Laura, as a not so unbiased outside observer I have to say that you were right when you said the American left wing is the equivelent of European centre-right, If any politician in western Europe tried to put an end to social healthcare they would be run out of office. However the right in the U.S may be more religious than elsewhere but not more extreme, for example the BNP in the U.K are very apperently racist and make no apologies for it, The spectrum, at least in Europe, is much broader.

My problem with Fox news is not only their views but the innability of the presenters, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly being the only 2 I know of, to present logical well thought out arguments and make counter arguments to points that they don't support without resorting to strongarm tactics such as shouting an opponent down or contradicting themselves. By that token though all American news seems to be presented in a very sensasionalist way, with the point being to shock, appal and entertain rather than to inform. I can stand an intelligent discourse with someone I dissagree with as long as it is reasonable and respectfull, American telivision doesn't do either whether it's left or right of the political divide.

As a side note Fox news is not right wing because Rupert Murdoch says it should be. He is a very clever business man and Fox news is just money to him, he saw that the U.S t.v. media was overwhelmingly left wing and decided to tap into the right wing viewers who want to see right wing news. People don't watch Fox because it's so much better than any other news station (I don't know if it's substance is any more or less than other networks) they watch because it tells them what they want to hear.

Claire xoxo

Quote from: Claire on September 22, 2009, 06:41:39 PM
Laura, as a not so unbiased outside observer I have to say that you were right when you said the American left wing is the equivelent of European centre-right, If any politician in western Europe tried to put an end to social healthcare they would be run out of office. However the right in the U.S may be more religious than elsewhere but not more extreme, for example the BNP in the U.K are very apperently racist and make no apologies for it, The spectrum, at least in Europe, is much broader.

I hadn't remembered that but that does line up with what I've been told by other Europeans. i stand corrected on that.

Quote
My problem with Fox news is not only their views but the innability of the presenters, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly being the only 2 I know of, to present logical well thought out arguments and make counter arguments to points that they don't support without resorting to strongarm tactics such as shouting an opponent down or contradicting themselves.

a few brief thoughts -
*you see VERY little in the way of logical thought out positions on either side in the american broadcast media. Part of that is the restrictions of the format and part of it is....a point I'll address below.
*O'Reilly and Hannity are the two that shout down their opposition (even though O'Reilly isn't precisely a right winger) and I dislike that style very much too. Beck is a drama queen BUT if you watch, when he's doing an interview he is much more calm and thoughtful...his shouting comes mostly when he's monologueing.
*Self contradiction is bad, but also goes across the spectrum. It's a weakness of extemporaneous speaking.  I've also seen Beck consciously reverse a previously held opinion and say he was doing so and why. One of the problems of the supposed "Watchdogs" is that they can pull out Clip A and Clip B and show you a contradiction but you as a viewer have no way of knowing that in between the two the speaker explained that his view had changed.

Quote
By that token though all American news seems to be presented in a very sensasionalist way, with the point being to shock, appal and entertain rather than to inform. I can stand an intelligent discourse with someone I dissagree with as long as it is reasonable and respectfull, American telivision doesn't do either whether it's left or right of the political divide.

Bernard Goldberg wrote a great book a few years ago about media bias and in one chapter he pointed out that American news fundamentally changed for the worse on the day 60 Minutes first turned a profit. Before that execs had treated news as "special" - a cost they simply had to bear. but when they saw a news program could make money then slowly the line between news and entertainment has been almost completely erased.

such profit motive thinking leads to entertainment value being placed above content.

Which goes back to the previous point about "logical arguments" - neither side does that because THAT is BORING to the McViewer, and thus not profitable. You get a bit of that on PBS, albeit thoughtful conservatives are not welcome on PBS since William Buckley left the scene, but PBS doesn't have to make a profit. but elsewhere? not a chance - it's not going to get the ratings.

Quote
As a side note Fox news is not right wing because Rupert Murdoch says it should be. He is a very clever business man and Fox news is just money to him, he saw that the U.S t.v. media was overwhelmingly left wing and decided to tap into the right wing viewers who want to see right wing news. People don't watch Fox because it's so much better than any other news station (I don't know if it's substance is any more or less than other networks) they watch because it tells them what they want to hear.

Claire xoxo

Absolutely! All one has to do is see what kind of programing shows up on Fox's entertainment channels to know it has nothing to do with conservatism, it's money.

