dont like. Thanks for your time.

>> (I just found a disk with a a bunch of the Spud mp3s, BTW)

Send them here, Kringle.

spudnuts@mac.com

I been good this year.

Mostly.

Incredible article Wil. We are all so polarized now and it's coming from somewhere. I agree with you on it's origins...talk radio and talk tv. I'm afraid people will not wake up. I am fearful for our country.

As always, you rock!

Wil you are definitely the nicest guy on the net.

My mom certainly does not yell or blurt out talking points, but otherwise it's the same story. The diff is, she's sure she doesn't get it from the RW media (Fox, et al.).

I thought of sending your essay to her but she'd think i was saying she freaks out vs. what you said otherwise, that we aren't actually going on the attack or anything and there's something really going wrong. But the first thing that goes is the ability to tell that something's changed.

I have recommended your forum (the one not working) to other people as an example of really, really good and sincere moderation.

O'Reilly is NOT opposed to the death penalty whatsoever. That's one of the 2 or 3 fake liberal points he pretends to care about to pretend not to be a far-right partisan hack.

Examine who he's supported and opposed. He has never supported a death penalty opponent. He has never opposed a death penalty supporter. Ditto on abortion. Almost never supported a pro-choice candidate - I would say Wilson/Enron puppet Schwarzenegger was the first - and has almost never opposed a pro-life candidate. He pretends to be almost libertarian, but his jihad against the ACLU is proof positive of his real agenda.

The man's a professional liar, and his alleged liberal status (which the pathological liar Bernard Goldberg also claims, as does Tammy Bruce) is simply one more chore in his "To Lie" list.

Oh, and the bleeding heart liberal has been lying for about 5 years about being a registered independent. He was called on it last year and probably finally changed from registered GOP.

Sorry, but anyone as vicious and dishonest as O'Reilly (there is nothing in the war on xmas that is true, basically, it's a hitlerian big lie) shouldn't get a pass on anything.

Great article - very thoughtful. It must have been tough to write.

Marion, I would say Wil and Kelly Sedinger at http://byzantiumshores.blogspot.com are tied for "nicest guy on the internet(s)".

The difficulty with trying to reason with True Believers (they exist on right and left) is that their beliefs are governed by the reptilian brain (that's not an insult, BTW). Can't argue with that part of the brain.

My father and I probably disagree about more things than we agree on. Whether it be politics, religion, lifestyle, profession, whatever, he and I don't agree on very much. But, he's my Dad. How ever he managed it, he took part in the raising of an intelligent, caring, sensitive, hard-working, honest and loving human being. Yes, he can be a fuck, but... he's my Dad. Nothing I can do, but be as supportive and loving as I can, even if we argue about just about everything. We are sons of our fathers. What else can we do?

Merry Christmas, btw... :-)

Last Thanksgiving my stepfather got drunk and started screaming Republican talking points at me and my brother and his partner while we were all trying to sleep. None of us had even metioned politics at that point.

We ended up leaving the house and going to a motel. It was unfortunate because it ruined Thangsgiving for my mom and step-sister. It opened old wounds with my stepfather that we thought had long healed and it caused my brother's partner to refuse to ever be in the same roon with my stepfather again.

Not all families can disagree and still be civil the next day. If you can, that is truely something to be thankful for.

The media is dangerous. It can, for lack of a better word, 'brainwash' even the most thoughful and intelligent of people. It takes great effort to sort through the drivel we are bombarded with daily. To separate the fact from the fiction, the opinions from the facts. With the amount of 'information' that comes our way daily it is a wonder that we can think independently at all.
How many times Bush mentions Saddam Hussain in connection with 9/11 has cemented the person and the event firmly together and I strongly suspect that a great number of people now believe that he was behind the attacks -- all because of the word association 'games' the powers that be play with our minds. The media is telling us what to think, what to believe, what is 'correct', what is 'wrong', what 'good citizens' should stand behind, etc. Independent thought and opinion is lost somewhere along the way. If some independent thought does manage to squeeze by and is thoughtfully voiced by someone, then that person is ostracized by the majority of 'sheep'.
I read your article Wil and, without sounding too sappy and putting you up on too high a pedastle, you are a wonderful writer. I do not say that lightly. You have a passion and a talent and I look forward to your eloquence. I don't always agree with what you say, but I respect the thoughtful manner that you express yourself. Keep it up. You're still young in your writing craft and I suspect we will all be reading great things from you in the future.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.

