Three Strikes and You’re Out

Jerry Kilgore’s Three Bald Faced Lies:
1. Kilgore: There’s a standing relationship between Al-qaeda and Hispanic Street Gangs like MS-13. LIE: Refuted by many, including the FBI
2. Kilgore: There is no Deficit. LIE: In fact the Deficit was over $6BN.
3. Kilgore: Tim Kaine wouldn’t execute Hitler, Pol Pot, etc… LIE: “They don’t deserve to live in civilized society. They deserve the death penalty. ”

Now the media can officially begin to refer to Jerry Kilgore as a LIAR.

Posted by Josh Chernila on 13 October 02005 @ 1pm

These are all just white lies. They don’t hurt anyone.

Posted by Steve Nelson on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

Waldo, you are descending into desperation.

Kaine said that Hitler didn’t qualify (e.g. he believes that the death penalty shouldn’t be applied to anyone) for the death penalty. He said he deserved the death penalty, but that despite that, he wouldn’t support the death penalty for him.

“God grants life, God should take it away. That’s my religious belief. And — except in the, you know, kind of rare instances. Self-defense. I mean, a person who — you know, who kills somebody in self defense, or — or a nation that — that wages a just war, that is essentially to defend itself or — or others, that would be an exception.”

“Most nations have decided not to have a death penalty. And — and many are very safe. I don’t think — I don’t think it’s needed to be safe.”

Kudos to you for not picking and choosing excerpts and including this part which contradicts what you are trying to say.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

Hans, what part of “they deserve the death penalty” is unclear to you?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

Hans,

What do you have against Christianity? I don’t understand why people like you are so hostile to the notion of a real Christian leading the state of Virginia. It is absolutely despicable how you are attacking a man for following the teachings of Jesus Christ. You can take your old testament, pre-Christian paganism right over to Iran. They’re all about the sharia law that you are apparantly so devoted to. You’ll fit right in.

Posted by ATA on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

While “they deserve the death penalty” is clear, in this case it’s so obfuscated by all the qualifying remarks and hemming-and-hawing that I’m not sure what Kaine’s answer really is. I get the sense he means “deserve” in more of a karmic, spiritual sense than any sort of legal sense.

“Tim Kaine isn’t sure if Adolf Hitler qualifies for the death penalty” would probably have been a more accurate take on the answer (although no less likely to piss people off).

Posted by Jon on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

The difficulty part of respecting life is when you have to apply to the lowest type of person. Jesus usually sought out the lowest of the local society to demonstrate by example how we all should act. Abhorance of the death penalty makes no statement on crime just on punishment. It does not mean pardoning or excusing. It means removing them from society, if necessary for the rest of their lives. It seems that the only sentiments that would drive all thes proponents of the death penalty are hate and greed.

Posted by Mimmi on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

I figure I can see the evolution of his thinking, as he chews this over.

Q: Does Hitler deserve the death penalty?
A: Well, God gives lives and takes it away, except under rare circumstances when humans have that right. One of those circumstances may be mass murderers. In fact, yes, he does deserve it.

To cite anything other than his conclusion should be cited as his answer. Even then, there was no point midway through his answer when he said that Hitler did not deserve the death penalty. He was simply winding his way around to that response.

The strongest that an ad could say would be that Kaine was asked if Hitler deserved the death penalty, and Kaine talked about theology for a minute before he said “yes.”

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

“It seems that the only sentiments that would drive all thes proponents of the death penalty are hate and greed.”

Ah yes, you’re really going to win over your opponents that way!

“The difficulty part of respecting life is when you have to apply to the lowest type of person.”

So I take it you’re against abortion? Or does that mean all those pro-choice people are hateful and greedy, too?

Posted by Jon on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

Well said Jon. I would also add that Tim Kaine has made it clear that he is against the death penalty for anybody as a matter of principle. I disagree with Tim Kaine on this, but I would applaud him for that principled stand. (There are good arguments to be made against the death penalty.) When he tries to plead agreement with both sides and take contradictory stands, however, it reveals that it is not a principled stand, and that he is glad to waffle for cynical vote-getting.

ATA, I am an extremely conservative Christian and I believe in the New Testament scripture of Romans 13 where it says that the “rulers” are “ministers of God” to “execute wrath” on the “evildoers” with the “sword” which they “don’t bear in vain”.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 2pm

What #10 said to Jon was directed at #6 (though it does apply to #9 as well.).

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Actually, yes I am against abortion. The ideal society would love all children no matter the situation of birth. Abortion is usually but not always an economic decision. Sometimes though it is used just for convenience. If the economics weren’t so slanted to the rich and if the poorer of society didn’t feel so desparate then abortion would be less needed. Though that doesn’t answer why so many abortions occur within the society of the wealthy and the conservative. I have to balance all the issues regarding life in picking my position politically not just on abortion. Additionally, Government should have no role in my medical life. It is none of their business.
As far as trying to win over opponents – I think that is a job to big for me. And if that is what I was trying to do I would be posting over at a conservative site. THe drivers of the unconscious, such as fear and hate, would be very difficult to change in a stranger.

Posted by Mimmi on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

By the way, there was 10 years of decrease in abortion rate in the 90’s only to rise after 2000. Coincidentally, on average, statistically the largest increases occur in red states. Not that statistics paint the entire picture and can very easily mislead but the economic boon of the 90s did have a positive affect on the selection of abortion as a solution to pregnancy.

Posted by Mimmi on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Oh and #11: # 12 and #13 figured it out quite readily that what # 10 said was directed at # 6 and #12 and #13 just can’t wait to see what #14, #15 and #16 are going to say.

Posted by Mimmi on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Lol @ #14…

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Didn’t Hitler *get* the death penalty when they blew him up? Did Tim Kaine stand in the way? No. Case closed!

Posted by Steve Nelson on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

I’m glad to heare you’re against abortion. So am I. For what it’s worth, I don’t think people who support abortion rights are filled with hate and greed any more than I think my own reasons for supporting the state’s right to execute criminals are based on hate and greed.

