So the jury recommended execution for Scott Peterson. I'm not really surprised, because I don't think he was a very sympathetic character, and the crime that he committed was horrible. Unfortunately, though, I don't think we've seen the end of this case, since they'll tie it up in appeals forever. I kind of agree with Rush -- just create a Scott Peterson network and stop showing coverage 24/7 on MSNBC and the Clinton News Network. Sheesh! But then again, what will Greta Van Suestren talk about out of the side of her mouth when this trial is over?

I've heard all over the place that conservatives who disagree with abortion yet support the death penalty and the Iraq war are hypocrites. It's not so, and here's my simple reasoning: someone who receives the death penalty has been given a fair trial by a jury of their peers. And the death penalty is only recommended by the jury if it suits the crime. I don't support all wars, but I do support the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, because the means justify the end -- freedom for the people of a country to choose their own government, mass graves that will no longer expand, rape and torture rooms that are out of operation. It's terrible that people have to die to accomplish that, but it is for a greater good.

In the case of abortion, on the other hand, there is no fair trial for an "fetus" by a jury of its peers. And if there was, it would have to be found innocent or incompetent to stand trial, because an unborn child can't willfully commit a crime (the only possible crime would be endangering the mother's health, and the "fetus" can't endanger its mother's health on purpose.) The only "greater good" that is accomplished by aborting a child is, by and large, convenience or an unblemished reputation.

So I don't think the issues of the Iraq war, the death penalty, and dismembering a "fetus" are even comparable at all.