(I didn't mean any offence to your family -- Father, sister, etc., or mean to imply that they are not independent thinkers. I just wanted to point out how easy it is for intelligent people to get drawn into 'herd mentality').
Take care.

Wow, this post certainly struck home for me. I've had this conversation dozens of times with my father. My Dad is a sweet, mild-mannered man who taught me to be kind and gentle and to empathize with others...qualities that led me to become a liberal. I honestly don't know how his opinions and the product of his parenting ended up in opposition, but they did.

In any case, I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't believe in it because it is most certainly not evenly and fairly applied. However, I'm not really thinking of the criminal when I object to the death penalty. I'm thinking about everyone else involved. The victims' families. The family of the criminal. Even the correctional officers. I just don't think killing is a salve for wounded souls, not even in the name of justice. It has the potential of making a tragic situation all the more tragic, of breaking more hearts than it mends. Killing changes people. It can haunt you, even if it is just. Does a murderer deserve to die? Probably. I just don't think that everyone else deserves the experience of killing him.

The death penalty - whe 25 years of redemption and a Nobel Peace Prize means nothing in the eyes of the State. Life Without Parole, Anyone?

Wil, I really recommend that you see a DVD called 'Outfoxed'. It really cuts to the heart of the Fox News style of journalism. I showed my parents this and they understood that Fox is basically Murdoch's soapbox.

Then again, my mum never trusts anything that comes from News Corp. anyway.

Political arguments don't happen much in my family. When it comes to social issues we generally all agree. I do get upset with my mother for not voting though. Actually I'm rather ashamed of that. Dad's an Atheist republican, but as he dislikes Bush just as much as I do there's not much conflict there. Both of my parents are against the death penalty, but mainly because they don't trust the government not to lie to them about a person's guilt or innocence.

I'm more liberal than most of the country, but in our family my views are the closest to mainstream. I believe government can be a force for good, and I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. Instead of just bitching about politics I'm out there volunteering for my party and political campaigns. That's something my family sees no value in, and at the core of our only political debates.

Wil,

I know that must have been a tough thing to go through. I for one can empathize with you. I'm very sorry thiat happened.

I too can see the benefits of your arguement. But on the other side of the coin, I see your Dad's too. Sometimes, sometimes we all give into the talk show/political hype, and fall in to the trap. We just have to remember to try and use all the information we receive to make sound decisions for ourselves.

To you, Anne, Nolan, And Ryan have a Merry Christmas, and manny returns for the new year!

I've read through all of these comments, and I have one of my own. I work for a nonprofit. A lot of donors call every day and ask me how much of their donation goes to programs. I explain that it's about 40%. They gasp and splutter and haughtily exclaim that it's horrific that we should have such a high overhead. (This is actually a pretty good return; do the research on some of the biggies like ARC or Girl Scouts or any other, and you'll find that oftentimes it's 15 or 10%).

Having worked for this agency for three years, I have learned in that time that nonprofits do not run themselves. You can't run a program for youth without having a program coordinator, or an executive director, or a call center calling to raise the money to pay those people. You can't do that out in the open air, you need an office, and equipment with which to do that...you can see where I am going with this. We successfully run hundreds of programs each year with your "pitiful" 40%.

Why do I bring this up? Because many of us get on our high horse about subjects we really know nothing about. When one sees things from the other side, one learns that there are two sides to every story, and the assumptions we make can be false. Which is why any solid declaration of "facts" makes me uncomfortable. So those of you who feel the need to "educate" us all on the pros and cons of the death penalty...just let Wil speak his peace on his own blog and leave it be.

I read everyday and enjoy, but I generally aren't too much into posting comments and ideas.

The only thing I would like to say is that I am a Correctional Officer for a state Department of Corrections in which the death chamber is housed, at my institution.

That's really beside the point. Other than I do take some...not offense, really, but slightly taken aback by being accused of "beating" inmates. In that comment, "beaten by guards..."

Not being a guard, but being a correctional peace officer (i.e. a law enforcement officer), I and most of my co-workers dislike the term "guard." That's neither here nor there.

