www.roanoke.com

D.C. sniper John A. Muhammad / Associated Press

Gov. Tim Kaine, who is probably the most anti-death penalty governor in Virginia in some time, cleared the way today for tonight's execution of Washington, D.C. area sniper John Allen Muhammad.

Muhammad, along with Lee Boyd Malvo, was convicted/or is suspected of killing at least 10 people and shooting others in the cold-blooded and calculating D.C. sniper cases back in 2002.

And there's some evidence they also did the same thing in much farther away locations, too.

The questions are:

A: Should the government EVER be executing ANYONE, based on what we know about the death penalty's (non) deterrent effect?

B: And especially considering that human error, or malfeasance, results in the (fortunately rare) convictions of innocent people?

Because B happens, and we all know it.

In another thread, Lynda K. posted this comment:

Do you really want to open up that "death penalty" can of worms?
I'm sure that as passionate as these bloggers are about gun rights, they are probably as, if not more, passionate about the subject of the death penalty.

My old bumper sticker said it best: "Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?"

That is a great bumper sticker, indeed.

Read more »

U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Jameson Adams of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., looks over the valley of Now Zad during a 24-hour observation watch on a nearby mountainside in the Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan. Marines on the front lines across southern Afghanistan, who also fought in Iraq, told The Associated Press that the enemy in Afghanistan is a smaller but smarter force. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson, 8.22.09)

The United State armed forces are fearsome when it comes to fighting conventional wars.

But we are not so good when it come to guerrilla warfare. And we're pretty rotten when it comes to indefinite occupation, which is what it seems Afghanistan is turning into.

This country can't afford that, and we shouldn't try to.

Haven't plenty of foreign powers tried to conquer Afghanistan? Has any one of them succeeded with any permanency?

We know what happened after the Soviets' Afghan "adventure." Their weakened country fell apart.

Here's another argument against the U.S. remaining there, from a former Marine who just quit his U.S. State Department post. The Washington Post has the story:

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," [former Marine Corps Capt. Matthew Hoh] wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

Freedomsphoenix.com

This is an interesting one that I'd like to hear readers' thoughts on:

Some legally married gay couples are suing the federal government because federal law requires them to pay higher income taxes than heterosexual married couples.

That's becasuse the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, prohibits married gay couples from filing jointly on their federal income tax returns (it also prohibits plenty of other things, too).

Although the Obama administration believes the law is discriminatory, it's defending the DOMA and asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the law is "constitutionally permissible."

From the Associated Press:

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to pensions, health insurance and other government benefits.

The law was passed by Congress at a time when it appeared Hawaii would become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages.

Since then, six states have enacted laws or issued court rulings that permit same-sex marriage, including Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa. New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1, 2010.

The Massachusetts lawsuit was brought by seven gay couples and three widowers, all of whom were married in Massachusetts after it became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage in 2004. They argue that DOMA violates the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it treats married gay couples differently than other married couples.

Beatrice Hernandez and Melba Abreu, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, have been married for five years, but they aren't allowed to file a joint tax return, as heterosexual married couples can. Hernandez said they paid nearly $20,000 more in taxes between 2004 and 2007 than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.

So what do you think, folks? Should the gays be taxed more?

Chevrolet Volt / Wikimedia Commons

I'm excited about an all-electric car. I would happily own and drive one that got 40 miles from an 8-hour charge and that could go 60 mph, provided it didn't quickly become a wallet-sucking lemon plagued by breakdowns. (The Chevrolet Volt also has a range-extending gasoline engine, which makes it a hybrid).

But I wouldn't touch one (or any other car, for that matter) for $40,000, the estimated price.

The Atlantic Monthly has an interesting analysis by Daniel Indiviglio that compares the cost of the Volt to a Toyota Corolla.

Of course, on a per-mile basis, the Volt costs only a fraction of what the Corolla costs to operate. But according to that story, you'd have to drive the Volt at least 158,000 miles to break even, after taking into account the $7,500 tax credit the federal government may pay you for buying one:

Unless the price of gas truly skyrockets well past the $3 level after 2011, then the argument for purchasing a Volt will remain based more on environmental ethics than economics. That is unless you drive cars for a really, really long time.

What do you think? Is the Volt worth it?

At that price, is its fate destined to be similar to that 2-seater electric car that GM debuted more than a decade ago, the EV1?

Please don't reply with a single word. Make sure you support your position.

Plus, three bonus questions:

1) Was Judas a capitalist? Explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

2) Please tell me what Jesus thinks about LSD, and why you believe that.

3) Is Gandhi in hell?

I'm not kidding folks. I don't believe these are at all flippant or in any way dumb questions. I'm hoping for some serious, well-thought-out answers.

If you want, I'll give you my take after the discussion gets going.