I will add something about Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, or conservative Christians — however one chooses to refer to them. One of the defining characteristics of these people is a belief that the Bible in its entirety is God’s Word. That means the Gospels, the Jewish Scriptures, the letters of Paul are all ultimately inspired by God, and therefore in perfect harmony. This further means that, when Paul describes the right of the government to use the sword to execute wrath on evildoers (as referenced by Hans), his words are entirely complementary to Christ’s words in Matthew 5 regarding how we as individuals should treat our neighbors and enemies.

No one is going to get very far with conservative Christians by telling them they are anti-Christian for supporting something that Paul clearly describes as a God-given responsibility of the government. It just ain’t gonna work.

Posted by Jon on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Didn’t Hitler *get* the death penalty when they blew him up? Did Tim Kaine stand in the way? No. Case closed!

Beyond the fact that Tim Kaine wasn’t born or present, the U.S. didn’t blow him up. He committed suicide.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

If a guy came up to me and made a horrendously offensive sexual remark, you might say he would deserve a sharp knee to the groin. He might deserve it, but even if I could walk away unscathed, I like to think that I would react in a more civilized manner. To react that way would, IMO, debase me. And that’s what happens with the death penalty: it’s abhorrent because of what it does to us.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

I am glad you set that one straight, Hans.

I don’t know anyone I would trust with the decision on when to cut short a felons path to repentance. Many would say that a life sentence is the harsher treatment. One thing a life sentence does allow is the transition from sinfulness to repentence without the interference of an impatient executioner.

To me the problem with the Kilgore use of the death sentence in its attacks on Kaine is that they are implying to the public that he would free or pardon them. Kaine has never in any way demonstrated any weakness in regards to crime or punishment. On the other hand, Kilgore has in his weak handling of the prison system in VA – pathetic.

Posted by Mimmi on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Janis, you articulate Kaine’s position quite well, belying Waldo’s assertations. Kaine believes that they deserve the death penalty, but it shouldn’t be given to them. (Thus they don’t “qualify”.)

Like I said, I respect a principled stand, such as yours, against the death penalty.

Mimmi, sorry, not a big deal, but I’m not sure what you are referring to: “I am glad you set that one straight, Hans.” There were a number of things… :-)

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Regarding Case closed on hitler being executed. It was so out there, I was at a loss on how to react. You said it nicer than I would have.

Posted by Mimmi on 13 October 02005 @ 3pm

Kaine believes that they deserve the death penalty, but it shouldn’t be given to them.

Be careful with your use of “they,” Hans. Kaine has made crystal-clear that the “they” in question here (the mass-murderers named) do, in fact, deserve the death penalty.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 4pm

It is clear that Kaine believes that while “Hitler deserved the death penalty”, his belief that “God grants life, God should take it away.” (with the “rare” exceptions of “self-defense” and “just war”) precludes and supersedes that deserving.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 4pm

Q: You couldn’t conceive of a case where a person, because of his behavior and criminal conduct, deserved the death penalty? What about Adolf Hitler? Josef Stalin? Idi Amin?
A: They deserve the death penalty.

The discussion — and advertisement — is not over whether Kaine would personally administer the lethal blow to Hitler’s head. It regards whether or not he believes that Hitler deserved the death penalty. He was asked that question here, and he responded clearly, repeating the word in question: “they deserve the death penalty.”

Your tea-leaf reading, while amusing, is on par with telephone psychics.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 4pm

I am not tea-leaf reading, and you know it. Even your mom is articulating a smart death penalty position that captures what Kaine was saying in this excerpt. Kilgore’s ad is consistent with these quotes by Kaine. Furthermore, I am not reading this excerpt in a vacuum:

“And I’ll also feel bad just because I think it’s outrageous that there is the death penalty.”
(Kaine, quoted in “A Bit of Killer’s Lawyer Died, Too,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 7/12/87;)

“Murder is wrong in the gulag, in Afghanistan, in Soweto, in the mountains of Guatemala, in Fairfax County . . . and even the Spring Street Penitentiary.”
(Kaine, quoted in “Richard Whitley Dies in Va. Electric Chair,” Washington Post, 7/7/87)

A Journey of Hope kicked off…with a rally at the state Capitol…Among those who attended the event were Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-3rd, and Richmond City Councilman Timothy M. Kaine. Scott said he was at the rally to show his support for the anti-death penalty movement….Kaine brought a personal perspective to the rally. “Violent crime is probably one of the biggest problems we have in here in Richmond, but the death penalty is not the answer,” Kaine said. (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9/23/96)

“The discussion — and advertisement — is not over whether Kaine would personally administer the lethal blow to Hitler’s head.”

I agree. Governors aren’t executioners. (Such an implication is a straw man.) It’s whether Tim Kaine would stay the execution. The evidence indicates quite clearly that he would have stayed Adolf Hitler’s execution.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 4pm

“clearly”

Hans… it’s not clear at all.

The whole point of these despicable “hitler” ads is to un-clarify Tim Kaine’s stated position.

If we actually want clarity, we’ll likely have to get out of politics and become mathematicians.

Posted by Josh Chernila on 13 October 02005 @ 4pm

It could only be unclear to a relativistic liberal… *sigh*

What part of “I think it’s outrageous that there is the death penalty” and “the death penalty is not the answer” don’t you understand?

I understand quite clearly that while Kaine thinks Hitler deserves the death penalty, he wouldn’t be willing to authorize the execution and indeed would do anything in his power to stop it. The ad doesn’t say that Kaine thinks Hitler didn’t deserve the death penalty, it says that Kaine thinks he doesn’t qualify for the death penalty. Tim Kaine thinks that no one, even Hitler, qualifies for the death penalty.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 5pm

I don’t the relevant question is what Tim thinks about the death penalty as a philosophical/theological matter. The relevant question is: would he use the Governor’s clemency powers to rewrite the VA code? Nobody has suggested he would because he obviously wouldn’t. What he has been saying all along is that the decision is not his. It is the decision of the voters through their elected representatives. If, subsequent to hell freezing over, the GA abolished the death penalty, I’m fairly certain that Kaine would sign the law. But, since everyone knows that won’t happen, the issue is moot.