"Beating" of inmates does not occur in modern correctional settings. Force is used, and used often in some cases, but not out of any pleasure. When you house violent criminals, who dislike authority, they will lash out against orders and authority figures. I don't think anyone should expect a correctional peace officer to accept getting beaten and assaulted, possibly killed, because they don't want to "beat" an inmate.

The lame excuse of, "You knew what you were in for when you signed up" doesn't apply. Car accidents occur that involve fatalities, a vehicle is an inherently dangerous object, but no one says, "Well, you shouldn't have been driving then" when someone plows into the side of their vehicle.

I have a very important duty to carry out, and occassionaly that requires use of force.

I'm just slightly disappointed that Wheaton would be so dismissive and judgmental, presumably based upon film and television portrayals of correctional settings. That's all.

True, O'Reilly is technically anti-death penalty. His stated preference is that capital case prisoners be transported to the Artic and dumped on an ice berg until they die. I say "technically" because I have never once heard him urge its non-application in any specific case. In general, his "throw'em-under-the-jail" views on crime, punishmnent and civil liberties are far to the right of Judge Napolitano, one of the most conservative jurists in the U.S. I don't completely disagree with O'Reilly on this subject, but to suggest he is a "liberal" in any sense of the word is ludicrous. He is, in fact, a Republican shill and a journalistic fraud.

Oh, wow, Wil, you got an essay published in Salon! That is super-cool, I'm so happy for you! Merry Christmas.

As for the so-called "War on Christmas," it is so stupid, so god-damned stupid, I refuse to dignify it with an answer.

Happy Festivus to all!

This is getting a bit off topic, but I thought I'd respond anyway. I did some research like one comment suggested about percentage of dollars going to programs for a nonprofit.

I found a fairly good US News that casually mentions:

"The BBB says groups should spend at least 65 percent of gifts on programs, while AIP and Charity Navigator say 75 percent."

So, those people who scoff at a 40% useage of funds for programs were actually quite justified in their beliefs. While I'm sure that's better than other large charities, It's not really something to be proud of.

I believe murder is wrong, no matter who it is. Harmful people should be locked away from society, but that's all. It isn't our place to play God and take away someone's life. That would only put us on the same level as them.

Wil,

I’m fairly new to your blog and have really only been following it regularly since you went into exile and your smiling face showed up on my PokerStars account. I’ve enjoyed your writing though and it prompted me to start my own blog, which is beginning to grow with each passing week.

Your points in your Salon Christmas article rang very true for me as an Englishman living here for six years now. I’ve noticed that since Bush took office there has become an ever increasing concept in America that you have to pick a side, much like a sports team. It is no longer acceptable to be middle of the road and simply consider all sides of an argument and form an opinion; it now seems to be necessary to label oneself a liberal, a conservative, a Christian etc. The pundits on Faux News and Ultra Right talk radio appear to be looking to pick battles to further divide America on every emotive issue they can find from abortion, Intelligent Design, evolution, the death penalty, the war in Iraq, and His Royal Highness George Bush.

Unfortunately the news in the US is not very informative and is a lot more to do with ratings and money than it is actually providing the news. So sadly too many Americans get their information from these slanted biased pundits who try to pass themselves off as journalists. I’m not sure what the answer is at this point, but I look forward to the day when Bush heads back to his ranch and stays there.

As for your points I think I largely agree with you. The death penalty is only about revenge, nothing more. In fact when my wife studied criminal justice as a minor I read in one of her many books that the states in America that have the death penalty also have the highest homicide rates. When its okay for the state to kill someone who has wronged another it seems to imply that it is okay for anyone to kill another who they feel has wronged them somehow. It also doesn’t work as a deterrent, because people don’t murder people thinking they might get caught. Just look at any of those crazy countries that cut off arms, legs, hands, feet. Countries that cane, whip, flog and torture criminals. Guess what? They still have criminals. No matter how bad you make the punishments, crimes still happen.

It is also interesting to note that the counties of the world that have pretty liberal and soft punishments for crime have both a low crime rate per capita and a very low re-offend rate. Just take a look at those Scandinavian countries and their crime stats.

Sure anyone can make an emotive argument about people raping and killing family members, but it doesn’t render the argument any more correct or logical, merely more emotive which is a cheap way to try and win an argument.