But the thing is - WHY is conservative-leaning news vastly more profitable (Fox outdraws all other cable news providers combined)? Because what you see on fox is what most Americans think.

You said "they are telling them what they want to hear" and I agree - and that is a direct and huge piece of evidence about where the bulk of Americans are, politically. And always were. Before the alternative media came along most Americans never realized they were being spoonfed a left wing slant on every story, they just assumed the news could be trusted. Now they know better.

and their viewing choices reflect that.


the recent elections would seem to argue to the contrary but the recent elections have far more to do with the Republicans squandering their base than it does with a leftward shift in the population.

And the irony is, the success of Fox and other alternative medias (talk radio and etc) gives the impression that those people are more to the right than they really are because the "mainstream media" is anything but - it's SO far to the left people can't stomach it and they end up with Fox. if there was an ACTUAL balanced outlet, IT would be #1. But Murdoch has no financial motivation to move to the center and the others are so blinded by their ideology they can't.

Dear All,

I think the bit the Bush Dynasty missed was :

I say that it is time for the great American people to raise its voice and cry out in mighty triumph what it is to be an American. And why it is that only Americans, with the aid of our brave allies - yes, let's call them "allies" - the British, can and will build the only future worth having. I mean a future, not of concentration camps, not of physical torture and mental straitjackets, not of sawdust bread or of sawdust Caesars - I mean a future when free men will live free lives in dignity and in security.


I deliberatley watched the O'Reilly program and than Hannity last night on FOX, we get the USA version for some cruel reason. I hadn't watched them before. I was stunned. I only lasted about 15 minutes before my stomach gave out. This wasn't right wing bias, this was propaganda (misusing the word I know). How could anyone watch these jackasses? I thought Australian news programs were poor but my lord at least they report facts and discuss them without bias, or little enough so you can make your own opinion.  Are your newspapers that bad as well? If the public are watching such programs and believe them to inform them, well you have a problem.

Compulsory voting. The arguments still rage about it, yes there is a concern that the uninformed will cast a donkey vote. But, by some strange twist of fate, the majority of people want to be informed, because they have to vote. OK there are outliers and last minute political twists can spin the bottle. But it works, and we get a representative government. And the poiticians are all accountable. In the last election the liberals led by Prime Minister John Howard had a sizable majority. It was completely wiped out. This was rare as the incumbents have a powerful advantage in money and advertising, essentially they can pork barrel. But he had taken Australia to war in Iraqi, and many Australians did not agree; he had brought in unpopular work practice laws that very much favoured the employers. He lost his own seat (rare for a prime minister, most have very safe seats, as he did). And to a great extent it was due to compulsory voting. I think it should be mandatory in a democratic system.

Thanks for the explanation of the political system by Tekla and Laura, very interesting. I think I know see why farmers in Australia and in Europe are so anti-American farming practice/business. Then again Australians loath the EU subsidy schemes as well. Some of the government subsidy schemes make Microsoft look like a charity organisation.

Unions in the UK and in Australia are very powerful and are major political forces. They seem to be shady; almost but not quite illegal in the USA. Don't know why.

Do you BTW have parties other than the main two? Such as Greens etc as seen in Europe and Australia? They don't get any press here.  I'm a bit suprised there hasn't been a more radical shift in power bases with the new generations. In most democratic countries there has been a shift by the younger people away from the traditional mainstream parties.

Thanks to everyone for this discussion, very enjoyable to talk to interesting people with different views and willing to state them in an intelligent and articulate manner.

Hugs
Cindy

QuoteI deliberatley watched the O'Reilly program and than Hannity last night on FOX, we get the USA version for some cruel reason. I hadn't watched them before. I was stunned. I only lasted about 15 minutes before my stomach gave out. This wasn't right wing bias, this was propaganda (misusing the word I know). How could anyone watch these jackasses? I thought Australian news programs were poor but my lord at least they report facts and discuss them without bias, or little enough so you can make your own opinion.  Are your newspapers that bad as well? If the public are watching such programs and believe them to inform them, well you have a problem.

Oh Cindy, dear!

Those shows are NOT "news programs" they are OPINION shows. so is Beck. so are Olberman and maddow and others on MSNBC and so is Lou Dobbs on CNN.