Posted by Thomas Jefferson on 13 October 02005 @ 5pm

What he has been saying all along is that the decision is not his.

But it is his descision. He could grant clemency (unlikely) or proclaim an indefinite morotarium.

It scares me that a man can claim to believe one thing as a matter of principle yet also claim that when he has the power to institute this moral principle (and stop these detestable “murders”, to use his word), he will refuse to do so. A man who doesn’t follow his morals (or claims not to) is not to be trusted.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 5pm

Sorry… I was in a hurry and got my vowels switched: “moratorium”

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 5pm

This is all very interesting. Nevertheless, when I’m thinking about who I’d like to have as a governor, the death penalty is not heavy on my mind as I pull the lever and draw the curtain behind me. I don’t, as they say, have a dog in this fight. Education affects me, taxes affect me, medical privacy affects me — a lot of decisions made in Richmond affect me and my loved ones. But whether a convicted murderer is put to death or spends the rest of his life in a cage has no effect on my life.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 5pm

I suspect many voters feel the way I do. They may feel strongly about the death penalty one way or the other, but will that affect how they vote? I don’t have the answer to that question, but surely some student of politics can find out! : )

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 5pm

I don’t agree at all that refusing to declare a moratorium on the death penalty would compromise Kaine’s beliefs. The purpose of the clemency powers, the way they have been used in the past, is to stay executions where there is doubt as to guilt or innocence. That is what kaine has said he will do and there is no reason not to believe him. There is a HUGE distinction between governors intervening in certain cases and governors using the clemency power to usurp the legislature’s authority. If we looked through the va code i’m sure we could find many laws that kilgore doesn’t agree with but, for all the bad things i could say about him, i have no reason to belive he won’t enforce them and don’t morally fault him for it.

If you support the death penalty, that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to criticise Kaine for doing what we would expect any executive official in a democracy to do.

Posted by Thomas Jefferson on 13 October 02005 @ 6pm

I agree with you on clemency powers. The intended purpose is not made for the position Kaine takes and I seriously doubt he would use clemency to “legislate” his beliefs.

However, a moratorium’s purpose is a legit tool to carry out Kaine’s belief. The moratorium is designed to be used if the governor doesn’t feel comfortable (whether for conscience’s sake, or for a mistrust of the judicial process, or for problems in the execution machinery (lethal injection mixing problems, electric chair not working right, etc), or because of any other reason; it’s the privelige of being the executive) with the executions that are happening. If he is elected and doesn’t use moratoriums’ power, he is a hypocrite and political opportunist who has no regard for his conscience.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 6pm

[i]Romans 13 where it says that the “rulers” are “ministers of God” to “execute wrath” on the “evildoers” with the “sword” which they “don’t bear in vain”.[/i]

Way to cherry pick a quote in service of yur argument. Romans is filled with admonition after
admonition on the abuse of such power. Just for starters, but it goes on and on this way. . .

2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2:2
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Only a real Christian Conservative would cite a letter from an Apostle reaching out to the Romans,
whose “rulers” executed Christ, as a justification for the death penalty. You know in your deepest
soul that Christ was opposed to execution, but if you don’t he leaves little room for you to think
otherwise in Matthew . . .

5:21
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Posted by Jeff Baker on 13 October 02005 @ 6pm

Those scriptures you quoted, Jeff, are directed to us Christians on a personal level. We aren’t supposed to go around judging others in our minds. It’s also pointing out that when we judge others, we open ourselves more widely to judgement. Furthermore, it is no one person on a jury condemning someone to death. It is a jury which is an institution of the state. Romans 13 is talking about the government’s responsibilities and is quite clear in that regard.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 6pm

So, Hans, our elected leaders should not serve the greater good of the people, listen to other
elected officials, and respect the rule of law, but do whatever it is their own particular “beliefs”
would have them do? Finally, an explanation of the Bush adminstration that I can understand!

Posted by Jeff Baker on 13 October 02005 @ 6pm

re: Juries, the Bible also says: In the multitude of councilors, there is safety.

(and yes, I know the Bible well enough that I just quoted that above scripture and didn’t have to look it up.)

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 6pm

Jeff, the two are hardly mutually exclusive.

“respect the rule of law”

Moratoriums are a part of the law and to implement a moratorium on the death penalty would be within and would respect the rule of law.

It used to be a respected thing to govern from a conscience. I am saddened that certain elements no longer think that the honorable thing to do.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 6pm

There was a time when someone would not have the gumption to run a political as that exposed
them as a bald-faced liar. I am saddened that certain elements no longer think telling the truth
the honorable thing to do.

If you’re so sad about the death of conscience, maybe you should lower yourself to half Mast,
where your ego won’t catch so much wind.

Posted by Jeff Baker on 13 October 02005 @ 7pm

Jeff, you think those verses in Romans mean that no one, including officers in the government, is allowed to make judgements? You’re engaging in eisegesis, and by doing so you’ve proved too much. It takes more than assertions and claims of cherry-picking — you’ve done nothing to demonstrate that the government does not have the responsibility of wielding the sword against wrongdoers, as stated in Romans 13.

Posted by Jon on 13 October 02005 @ 7pm

Jeff, if you would be so kind as to point out the area in which I have been egotistical, I will do my best to improve. I am sorry that I have come across as egotistical.

(I am not being sarcastic. Honestly. Ask those that know me, if you doubt my sincerity in this matter.)

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 7pm

If he is elected and doesn’t use moratoriums’ power, he is a hypocrite and political opportunist who has no regard for his conscience.