Finally I also agree on this war on Christmas shit. Just a few years ago I remember Christians bleating about how over commercialized Christmas was and how the stores had hijacked this Christian holiday and used it for pushing their products and making money, far from the true meaning of Christmas. So now that many of the stores have elected to use a more generic term covering all faiths and the commercial holiday that seems to stretch from Thanksgiving to the New Year they are unhappy about that too. There seems to be no way to make them happy.

Well, all arguments about the death penalty aside, it sucks to have a perfectly friendly family gathering spoiled by politics. meh.

Merry Christmas, anyway! Arguments come and go, but the family will still be there. Cheers!

Wow, Wil... That's pretty crappy that you came home early just to wind up getting yelled at for your beliefs (which you were trying to avoid sticking in anyone's face).

I don't agree with your views, but I admire the fact that you tried to avoid confrontation for the holidays, and I'm sad you dad couldn't do the same.

...And while I agree with you that the death penalty is applied disproportionately to the poor, I think further examination will also show that prison time is applied disproportionately to the poor. That's a problem with our *legal* (as opposed to "justice") system. The rich and powerful always get away with more shit than the rest of us. But we've got the best government money can buy.

Merry Xmas.

Mr Wheaton, Sounds tough, I'm sorry it put a downer your holiday, hopefully, overall it turned out better. Your father sounded a little out of control, but there is a side to his story. I find it interesting how children, even adult children expect to never have their feelings hurt by their parents, it happens just as I’m sure you hurt their feeling at some time during your life, the point is he was heated, we all get heated about odd topics from time to time, occasionally I feel the need to comment on a blog, and this is once in a blue moon for me.
You saying “This is something we should not talk about” is an inflammatory statement, if you did want to avoid the topic, just make a checkmark in your head and listen to your sister’s side. You said she was non political and morphed into a vaguely political stance, I would be more interested in how she decided to get there (as I would assume you would be too, judging by your surprise to her new position[you could write an essay on that topic])
The Death penalty is on it's way out, we all know that, it's only a matter of time before it's abolished, old sentiment dies slowly.
My Problem with Tookie's story is he lived like a king on money provided by gang bangers while in prison, he was not raped, he was not traded for sexual favors, he certainly could have brutalized by the guards, but don't get it wrong and believe he had a perilous life behind bars, his upkeep was the best can be provided in prison.
One does not get to be a leader/founder of the Crips by selling cookies, you know, he ordered many hits. Many people died on his direct orders and even more in a less direct way. He was a very bad man, and never apologized to the public or the victims’ family.
There are better death penalty cases where people are less polarized, less stance oriented and better for dialogue.
You should write about Walter Mann Sr, that's a true miscarrige of justice.

The death penatly is nothing more then governemnt legal means to murder.

Its been proven already that many former death row inmates where found not guilty after DNA proved it. Who is to say that faulty evidence hasn't happened as well?

Everyone is fast at jumping one the bandwagon to kill anyone for any reason now. If its not governements is society or a religion doing it.

Its just sad how many people believe in the "eye for eye" theory.

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."Mohandas Gandhi

I think people should die the way they killed. For instance, if you torture and kill someone you should be tortured and killed in the very same way you killed that person.

That is truly and eye for an eye.

What a nice surprise when I logged on to Salon.com this morning! I hope to see your essays there more often.

I'm glad you talked with your father beforehand, and that he reacted positively. You have balls.

Someone else probably mentioned this upthread, but your article catalyzed a new Salon. com thread in the White House folder called "Holiday Hell: Politics Around the Family Dinner Table 2005." Check it out.

Wil, Love you, love your website, but, c'mon---telling us to think carefully before we post a comment? Why not remind us to breathe every day, too? Just a skosh condescending, yes?

RUSH: He was trying to avoid fights in the comments. Common sense would have led you to that conclusion my friend.

Wil: I had no idea you were against the death penalty. How...surprising. Don't know why. Personally, I think the rapist should be put with the rapist and have to try and avoid the very thing they are there for. The murderer's should be put with fellow crazies. The death penalty would be the least of their worries.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Everything in me says no for many reasons. Religion is the biggest reason. People thinking they're God would be reason number two and yes, is different and seperate from the first.

I think I'll stop there. I'm ignorant about politics and wish to remain blissfully so for as long as I can. The death penalty raises so many questions though and I DID watch The Life Of David Gale, which forces me to ask, just how effective is it and before we use it, perhaps we should work out the obvious kinks in the justice system first.