"Special Report" is mostly news (the last segment is a discussion pannel) and Shepherd Smith (who I don't much enjoy watching) is supposed to be straight news.

But O'Reilly and Hannity get paid specifically to have an opinion (and don't think I'm defending Hannity - he grates on me a great deal)

Quote
Do you BTW have parties other than the main two? Such as Greens etc as seen in Europe and Australia? They don't get any press here.  I'm a bit suprised there hasn't been a more radical shift in power bases with the new generations. In most democratic countries there has been a shift by the younger people away from the traditional mainstream parties.

OPh we have a Green Party, and a Libertarian Party, and a Constitution Party (libertarian in the main but with a moralistic view on social issues) and a Socialist party and some other lesser ones.

but none of them have ANY prayer of winning a national election. there are two (I think) Socialists in Congress and occasionally an Independent manages to get elected to a statewide office but that's always a freakish occurrence.

the two major parties have firmly gamed the system to make the logistics of a third party succeeding pretty much impossible. I can't explain (and don't even fully understand) all the mechanics of it but it has to do with the basic mechanics and procedures of holding elections and so forth.

It's a very stacked deck.

Ha

I find that even more incredible, you pay people to have opinions! Which appear to be at the best poor and biased, and people watch them!! I presume they have the same opinions! Nothing like a healthy debate

I suspected there was a deal between the major parties to ensure a minor couldn't get through. I think it's called western democracy, if it happens in the middle east etc it's called corruption.
We can and have had a new political party burst on the scene and take effective power. They usually fade but they are a good emetic in a democratic system.

So I don't have to watch Hannity again to get a deep understanding of the American psyche? Joking . Surely such programs are only watched by the 'believers'. Frightening that that concept seems .

BTW Rupert and family started in Adelaide with the Adelaide Advertiser, still going strong and still left wing. Rupert has never been a person to mistake profit and fact. He became a USA citizen faster than most women can give birth. Wonder how?

Hugs
Cindy

Laura, I think alot of the viewing figures Fox posts are so large due to a lack of competition.  They hold a virtual monopoly in right leaning news and "opinion" shows whereas msnbc and cnn and others are competing between each other for the left leaning viewer. The more accurate portrayal of America's political leaning as a whole would be the viewing figures of ALL left wing news shows versus those of ALL right leaning ones shown at the same time of day (E.G. 6PM news on all stations.) This monopoly was after all what drew Murdoch to establish the station.

Cindy why do you get American versions of News Corporation run stations in Australia? that just seems odd, do you get Australian versions as well?

Unfortunately for the U.S. the 2 party system is so engrained that a more open political landscape will not be tolerated by those who benefit from the current set up, the politicians. That means that politics in the U.S. is vey polarised with each side taking drasticly different stances on most issues and then accusing the other side of being evil and "un-American". In Ireland by contrast there are many political parties with varying stances on most issues so there are degrees of left and right, most of the major parties are in fact too similar with the largest 2 being indistinguishable except for their dislike of the other one.

Claire xoxo

Americans have been brainwashed by BIG. We do not need big business or big government.

Check out this Atlantic article about how to reform health care. Get ride of "big".

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Quote from: CindyJames on September 23, 2009, 04:45:45 AM
Ha

I find that even more incredible, you pay people to have opinions! Which appear to be at the best poor and biased, and people watch them!!

Well yeah. Opinions are by definition biased. I'm biased, you are, everyone is. And thus our opinions are loaded with our bias.

Nothing wrong with that - it's the human condition.

And, by the way, the "straight news" reported has a bias too (both here and there). He just can't be as open about it. Often, he denies he has one but that's silly - everyone has an opinion and their opinion MUST affect what they speak of and what they say about it. No matter how professional they try to be.

The difference in O'Reilly (for instance) and the "jouranlist" is that you know where O'Reilly is coming from up front, and you can appy the proper filters. With the "mainstream" anchorman, he's lying to you, unintentionally perhaps, that you are getting the news "straight" and for the unsophisticated viewer, that opens the door for ACTUAL manipulation of the public opinion.

Quote
I presume they have the same opinions! Nothing like a healthy debate

You might be surprised how many people watch those shows (or listen to the same people on the radio) who don't hold those views at all or entirely. O'Reilly will read his mail at the end of the show and very often he will read a letter on a given story from a left winger accusing him of being obviously a right wing knuckle-dragger on the subject and then a letter from a right winger accusing him of being a flaming liberal on the exact same story.

that means both were watching.