If Jerry Kilgore is elected and doesn’t do everything in his power to ban abortions and birth control, is he a hypocrite and political opportunist who has no regard for his conscience?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 7pm

Absolutely!

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 7pm

Well then, I hope that the Kilgore campaign listens to you. :) (For that matter, the Kaine campaign should! There may be an ad in here somewhere.)

An important thing for you to recognize here is that elected officials must know that there are two ways to lead, and that changes depending on the matter at hand. Sometimes they have to lead with their beliefs and go with their gut. At other times, they have to do what the majority wants. It’s really hard to know when to do which.

If Jerry Kilgore tried to ban abortion and contraceptives, he’d be laughed out of the state. He’d set Republicans back to where they were in 1985. It would be a wonderful gift to the Democratic Party, and it would be an example seized by Democrats nationally, surely to great effect.

You may also believe that it’s Jerry Kilgore’s duty to witness. In his capacity as governor, it would be his duty to convince all non-believers in Virginia to turn to Christ. A failure to do this would be a dereliction of his duty as a Christian. (I don’t know that you believe this, but I do know that there are many fundamentalist Christians who believe this.) But, again, Kilgore would be fatally weakened by such an action. He would accomplish nothing in his time in Richmond, and his term would be a failure.

If Tim Kaine attempted to eliminate the death penalty by commuting sentences, it would be bad. Not as bad as Kilgore banning contraceptives, surely, but he would become radioactive to Democrats across the state. He wouldn’t be able to get the necessary support for his agenda from Democrats, to say nothing of Republicans, in the general assembly. Everybody would say “I told you so.” Ditto, of course, for Kilgore if he tried to ban contraceptives.

The fact that Kaine and Kilgore hold strong beliefs need not mean that they act upon them. The constant trial of leadership is being able to recognize when your most deeply-held beliefs are not universalizable or even very popular and should consequently be ignored, or when they’re such a fundament right that, well, damn the torpedoes — full speed ahead.

Kilgore could surely get away with more risky behavior along these lines than Kaine, for the simple reason that Republicans enjoy a majority in the GA. Kaine cannot. He’ll need to toe the same line that Warner has for the past 3.5 years. Getting elected doesn’t give him the ability to do anything he wants. It’s just the beginning of his troubles.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 7pm

My apologies. I was skimming and rushed and missed the “birth control” part. I didn’t mean that he should ban all birth control. Contraceptives are fine, but such things as Plan B are no different from abortion.

Furthermore, there is a limit to Jerry Kilgore’s power as governor as regards abortion. Roe v. Wade makes so any power he has on the issue is merely in the sense that he can limit, not ban. Kaine, OTOH, can at least put a total hold on executions for his term as governor.

I would hold both to the same standard regarding their belief: They should do everything that is in their power (banning abortion is not something that is in the governor’s hands; it’s in the SCOTUS’s hands) to follow their conscience and beliefs.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 8pm

Let me reiterate and summarize:

If Kaine is elected and does not enact a moratorium on executions, he will be a hypocrite and a political opportunist who has no regard for his conscience.
If Kilgore is elected and does not do everything in his power to limit abortions and abortion pills such as Plan B, he will be a hypocrite and a political opportunist who has no regard for his conscience.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 8pm

Hans, it must have been when you proffered your garbled misreading of Romans as definitive that made me think your flag is snapping a little too hard. My take on Romans 13, especially given the audience, is that we can expect the government to persecute us and we should remember how Christ’s persecution served to save souls and bring glory to God. The key verse here has been translated so variously that I do not think I, or you for that matter, can really say anything truly definitive about the intent of Romans 13. Note the huge gulf of meanign between “submit” and “subject”:

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” -Gideons International Bible

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” – NIV

Perhaps, you read ancient Greek and have undertaken, as Jefferson did, your own Biblical translation. I have not . . . yet, but I have great faith that I am more right than you. (joking)

If one considers that the unjust murder of Christ by “government authorities” was the central action that drove these new Christians–and Paul letter was addressed to new Christians who were predominantly gentiles–to the faith, then why would Paul, in a letter to these people, advocate the government has a devine sanction to execute? That is a preposterous argument. Further, why would Christ allow one set of rules for individuals and another for “government officials”? I have never seen that asterisk next to Thou Shall Not Kill in my Bible that points me to a footnote saying, Unlesseth Thou Art an Authority Established by God.

If God establishes all authority, as Paul suggests, then the Christians being persecuted in China today are being justly persecuted by those sanctioned by God? Your interpretation of this scripture would lead us to such a conclusion. Does that make sense? Of course not. Paul is saying that God in his wisdom may allow his children to be persecuted by governments but that his children will ultimately “inherit the earth” if they do not fall prey to the damning judgment that other men freely engage in. Romans is completely consistent with The Sermon on the Mount. But hey, maybe I am engaging is eisegesis when I say that Christ really was against men killing men. Vanity of vanities! That I even have to argue this, when the gospels make it as plain Jerry Kilgore’s feminine side, makes me sad.

Posted by Jeff Baker on 13 October 02005 @ 8pm

The key verse here has been translated so variously that I do not think I, or you for that matter, can really say anything truly definitive about the intent of Romans 13.

But that is not the key verse to this discussion on the death penalty. Furthermore, there is little difference between submit and subject. Certainly not enough to matter in this discussion.

Further, why would Christ allow one set of rules for individuals and another for “government officials”?

That is the only question that you have asked that scares me. I don’t know. I think it has something to do with the fact that Jesus talked about “The narrow way” and “few there be that find it”. I think that maybe he realized there would always be Christians who are not perfectly in the center of his will (not killing other people) and that he is using them and unbelievers to maintain order. I really don’t know about that. It’s something I don’t understand well at all. I believe that it is wrong for me, as a Christian, to kill another person. On the other hand I see that God has said (in the NT) that he has “ordained” the gov to “execute wrath” on the “evildoer” with “the sword”.