Wil....

Several years ago, I had the pleasure of working with you as a sign language interpreter at a Star Trek convention in Chicago.

I just read your Salon.com article. It was like re-living holiday gatherings at my house, except the ones who boiled over were always my mother and one of my younger brothers. I don't know exactly what it is, but I have a theory that anyone who watches the Faux News Channel (and Bill O'Reilly in particular) for more than five minutes should be forced to listen to a recording of themselves. (It might make their ears bleed.) Bring up anything that even smacks of politics, and both of them would shout anyone down who dared to oppose them, especially me. My father would do the same thing in any conversation with him before he passed away in 1999. He went from Live and Let Live to uber-conservative in the space of a year, and it was frightening.

Although we loved each other, there was very little, if any, respect for any opposing feelings. I learned to steer clear of political discussions, simply because I was tired of the Fox-News-type debates in my living room. If I want to listen to a bunch of people scream their brains out with no facts behind what they're saying, I know where FNC is on my cable remote.

I tend to watch Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN because you will get all sides of a given story there. In my mom's eyes, that made me a traitor...shameful that I would watch "liberal" CNN!! When Mom passed away the week before Thanksgiving, I decided then that FNC and Bill O'Reilly would never be seen in my house ever again, unless Bill does something particularly stupid. It's fun to watch him back-pedal.

Wil, I don't agree with you in many areas. When you appeared in Chicago, you were not shy about sharing your feelings about several issues, including abortion and the death penalty. However, there are too many people who fought and died to give us the freedom to agree to disagree. Whether I am personally uncomfortable with what your opinion may be on a given issue, it doesn't take away from my enjoyment of your work.

You were cool in 1992, and you're still cool. Thanks for letting me share.

Wendy aka VoxyLady

Against... I'm Canadian. 'Nuff said.

I'm more interested in the werewolf phenomenon that took Wil's father. Happens with my own on occaision (read: daily). I have some fairly strong opinions about a fair number of topics, but I just cannot fathom what makes people in general think that we have either the right or obligation to voice them to any unwilling audience.

Telling your kids that sneaking cookies and staying up late on weeknights is bad is one thing, but forcing a political or theological point of view on someone is the small scale equivalent to conquering a country and forcing them to adopt your way of life. Mental slavery, bah!

I'm against organized religion, but I'm not even forcing my beliefs on my own kids. My wife, who IS fairly religious, and I agreed to answer all their questions but not to push an agenda on them.

Heh, and here I am, drilling my opinion into you, the unwilling audience. Ok, my hipocrisy has seen the light of day today. Ta!

Everyone who is blabbling about the pro or con of the death penalty here is missing the point.

It used to be okay to disagree without screaming and hate... Senate members on opposite sides used to argue passionately and then go out for a friendly drink afterward. It used to be a given that, for the most part, someone who disagreed with you was still a fellow American and not a monster.

Not anymore, I guess.

And so it seems that the poison of talk-radio America has hit home, too. Oh sure, I bet political discussions at holiday time were pretty loud and crazy before the crop of professional bloviators and demonizers held sway. But it's gotten worse, because these guys' main point that they've been so successful at selling is that those that disagree with you are just *evil*.

I remember many a passionate political match between me and my smart, charming, racist, and elitist Grandma. It would get heated, and as my fourteen year old self would be on the verge of exploding, she would grab my hand earnestly and with shining eyes, exclaim, "Oh, I just LOVE a good argument!" Gramma was still Gramma, whatever her politics.

Well, with a lot of love and Jon Stewart on our side, maybe we can turn this unfortunate tide. Peace on earth, goodwill to men.

With so much bickering and negativity, it's easy to forget that everyone in this story is human.

I have not read all of the comments and so I maybe am missing this, but Will, I know you feel awful about this, but did your father apologize to you, for his inappropriate outburst in front of your wife and kids?

Hey Wil. I'm sure you've seen 12 Angry Men & Dead Man Walking. If you haven't, please do so. They're both great films that question the death penalty.

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. I was raised Catholic & attended Catholic school for 6 years. I believe that the death penalty should be used as a last resort. If a killer cannot be rehabilitated (This means all options have been exhausted with the help of mental health experts through medication & therapy, etc.), thus he or she shows no real remorse & has not improved him or herself, then we have a psychopath on our hands, devoid of a conscience. There's nothing left that can be done with a person like this & the only answer is execution.