Also, these shows tend to have guests from both sides of the aisle explaining their take on the story at hand. Admittedly Hannity shouts down the lefties on his show (one reason I can't stand him) but not so much O'Reilly. When you see O'Reilly yelling at a guest, it's usually not because s/he's a liberal per se.....he is very respectful of many liberals, but more because the particular story has inflamed his passions. For instance, there was a judge in Vermont that was letting child abusers off with a slap on the wrist and he got very incensed about that.

Beck, despite being a drama queen, usually is VERY calm with his guests. It's when he's monolgueing that he goes a bit loopy.

So no, it's not really 100% undiluted right wing views.

I'd go so far as to say - and we don't get the channel here so I'm not certain of this - that you get far more liberal guests showing up on Fox shows than you do conservative guest on MSNBC.

That said, as I said before  - no, you can't really call what happens on these shows "healthy debate" - healthy debate doesn't get ratings. However, for the overall "marketplace of ideas" it IS helpful to have outlets like Fox and talk radio and so forth. Before 1988, the marketplace if ideas was 90% dominated by liberals....even if liberals were almost always right that's not a healthy debate. Now, in the overall national conversation, there's a lot more balance (which, of course, deeply troubles the folks who once had the market all to themselves and that's why you see so very much inflamed rhetoric about how "dangerous" right wing media is)

Quote from: Claire
Laura, I think alot of the viewing figures Fox posts are so large due to a lack of competition.  They hold a virtual monopoly in right leaning news and "opinion" shows whereas msnbc and cnn and others are competing between each other for the left leaning viewer. The more accurate portrayal of America's political leaning as a whole would be the viewing figures of ALL left wing news shows versus those of ALL right leaning ones shown at the same time of day (E.G. 6PM news on all stations.) This monopoly was after all what drew Murdoch to establish the station.

Indeed. If you'll look back I made that same point a few posts upthread.

I don't have the hard numbers in front of me but what you basically have is about 50-55% of the viewers watching Fox (presumably right or right leaning people) and about 45-50% watching all other outlets. but lets also keep in mind that for a LOT of self-professed "moderates" (those who deny being either liberal or conservative) CNN enjoys the reputation of being the moderate, middle of the road, outlet. So that 45-50% is both the liberals and the moderates.

Also supporting this is that whenever Galloup or someone does a survey, you consistently get about twice as many people claiming to be conservative as liberal and if you combine the "mostly" respondents you still get about twice as many.

I've often thought you were all nuts...however it's a kind of nuts I recognise.
I read a lot of 18th century writing and diaries and histories, listened to the songs and that, really soaked myself in it and there is so much about Britain in the long eighteenth century that is like america, it's uncanny.

I reckon that because your constitution set in stone so many of those 18th century values and such, you are stuck in a timewarp when it comes to attitudes and such that belongs wholly to that time. It's like the donkey on the long rope that is tethered and goes round and round the pole until it strangles itself. Not having a constitution, we don't have a rope and so were like the donkey that wandered off to graze, letting us be crazy in a completely different way.

And, by the way, the "straight news" reported has a bias too (both here and there).

Actually in Ireland (RTE) and Britain (BBC) the news reporters must be unbiased and give only facts, any opinions given are those that other people have expressed and are quoted. Howver these people can let their bias influence what they do not say about a story to a certain extent, so you can tell a reporters bias more by what s/he doesn't report than what s/he does. However the facts presented are simply cold hard facts.

Quote from: Claire on September 23, 2009, 04:16:08 PM
And, by the way, the "straight news" reported has a bias too (both here and there).

Actually in Ireland (RTE) and Britain (BBC) the news reporters must be unbiased and give only facts, any opinions given are those that other people have expressed and are quoted. Howver these people can let their bias influence what they do not say about a story to a certain extent, so you can tell a reporters bias more by what s/he doesn't report than what s/he does. However the facts presented are simply cold hard facts.

Well, that's primarily what I mean by bias.

The editorial choices of what to report and what to ignore is a HUGE factor.

That said, even the "cold and hard facts" are subject to the person's internal point of view.

For instance, to take one of our more contraversial issues - abortion.

did you know that it is an editorial policy in all the mainstream newsrooms that the person who favors little or no regulation on abortion is to be referred to as "pro-choice" but the person who favors more restrictions on abortion are referred to as "anti-abortion."