I have never seen that asterisk next to Thou Shall Not Kill in my Bible that points me to a footnote saying, Unlesseth Thou Art an Authority Established by God.

Of course not. It was just commonsense-ally understood by the Israelites to mean “Thou shalt not murder.” Obviously God did not mean no killing at all, or he wouldn’t have sent the Israelites to kill the Amalekites or Philistines. I could dig out the references, but I am sure with your obvious knowledge of the Bible you know them already and are just trying to be difficult.

If God establishes all authority, as Paul suggests, then the Christians being persecuted in China today are being justly persecuted by those sanctioned by God?

Not at all. There’s a limiting clause in there: God gave them the authority to “punish the evildoer”. I would venture an egotistical assertation that that’s not exactly what the Chinese gov is doing in persecuting Christians.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 9pm

Hans, it must have been when you proffered your garbled misreading of Romans as definitive that made me think your flag is snapping a little too hard.

My apologies. I assume that others are stating their opinion. I assumed others would assume the same of me.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 9pm

Hans, the Roman’s believed Christ was an evildoer. The Chinese believe those Christians are evildoers.
Bin Laden thinks you and I are evildoers. Wake up. Man is too flawed to judge other men. How can anyone read the gospels and not feel the weight of that truth like an anvil on their chest is beyond me, but it is not my job to convince you of anything. I thank you for the lively discussion about the Prince of Peace.

Posted by Jeff Baker on 13 October 02005 @ 9pm

Hans, the Roman’s believed Christ was an evildoer.

Actually they didn’t.

“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”
Matthew 27:23-25

I know various people think various people are evildoers. I think it’s obvious who the evildoers are, but I’ll leave that judgement up to God. That’s not really my place to judge.

btw, Jeff, are you a Mennonite? I like the way you think. Many of your thoughts are in alignment with us non-resistant Mennonites.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 9pm

My take on Romans 13, especially given the audience, is that we can expect the government to persecute us and we should remember how Christ’s persecution served to save souls and bring glory to God.

Nothing — nothing — in Romans 13 refers to Christian persecution. If you disagree, please cite a verse that supports your statement. Pay particular attention to verse 3: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.”

The key verse here has been translated so variously that I do not think I, or you for that matter, can really say anything truly definitive about the intent of Romans 13. Note the huge gulf of meanign between “submit” and “subject”:

I don’t understand what “wide gulf” you see here. The Greek word is upotasso — it means to submit, to obey, to be subject to. These are all definitions that emphasise placing oneself in subordination to another. It’s the same word Paul uses in Ephesians 5:21 when he admonishes believers to “submit to one another.” Why the confusion?

If one considers that the unjust murder of Christ by “government authorities” was the central action that drove these new Christians–and Paul letter was addressed to new Christians who were predominantly gentiles–to the faith, then why would Paul, in a letter to these people, advocate the government has a devine sanction to execute? That is a preposterous argument.

And yet Christ Himself submitted to the authorities when they took His life! By the way, what kind of punishment do you think was typically meted out by the sword that Paul refers to in Romans 13:4?

Further, why would Christ allow one set of rules for individuals and another for “government officials”?

Because God ordained the government to carry out responsibilities not appointed to individuals — the very responsibilities delineated in verses 1 – 7.

I have never seen that asterisk next to Thou Shall Not Kill in my Bible that points me to a footnote saying, Unlesseth Thou Art an Authority Established by God.

Then you need to read through the Torah more closely.

Paul is saying that God in his wisdom may allow his children to be persecuted by governments but that his children will ultimately “inherit the earth” if they do not fall prey to the damning judgment that other men freely engage in.

That is completely unsupported by the text, unfortunately.

Romans is completely consistent with The Sermon on the Mount.

On that we agree.

But hey, maybe I am engaging is eisegesis when I say that Christ really was against men killing men.

That is not the issue in question.

Posted by Jon on 13 October 02005 @ 9pm

Well put, Jon.

Posted by Hans Mast on 13 October 02005 @ 9pm

Waldo,
Unlike the Roanoke Times, you are to be commended for including the entire quote. Including the part that says that, even though some of History’s worst thugs may DESERVE the death penalty, he would not apply it because other “more civilized” countries don’t feel it’s appropriate.

Otherwise, you are sinking into desperation, my friend.

Posted by I'm Not Emeril on 13 October 02005 @ 11pm

Hans — Contrary to popular misinformation, Plan B is not an abortion medication. RU 486 is, but not Plan B (the “morning after” pills). They work in the same manner as birth control pills. They delay or prevent ovulation and inhibit fertilization. If a woman is pregant, the morning after pills will not work — they will not dislodge the pregnancy. What keeps getting repeated is that they “may” inhibit implantation of a fertilized ovum, but this is, at best, a guess and has never been observed. But if you think that this constitutes abortion, then you must also be against the use of birth control pills, because they work the same way.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 11pm

He clearly transitioned from speaking about the past (“They deserve the death penalty”) into speaking about the here and now (“most nations have decided not to have a death penalty…I don’t think it’s needed to be safe”). I don’t think anybody would ever suggest that Hitler might not have taken over Europe if only he’d had a death penalty to worry about. Clearly, Kaine is speaking about the laws of the United States and Virginia.

Again, Kaine can be no more clear: They deserve the death penalty. You’re looking for the part where he says “psych,” and you’re just not going to find it. Pointing to a vaguely-related transitional statement and declaring that it overrides a clear and obvious statement — they deserve the death penalty — is foolishness.

They deserve the death penalty.
They deserve the death penalty.
They deserve the death penalty.

I’ve gotta say, it’s coming through pretty clearly for me.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 11pm

But if you think that this constitutes abortion, then you must also be against the use of birth control pills, because they work the same way.

I’ve been down that road with Hans — you’re not likely to get far. He doesn’t believe in science, hundreds of thousands of experts unanimity be damned, and chooses to believe that life begins at fertilization. He was supposed to eat his hat on this topic, but, sadly, did not.

