Ron Paul, Mr. Inconsistency

In this ABC story, Ron Paul Takes Swipes at GOP Rivals, Says Michele Bachmann ‘Hates Muslims’, Paul throws out this, in reference to getting rid of federal drug laws:

"Paul added that the federal government should “protect the right to do with our own body what we want.”"

Right. Exactly what Leno's young audience wanted to hear. But, square that with his statement that abortion is "the most important issue of our age." He says abortion is violent murder. But then he says he'd leave the issue up to the individual states.

Paul said the Supreme Court of the United States should have never heard Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion, and said that social issues -- including abortion, school prayer and marriage -- should be handled by the states and not by the federal courts.

So, Mr. Consistency thinks the Federal government should  “protect the right to do with our own body what we want” unless you're in a state that agrees with him that abortion is murder, in which case women will be strapped down or thrown in a cage and forced to have a baby they don't want. Unless, of course, they can afford a trip to a state that doesn't want to force women to have babies they don't want, which is fine with Paul, because rich people will be free to do just about anything they want in his libertarian utopia where being rich gives you more rights than being poor does. And, supposedly, abortion wouldn't be murder in California or New York if those states said it wasn't. Or something.

The main reason so many young people love Dr. Paul is because they think he would legalize drugs. This is not Dr. Paul's position. He clearly states that he only wants the Federal government out of the regulation of our own bodies business. But he's perfectly fine with states taking away your right to do with your own body what you want. His statement, then, that the federal government should protect a right (to do with our own body what we want), is completely disingenuous because he has clearly said before that the states have every right to dictate what we can do with our own bodies.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

The Lawrence case was a clear case of the Federal Government, in this case the Judicial branch, protecting "the right to do with our own body what we want." This is precisely what Dr. Paul said the federal government should protect. And yet, Dr. Paul says that there is "no right to privacy" found anywhere in the constitution. So, where, exactly, is Dr. Paul's "right to do with our own body what we want"? Is this just some right he made up? Or is it in the constitution somewhere and he's just not telling us where? Or is he just full of shit, like every other Republican on earth?

Six Countries Responsible for More Than Nine of Ten Known Executions Last Year

The economist has an interesting piece on capital punishment, Here is they sting - More and more countries have doubts about the death penalty. One of the more interesting points in this gruesome accounting of world wide executions is that just six countries are responsible for more than 9 out of ten known executions last year.

Care to guess the six countries?

Oh, we're in good company on this regard, as many of you may have already guessed. The six countries responsible for more than 90% of executions are, in order of contribution, China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the United States. That's right. We were ahead of Saudi Arabia in total executions last year. Iraq jumped back into the top six after the death penalty was suspended after the invasion. Now, desertion from the Iraqi Army is punishable by death.

The article notes that the total number of executions varies wildly from year to year, but the number of countries that allow executions has

fallen steadily from 40 a decade ago to just 25 last year. Since 1985, 55 countries have ended the death penalty or, having already limited it to “extraordinary” crimes (such as those committed in wartime), have now banned it outright.

Seems that worldwide, there is a growing aversion to the death penalty. Even in the US, public sentiment is leaning toward a moratorium. After the botched lethal injection of Angel Diaz, even Florida (where Jeb seemed to be enjoying a little sibling rivalry with GW on this score) has suspended executions while the state looks into the "humanity and constitutionality" of lethal injections.

Even China, by far the world's biggest executioner, has made strides toward changing their methods and reducing the overall number.

Since January 1st all death sentences have had first to be approved by the Supreme People's Court—a practice that had been suspended after the launch of China's “strike hard” crackdown on crime in 2003, when publicly admitted executions soared to more than 7,000. In their annual report to parliament last month, representatives of China's chief legal bodies, including the Supreme People's Court, the public prosecutor's office and the ministries for justice and the police, urged a reduction in use of the death penalty (as well as torture).

Last month, a Chinese delegate to the UN Human Rights Council said he was confident the death penalty in China will be abolished, although some think this might be window dressing for the Olympics. The story reports that at least China is moving away from firing squads to lethal injection.

The US, Japan, India, South Korea, and Taiwan are the only democracies to still have the death penalty. To me, that provides hope that we can, at least in those countries, create a netroots opposition that will at least force candidates to address the issue. Considering that more than 120 people since 1973 have been found to have been wrongly sentenced to death, there is certainly a moral argument for a moratorium.

For me, though, the logical argument is still the best: I don't hit my kids when I tell them not to hit people.