To a person who holds the former point of view, that's a perfectly reasonable, fair and unbiased thing to do.

but "pro" and "anti" are loaded terms which in there very use convey a bias.

Why doesn't the mainstream press use the term "pro-life"? Or "Pro-abortion"? They have explanations to be sure, but the point here is that to a pro-choice person the use of "anti" is not a reflection of bias....even though objectively it is.

Likewise, your newsreader who presents "objective facts" still may very well be couching those facts in terms that a left-of-center person sees no bias in, even though it's there.

Obviously, not having seen those reporters I cannot testify that it happens, but I'm of the school of thought that NO person can be completely unbiased about anything he or she has a view on.

Even if they are striving mightily to be unbiased...we are all blind to the subtle ways our bias manifests.

Quote"pro-choice"

Ever since Hitler discovered propaganda political consultants how been aware of have to use language. It was pro-abortion or anti-abortion to start before the consultants came in. Then it went to pro-abortion and pro-life. To pro-choice to pro-life. It is all in the political semantics designed by our professional lobbyists. That is where the money goes in the political industry. A close relation to marketing firms.

I find the term pro-life to be in most cases wildly innacurate due to the fact that most (not all, MOST) pro-lifers in America back the death penalty to the hilt yet say you must always support the right to life??? Doesn't make sense, and you can't argue that those people on death row had a life and squandered it because to support the death penalty is to support the taking of a life and that cannot be PRO-life by defenition. The term pro-choice is by and large more accurate because abortion at the end of the day is an individuals choice. But Lisa is right that these words are all spin and little substance, it's better to be pro-life than anti-abortion even if they are the same thing because anti is a negative word and no one wants to appear negative.

Claire xoxo

Quote
back the death penalty to the hilt yet say you must always support the right to life??? Doesn't make sense

not to speak directly in defense of capital punishment but are you saying there is no logical distinction between a person duely convicted of a crime and one who isn't?

Most especially one who hasn't even made any volitional act to be guilty of even so much as a lie?

I understand the argument that to be pro-life ought to mean defending ALL life BUT intellectual honesty also demands being able to understand how a person could make a distinction between an infant and convicted killer.

To say "it makes no sense" is an overstatement.

QuoteThe term pro-choice is by and large more accurate because abortion at the end of the day is an individuals choice.

That would be more true if "pro-choice" groups didn't move heaven and earth to fight against informed consent requirements so that women can make an informed choice.

Most pro-choice activists (though not that many among the average citizen who calls themselves pro choice) are only pro-choice so long as you choose abortion.

Understandable given the massive profit motive they have.

Quote
But Lisa is right that these words are all spin and little substance

which is exactly what I was saying in the first place - we are al agreed.

So if it's true that left or right we agree such terms are spin and not "facts....then why is it that news organizations who claim to be unbiased and only concerned with facts use those terms (pro-choice and anti-abortion) as a matter of set in stone POLICY whenever they report on the subject?

Simple - because their bias informs their choice of words.

I understand the argument that to be pro-life ought to mean defending ALL life BUT intellectual honesty also demands being able to understand how a person could make a distinction between an infant and convicted killer.

Gee, I thought the rule was: Thou shalt not kill.  That's it.  No conditions.  No astricks indicating a list of people who if you killed them might not be missed all that much, or a hidden list of bonus points you get for smiting people that god's already got it out for.

And such a position - that of intellectual and moral consistency - is taken by the Roman Catholic Church under what is called 'The Web of Life Doctrine", which holds that because god's word on the subject is short, sweet, and to the point - Thou shalt not kill - you don't kill.  How hard is that?  No abortion, no capitol punishment, no war.

Seems to me if its wrong, its wrong.  So don't do it.

Quote from: tekla on September 24, 2009, 08:43:45 PM
I understand the argument that to be pro-life ought to mean defending ALL life BUT intellectual honesty also demands being able to understand how a person could make a distinction between an infant and convicted killer.

Gee, I thought the rule was: Thou shalt not kill.  That's it.  No conditions.

didn't realize you were a "King james Only" type.

Most of us aren't. And every well supported translation realizes that the hebrew actually says "You shall do no murder"

Quote
No astricks indicating a list of people who if you killed them might not be missed all that much, or a hidden list of bonus points you get for smiting people that god's already got it out for.