I’m trying to think of something totally crazy that I can believe without any justification. I’m considering a “life begins at the twinkle in the daddy’s eye” position on abortion, but I suspect that I may inadvertently start a movement.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 October 02005 @ 11pm

How about “I knew you before you were in your mother’s womb”….?

Wonder who said that.

Posted by I'm Not Emeril on 13 October 02005 @ 11pm

I see I’ve started a movement already.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 October 02005 @ 12am

I love you Waldo….GRIN

Posted by I'm Not Emeril on 14 October 02005 @ 12am

I think the biggest reason some of the posters here can’t believe that Kaine would NOT
impose his religious beliefs on everyone (via clemency or a moratorium) is because they each WOULD
impose their religious beliefs on everyone else through legislation. For example, attempts to teach creationism,
attempts to stop the distribution of birth control, attempts to keep ADULT college students from having
birth control access, attempts to post the ten commandments in schools, prayer in schools.

And yet every day there are thousands of politicians across this country who do not allow their personal
religious beliefs to DICTATE their public policy. They each must decide what is in the best interest of
their constituency – and sometimes that is contrary to their own personal belief system. And they understand that they
are not elected just because of their religious beliefs, and are not elected to do entirely as they see fit; they are
elected to represent US.

I guess I can just be glad that very few elected officials in this country routinely impose all of their religious
beliefs upon the citizens of this country. Think this is a screwed-up country now from time to time? Can you just
imagine if we were constantly bombarded with laws reflecting everyone’s individual religious beliefs! Better not elect
Muslims – we might all have to pray 5 times a day because they do; or don’t elect too many Hindus – we might be required
by law to memorize all those gods; or if the Native American population rebounds we might have to get a new creation story;
or Quakers – watch out for them – they might disband the military. See the absurdity of it! Elected leaders all over this
country act (or in some cases, portend to act) in the interests of the community as a whole – which is sometimes contrary
to their own belief system.

Posted by Olivia on 14 October 02005 @ 12am

Hi everyone. I’ve been out all night celebrating with people who passed the Bar today! (congrats everyone). The following may serve as nothing but an admonishment to anyone who blogs while drunk but I hope not! All of this discussion on Romans and other epistles is impressive. My personal position is that the plain meaning of the gospels clearly prohibits killing people – even the exception for self-defense requires a departure from the actual text let alone killing people who pose no threat. Tolstoy demonstrated this beyond any reasonable doubt over a century ago. To the extent that any writing of Paul conflicts with the gospels, I submit that christians are obligated to defer to the latter. This is what I belive and what Tim Kaine apparently believes. This is why death penalty advocates can truly be called anti-christian – or, if not anti-christian, at least adherents of a christianity that either gives no weight to the plain meaning of the scriptures or places the words of Christ on a lower level of authority than other parts of the bible (e.g. the writings of Paul).

Cheers!

Posted by thomas jefferson on 14 October 02005 @ 2am

TJ — You should blog while drunk more often!

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 14 October 02005 @ 8am

Guys, Jesus did not state any opposition to capital punishment. When he said to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Jesus was making a very important distinction between what we owe to God the Father and what we owe to earthly rulers. Likewise, Paul specifically instructed his church to obey authority. Why bother doing that unless there are proper consequences for failing to do so?

God is a just God, and demands payment for sins. Jesus paid the price for us in terms of what we owe to God. By His work on the cross, we are both forgiven and sanctified. They’re two different things. And if someone is forgiven by God — and even sanctified — that does not remove from society the power to punish for breaking the laws of mankind. Don’t make the mistake of equating “forgiveness” with “removal of consequences.” The two are not synonymous.

I can forgive someone who has sinned (trespassed) against me. Doing so doesn’t eliminate the consequences of what the person did.

Posted by I.Publius on 14 October 02005 @ 8am

Waldo your post on number 46 is phenomenal. It got a little overshadowed by talk of a book written 2000 years ago that has been translated and rewritten so many times they lost count. Please don’t take offense Christians. I just think many of the things said in the Bible are wrong. Just like you probably don’t agree with everything in the Koran such as:

-Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are “a degree above them.”

-A woman is worth one-half a man.

-Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like.

So anyway Waldo’s post on 46 is fantastic. I hope you all reread it.

Posted by Steve Nelson on 14 October 02005 @ 10am

Waldo your post on number 46 is phenomenal.

Well, thanks — I actually wrote it just for Hans. I really should have e-mailed it to him. But I’m glad it’s useful to others. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 October 02005 @ 11am

REMEMBER MATRICARDI? REMEMBER HOW –as AG — KILGORE TRIED TO COVER UP THE EAVESDROPPING? DEMONSTRATING AN INABILITY TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS, THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOW SUING THEIR INSURANCE CARRIER …

Judge hears motions on GOP eavesdropping suit

By Bob Gibson / Daily Progress staff writer
September 23, 2005

RICHMOND – A federal judge is set to decide this fall whether the Republican Party of Virginia’s lawsuit against its former insurance company should go to trial or be dismissed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis Dohnal heard arguments Thursday on a motion that the GOP’s lawsuit should be tossed out as groundless. Dohnal is expected to rule within weeks on motions for summary judgment from both sides in the lawsuit that an attorney for the insurance company called frivolous.

The GOP contends that the Union Insurance Co. of Lincoln, Neb., breached its contract by not covering the $750,000 the state party paid last December to 33 Virginia Democrats who sued over eavesdropping by a pair of top Republican officials on Democratic conference calls discussing redistricting.

The GOP lawsuit also seeks $200,000 for lawyers’ bills from RPV’s nine-month legal battle with Democratic legislators, who claimed the March 2002 eavesdropping violated their privacy rights.

The GOP paid its settlement money to 31 state legislators and two high-level Democratic Party staffers 10 months ago but has paid only a part of the $200,000 owed in legal fees, said Bryan K. Meals, a Norfolk lawyer representing the Republican Party.

