Wednesday, February 13, 2013

ACTING AS YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE??? PLUS TWO VIDEOS

Wednesday February 13, 2013 6:47 am, 10:56 am

Well, Virgil and I just got back home and I recorded two videos this morning so I am going to upload them now. I hope everyone has a wonderful day today! After I do this I am going to go and fix breakfast for me: this morning I believe I will be having natural granola with fresh strawberries and almond milk... sounds pretty good, huh? I am also including one picture at the bottom of our backyard and the snow beginning to fall in earnest... I hope it keeps it up!

 
For my blog this morning I thought I would reproduce something I wrote last week for a class I am taking in college. This particular class seems to have every student in lockstep agreement on all subjects which have come to differentiate between liberal and conservative views.

I have often wondered exactly how liberal professors can so easily sway young students who have left home with certain ideologies, many times conservative... and in just a few short years they flip-flop and become liberal in their views of the world? If one particular class I am taking, which is being taught by a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, is any indication then I see how they try to accomplish this. They do it by only talking about one side of the argument, the liberal viewpoint.

An example of this was last week's assignment about the death penalty in America. All students were supposed to do their “own research” with different papers that the professor had given as an assignment to read... then, they were supposed to present a well-reasoned argument (acting as if we were state representatives speaking to our colleagues in the Senate) and stating which side of the debate we were on? There was a problem. Every single paper that the professor gave for the students to study... only presented one side, those who opposed the death penalty. That is why in my first sentence of my “argument” I included the words, “... I felt I must go well beyond what has been called for and do further study...” Of course, I then included links to those who were for the death penalty so these poor unfortunate students (who have a professor who is far less interested in students learning than he is in trying to push his own liberal bias) might actually see that there are two sides to this debate.

(Below is what I wrote for the professor and the other students who are enrolled in this class to read.)

As a state representative and in an attempt to vote my conscience I felt I must go well beyond what has been called for and do further study in an attempt to understand both sides of this argument, and to cast the most honest vote that I can.

I have visited the Death Penalty Information Center and I read two of the seven articles I found on the first page. Obviously, they cite people and written works that are against the death penalty.

In addition I also read (in its entirety), A Matter of Opinion written by Terry Collins. Mr. Collins is a retired director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. In this article he quotes Justice Paul Pfiefer who believes the death penalty ought to be abolished, and he lists three main reason for this.

The death penalty is: a. expensive. b. inefficient. c. time-consuming. If that is the reasoning as to why the death penalty ought to be abolished, then I might add we need to immediately shut down our government for the exact same three reasons. It is expensive, inefficient... and if you have ever had any dealings with our federal government you will instantly recognize that it is a time-consuming experience to deal with bureaucrats.

I also read, I Ordered Death in Georgia by Allen Ault. Mr. Ault was a former commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections for a four year period. From the opening paragraph it was difficult for me to find any sympathy for Mr. Ault and his apparent reluctance to execute murderers. He begins by describing a horrible crime committed by two men, of which Mr. Ault stated, “I had no doubt that they were guilty.”

Stevens and Burger, who Mr. Ault incorrectly said that both were teenagers when they decided to kill a man... were not. Thomas Stevens was 19 and ready to turn 20 and Chris Burger was already 20 when they raped, robbed, and threw a cabdriver into the trunk of his car and then pushed the car into a lake, thereby drowning an innocent man.

His rationale for not wanting to execute these murderers? Apparently, years later and with “... a little frontal-lobe development...” they were now different people?

Throughout every person's life we are always changing... that is true. However, what did not change was the fact that these two young men, both old enough to have served in our military... decided to torture and kill an innocent man.

I was younger than both of these men and I had a wife and two young children and I worked a full-time job raising my young family. I began doing this when I was 17. So, for any person (like Ault) to imagine that because a person is young that somehow gives them a free ticket to torture and kill, is offensive.

As a state representative I would encourage my colleagues to consider both sides of the argument, before making any hasty decisions. Please consider that at present, 62% of Americans are in support of the death penalty. Please keep in mind that as elected officials we are supposed to be fulfilling our constituents views: not imposing our own biases on others.

In keeping with the idea of being informed... and not just in lockstep agreement with certain others, I would also encourage you to read an article titled, The death penalty prevents future murders. (I am providing a link.) http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm

With a clear conscious, my vote is to not do away with the death penalty.

“For me the death penalty will always be a measure of the value of human life. And there ought to be a clear distinction between 'guilty' human life and 'innocent' human life.
"Whenever a murderer decides his victim has no value, he takes his life. We, the elected state representatives need to legislate for all innocent victims and show that the life of the one who was murdered, had intrinsic value. We can do that by forcing the murderer to surrender his/her own life: in that way we set a high standard for the value of a human life: i.e., a life, for a life!”

Hopefully, before leaving for work today I will upload my video for the day. If not, then it will be closer to 11:00 tonight before I am able to do this. I hope all who reads this has a great day. And if any of my friend(s) or loved one(s) are sad or having a hard day... please cheer up. Remember, someone in Indiana loves you :) 








posted by Robin Johnson @ 6:47 AM