If that were true, then why is it the SAME Pentateuch which includes (supposedly) "thou shalt not kill) provides a LONG list of offenses for which God ordains the punishment as - death?

Why do the same people get instructed over and over again to attack a city and "kill every living creature"?

Either God is schitzo, in which case what he said on the subject is irrelevant, or "thou shalt not kill" isn't an accurate translation.

The actual fact of the matter is that the Believers who are "pro life" while supporting CP are fully aware that God himself endorsed and utilized Capital Punishment for crimes among his people. Proof positive that putting a person to death for a capital crime is not at odds with God's will.

And lest you think that's an exclusively Old Testament notion, Paul wrote that the government "does not bear the sword in vain"

Quote
And such a position - that of intellectual and moral consistency - is taken by the Roman Catholic Church under what is called 'The Web of Life Doctrine", which holds that because god's word on the subject is short, sweet, and to the point - Thou shalt not kill - you don't kill.  How hard is that?  No abortion, no capitol punishment, no war.

Seems to me if its wrong, its wrong.  So don't do it.

Right, because the Catholic church - which holds to a number of doctrines that are extra-biblical and unsupported by Scripture - is the last word on what god had to say.

Not for some of us.

 I'll leave the pro and anti abortionists alone. Semantics will never decide the issue. I firmly believe that it's a women's right to chose. I'm more perplexed by the death penalty. In emotional circumstances I support it, but in my belief in myself and humanity I cannot. I cannot get my brain around the aspect of punishment, corrective action and support for the society that capital punishment delivers. I think in a previous post, Laura, you had some statistics that the death penalty had a positive impact in reducing violent crime. On the other hand I have heard as much information in that it has no effect. I think the majority of the populace support it as 'the ultimate' punishment. I don't agree with that opinion BTW. I would much rather be dead than gaoled for life with no possibility of parole.  I am a little amazed that the USA and China are the two major countries that support capital punishment. I don't think any European country does. I know some Asian countries including Vietnam, Thailand and Singapore have the capital punishment for drug dealing. I'm not sure for other crimes.

But justice systems overall seem to be very imbalanced. In Australia the Aboriginal community is by far the biggest group in gaol, while in society they are around 20% of the population. The poor get gaol, the rich get richer, yet again.

There is a debate at the moment in Australia about paedophiles. Some very wicked men have recently been released after serving their sentence. No one wants them in their community, they have recieved no treatment for their 'condition' thay are just dumped. Should I feel sorry for this trash? No. But I do.  I loath them but I care. Why can't we treat criminals? There are ways, if not we can find them. We pour money into researching disease. We are (almost) civilized enougth to regard meantle illness as an illness that can be treated. Why can't we treat criminality? Ok as a whole it's a pretty big mouthful to chew on.  But some of it must be worthwhile, it costs us an enormous amount of money to keep people in gaol.

I don't know; it's friday night. I've just been told I have to buy a new wheelchair for my wife $4000. The poiticians have just voted themselves a pay rise. The people on the poverty level had their pay increase declined. There are people on the world stage that are just nuts. The King of kings!! The Iranian chappy whose name I cannot remember. I share genes with these people. I'm sad.

Sorry people I hope some of my post is worth discussion

Cindy

QuoteI think in a previous post, Laura, you had some statistics that the death penalty had a positive impact in reducing violent crime.

Wasn't me. I've never discussed CP on this board at all outside the diversion in this thread.

and I do not have strong enough feelings for or against it to take a side in that debate.

The only time I comment on it is when someone mangles the argument like tekla did misusing Scripture that I believe she doesn't even believe in anyway.

Sorry Laura.

No offense meant. I was told that once you reached 50 two things went. The second was memory, I cannot recall the first one

Cindy

I was not saying there is no distinction between a murderer and a foetus but the TERM pro-life by definition means in favor of preserving life which one cannot be if one supports the death penalty, (the taking of a life as punishment for transgression of the law) I said this in order to make my point that the terms pro-life and pro-choice were merely a twist of language used to make peoples opposing views seem more pleasant to neutral viewers not to start a debate on the death penalty itself ( though a thread on that is not a bad idea, if there isn't one already) or scripture (which I have no time for personally).

I believe this topic began as a somewhat humourous one about how America is NUTS lol so in that case: Crazy Yanks