Christopher C. Spencer, the Richmond lawyer representing the insurance company, argued that Edmund A. Matricardi III, former state GOP executive director, and Gary R. Thomson, former state GOP chairman, were not rogue actors in the eavesdropping as he said the party had once claimed.

“Everything they did was for the benefit of the RPV,” Spencer said. “The chairman of the Republican Party is as close to a Russian Czar as you can get” in terms of power at the top of the organization, he argued. “Matricardi was the executive director of the [party]. He was not somebody who worked in a phone bank.”

Dohnal said at one point to Meals, “I don’t think Mr. Matricardi was listening in for his own personal consumption.”

Meals argued that the insurance company’s contract covered the party despite the actions of Matricardi and Thomson and that they may have committed intentional criminal acts without being “willful,” or knowing that the acts were illegal.

Dohnal said further discovery, including statements under oath from top attorney general staffer Anne Petera, a Republican National Committeewoman, would be put off until he rules on the motions for summary judgment.

Petera was told by Matricardi about the first eavesdropping moments after it happened and three days before the eavesdropping was reported to police. Lawyers and the judge wondered aloud Thursday whether Petera was acting as a Republican official or as top staffer to former Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore when Matricardi briefed her on the eavesdropping.

Spencer said Petera, former House Speaker S. Vance Wilkins Jr. and his chief of staff, Claudia D. Tucker, could face depositions if the suit heads toward trial.

Two candidates for statewide office on Wednesday called the GOP’s lawsuit a glaring example of frivolous litigation. Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor Leslie Byrne said in her debate with Republican William T. Bolling that “the most frivolous lawsuit going is the one where the Republican Party has sued its insurer for its own illegal acts.”

State Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath County and the party’s nominee for attorney general, referred to the lawsuit in his debate as “a frivolous lawsuit if ever I’ve seen one.”

Posted by SoccerMom on 14 October 02005 @ 11am

I Publius,

In other words, your notion of Christian forgiveness essentially amounts to nothing but talk. You’ve reduced the most basic concept of Christian philosophy to mere empty rhetoric, where forgiveness no longer requires any effort, meaning or sacrifice on the part of the forgiver. Sounds like you’re bending the example of Christ to fit the conclusions you already wanted to arrive at for political reasons rather than really following His lead. You should really ask His forgiveness for that – and hopefully that forgiveness will not consist of saying “it’s cool” while tossing you into hell. After all, sin must have consequences in your unique cosmology.

Your whole thesis essentially says that anything government decides to do is acceptable to Christians, resting on the ‘render unto to Caesar’ line. By your logic, Christians ought to accept even an 8th month abortion because after all, Caesar has spoken. What a load of hypocritcal crap.

Remember that Paul was not divine. He was an ordinary man and a follower of Christ, no different in his status than any one of millions of other Christians who have come since then. The notion that relative proximity to the divine somehow offers a transmittal of divinity is one that I thought was unique to only the most confirmed of mideival papists. Not that Paul was a fool. He knew perfectly well that his budding chuch would be wiped out by the Romans if they entered into an open rebellion against Caesar. His instructions were pragmatical, not divine.

‘Culture of life’ my ass. ‘Culture of pagan political convenience’ is more like it.

Posted by ATA on 14 October 02005 @ 11am

No, ATA, that’s not what I’m saying at all. But I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you on it, and this isn’t the forum anyway. You can, however, find many books in any christian bookstore that will explain the difference between forgiveness and santification, as well as how God’s law (and God’s justice) is distinguishable from man’s.

Paul was indeed much different from other Christians. He was an apostle, specifically chosen by Jesus himself to grow the church. And his writing was indeed divine (as was the rest of the bible). Anyone who fails to recognize that fact is left with simply a nice book of stories, from which they can pick and choose whatever they like, and disregard the things they don’t.

Posted by I.Publius on 14 October 02005 @ 12pm

He doesn’t believe in science, hundreds of thousands of experts unanimity be damned

Galileo and Columbus felt the same way, bless their souls, even though the scientists around them were in near unanimous disagreement. (That near unanimity is something that even you can’t rightfully claim, much less unqualified unanimity.)

I love science and subscribe to Scientific American, Popular Science, Science News and American Scientist. Scientific American had an extrememly relevant cover article this month entitled “The Illusion of Gravity”. It goes to show that our observations are always flawed because we can never observe things with perfect accuracy. As greater methods of observation are invented, the observations gleaned turn on their heads even such “reliable” theories as the theory of gravity. If here-and-now, testable, physical laws such as gravity are not understood and haven’t been reconciled into a “universal law of everything” which seeks to harmonize quantam mechanics and general relativity, what can one say of historical “scientific” theories such as evolution where we are making great leaps of inference from scant evidence?

Don’t say I don’t believe in science because I don’t believe in your (and that of many scientists) version of historical events that pertains to a single field of science.

PS
The whole life begins at fertilization vs. life begins at zygote implantation into uteral wall argument is simply one of what you believe constitutes life. There is clear life from a scientific standpoint, but abortionists believe that the humanity of the life begins at viability outside of the mother’s womb. So it’s really an argument of whether a helpless human is still human or not. It’s really a thing of morals and definitions. Science clearly shows there is life. And yes, I am against birth control pills becuase (to my knowledge) there aren’t any that prevent fertilization; they prevent implantation which kills the zygote.

PPS
I know modern birth control pills also reduce (or eliminate) ovulation as well as thicken the mucus in the cervix (which hinders sperm from reaching its destination). If there was a pill that incorporated only those two methods, I would have no problem with it. It doesn’t end the life of innocents, so it’s fine. The same is true of condoms. I have no problems with it.

PPPS
I am not trying to impose my morality on anyone here. I believe it is inconsistent to have laws on the books against murdering, but yet be allowed to kill/murder innocent babies.