What's shocking to me is that the psychopaths who have stayed in the same old sickly skin are still alive! Scott Peterson, BTK, The Green River Killer, Charlie Manson...The list goes on. Meanwhile, Tookie Williams, who, unlike the rest of these nutjobs I've just mentioned, had a conscience, showed real remorse & was rehabilitated was still executed. In this case, the death penalty was applied in an unjust manner.

Just the thought of the psychopaths I mentioned earlier who can possibly escape from prison (Ok, so maybe the chances are slim of this occurring, but Ted Bundy did it & killed many more women) & inflict harm on more people gives me the heebie jeebies in an indescribable way.

The accounts I've read that describe the details and methods of torture and terror that many of these death row inmates subjected their victims to is absolutely sickening.

If you're against the death penalty, what is your first thought when you read the horrors that these evil people inflicted on their victims?

Forget it - it's the same old debate again. Except this time the death row inmate wrote some children's books.

Steph, if Scott Peterson were executed today, then Tookie Williams would have been executed long before he was able to reform himself. And his name wouldn't appear in this blog...

Wil -

Just discovered your blog a few days ago, and have been reading ever since, catching up.

The death penalty sounds like it's an emotionally charged issue for your father, one in which you can't engage in debate - instead, he wanted to argue. I'm sorry to hear that, and hopefully you two can stay away from issues like that, as it can cause friction within the family. I do agree with an earlier poster that political discussion within a family is extremely important, but you have to pick your topics carefully. Make sure it's one where you have opinions, but not feelings. If someone brings up one of these idetified topics, just say you can't talk about it. It's tough to do, but it sounds like something your father should think about.

It sounds like you and your father resolved things - especially the part about "in front of your wife and kids". I certainly hope so. I can understand how painful that would be.

I agree that the recent discourse regarding politics has gotten worse and worse, to the point where we can't even disagree anymore without hating each other. I have trouble believing it's from talk radio, though, since it's done on both sides of the aisle, and liberals have no talk radio that's been feeding that for years (except Air America, which is fairly recent and still doesn't have enough listeners to be self-supporting, last I heard). The rhetoric goes both ways, for sure. If I may be so bold, I'd suggest that you should have political discussions, and perhaps even debates, with your parents about these issues. You may get to the point where you even understand, logically, how a "really smart guy" (your quote) like your father can get from where he was to where he is now. You can tell him why you disagree with him, and hopefully, you can both learn from each other. That's what family is all about, to me.

I also just discovered your blog today and it's hilarious! Reading this post just sent me back a few years! I have a family of Republican uncles and election year is the worst for Thanksgiving! I am thankful my sister is a member of the Green Party, where as I am just a lowly Democrat, she gets the brunt of criticism from them. Even my mother, who was a hippy and then became a yuppie, is now a Republican, living in sin with her GOP boyfriend. Trying to talk to them about Bush and his administration is like trying to talk to your friend about their horrible boyfriend that they should break up with (because he just tried to make out with you but you can't say that), and your friend just can't let go. The loyalty that is so entrenched within them is impenetrable and a bit nasty at times. I have learned my lesson about political discussions within family functions. I now stick to the weather and offer to put on movies like National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. At least we can all laugh at Cousin Eddie. I am a staunch supporter of my political beliefs and if anyone asks me I will let them know exactly how I feel, but for the peace of my grandparent's home and to make sure that the turkey is the only thing getting knifed at the dinner table, I keep my mouth shut. When the discussion gets a little too political, I bring up how my Uncle Alan almost set the porch on fire during the Fourth of July when he was twelve (which is the favorite family story). Either that or my sister and I head down to our local bar to have a drink (God love the athiests that run Segovia's, saved our lives Christmas Eve!). Whichever way you want to deal with it, family and politics don't always mix, but they still are your family(even if they have gone over the deep end and you suspect they may have an arsenal and cult leader tendencies). I try to remember what it is I like about them, or in the case of my Uncle Brian, that he lives three hours away and I only have to see him and his wife once a year. We can't always agree about what makes the world a better place or how it should be run, but we can all laugh at an idiot dumping his septic tank into the storm drain. Who knew shit would bring leftist commies and hardcore right-wingers together in family bonding?