Posted by Hans Mast on 14 October 02005 @ 12pm

Hans,

FYI, neither example is very good. Everybody with half a brain long since knew that the Earth was round when Columbus put his voyage together. It was not in question at all by educated people. What investors doubted was whether a guy with no maps was going to be able to take 3 very expensive ships halfway across the world to find a completely theoretical port, manage to engage in lucrative trade and then come back without losing more money than the voyage cost in the first place. Columbus was in fact wrong – he was not able to reach the Indies but rather was lucky enough to stumble by chance across something else worth some money.

Galileo didn’t come up with the idea that the Earth goes around the sun. Copernicus did. And most astronomers of the time – a majority of whom were Catholic priests (like Copernicus himself) – agreed with him. He was asked repeatedly to produce the scientific evidence of this during his trial so that church doctrine could be changed. But he had no evidence that he was willing to present because he’d spent years saying that comets were just atmospheric disturbances and that Kepler was an idiot. His defense at his trial consisted of saying that his book had been misunderstood and that he really agreed with the Ptolomaic cosmological model. Given the absurdity of his defense the panel of inquisitors (stacked in Galileo’s favor by his good friend, Pope Urban) had no choice but to find him guilty of heresy.

Galileo wasn’t sentenced for being a scientific rebel. He was a poor astronomer and a good mechanic sentenced for being an arrogant, stubborn dumbass.

PS, I think a more reasonable definition should involve the question of at what point the fetus is either capable of suffering or has become sentient; whichever comes first. I agree that survivability outside of the womb is not a very useful measure, ethically speaking. A blastocyst is a simpler life form than an ant. I have a hard time calling that a ‘baby’ or even something that could plausibly be sentient. Wait a few months and then you’re looking at something that I could agree with you about.

Posted by ATA on 14 October 02005 @ 1pm

“Remember that Paul was not divine. He was an ordinary man and a follower of Christ, no different in his status than any one of millions of other Christians who have come since then.”

Not according to him — he called himself “chief among sinners.” But I digress.

This is where you’re going to lose conservative Christians. Yes, they would agree Paul was not divine, but they believe God spoke through Him in these letters — that his letters contained “God’s word.” So you have to do more than say “well, if there’s a conflict, then we must defer to what Jesus said.” That won’t fly. I think I’ve demonstrated that there is harmony between Paul’s teaching on the government’s sword and Christ’s teaching on how Christians should treat those who persecute them. They don’t work against each other.

Posted by Jon on 14 October 02005 @ 4pm

Hans, you dare you allow my precious living sperm to be murdered by your barrier methods and your mucus-choked cervices! Until every sperm and egg are paired off and become children, there can be no justic on this issue. Quiet kids, I’m trying to blog! How would we deal with the overpopulation? Under my plan ovulation and male masturbation would be offenses punished by execution.

Posted by Daddy on 14 October 02005 @ 5pm

Hans, you dare you allow my precious living sperm to be murdered by your barrier methods and your mucus-choked cervices! Until every sperm and egg are paired off and become children, there can be no justic on this issue. Quiet kids, I’m trying to blog! How would we deal with the overpopulation? Under my plan ovulation and male masturbation would be offenses punished by execution.

You make a fool of yourself. Sperm aren’t humans and no-one claims they are.

Posted by Hans Mast on 14 October 02005 @ 5pm

My boys are alive, Hans! They may not be human, but they are life just as much as any blastocyst.
I can’t believe you are going to line up with the liberal abortifascists against my sperm!

Posted by Daddy on 14 October 02005 @ 5pm

They may not be human, but they are life just as much as any blastocyst.

Scientifically and factually untrue.

Posted by Hans Mast on 14 October 02005 @ 6pm

Sperm aren’t humans and no-one claims they are.

I dunno, Hans — Dick Black seems to be saying that here:

“Anything designed to kill a child, which I define as a living organism with the DNA of Homo sapiens, is unacceptable,” said Delegate Richard H. Black, Loudoun County Republican.

Sperm has DNA of homo sapiens. It wiggles around, so it may be “alive,” under his definition.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 October 02005 @ 6pm

Well, I agree with Hans that sperm ain’t alive. More like zombies if you ask me. Chasing my little ass all up and down like mindless little tail-whippin zombies! But surely,Hans,you would agree that I am life since I can be cloned and produce a copy of myself with its own soul. Surely any woman who allows herself to menstruate me away without a hardy attempt to fertilize me should be put to death just as Daddy says above.

Posted by Ovum on 14 October 02005 @ 7pm

Waldo, I thought we had agreed that Dick was clueless.

Posted by Hans Mast on 14 October 02005 @ 10pm

Waldo, I thought we had agreed that Dick was clueless.

Had we? That’s wonderful news. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 October 02005 @ 10pm

What you’re looking at here is what all this discussion is about, regarding Plan B (or the Morning After Pill) and the birth-control pill. This is what a fertilized ovum looks like — except that the diameter is about .2 mm. (You would have to have very sharp vision to be able to see it with the naked eye. Think of a dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.)

In the most extreme scenario (which is only a guess, and this scenario has NEVER been observed) a fertilized ovum (just like the one in the photo) might not have an opportunity to embed in the uterine wall.

Is this an unusual, crime-against-nature event? Consider this: In a healthy woman, when everything is working as it naturally does without contraception, the majority of fertilized eggs don’t implant in the uterus.

I wish all the men who are so concerned about these microscopic events in women’s sexual organs would turn their attention and energy to other issues, ones that don’t involve an unhealthy preoccupation with our bodies.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 14 October 02005 @ 10pm

This is what a fertilized ovum looks like

Wow! Cool! I never knew they were blue and green and had writing on them that said “tripod”! That rocks!

Posted by Hans Mast on 14 October 02005 @ 11pm

Mine doesn’t say “tripod.” Hmmm…maybe yours is sending you messages already. Or maybe that’s what it says on his teeny-tiny T-shirt.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 14 October 02005 @ 11pm

Caching problem. Fixed.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 October 02005 @ 12am