The remainder of the title of this article is Lack Thereof. At times I wonder if those who are supposed to be leaders and editorialists have the mentality to do so. The longer the legislature met and the more Pat Lynch writes, the more their intelligence becomes suspect.

The first example derives from the debate about a drink tax extension. It was pointed out that with city and county taxes on mixed drinks, some purchasers paid 32 percent on their drinks. If that much add on was interest charged by a business it would be called usury, but it is okay for the state to do so. But the statement made by Democrat Representative of Quitman, Bill Stovall, shows the liberal tax intelligent quotient when he says that he doubted that the patrons would see a reduction in drink prices if the tax expired.  Intelligent? No because he doesn’t know what the owners of businesses will do. And that is no excuse for not ending the tax. It also appears he hasn’t heard of the word competition.

The next display of intelligence concerns the “intelligent design” bill. Republican Representative, Mark Martin, wanted the state to teach the theory of intelligent design. The bill didn’t get any consideration in the committee but that isn’t the half of it. The bill was sent to the Committee on Rules and not to the Education Committee. Martin didn’t know why it was sent to Rules, saying it must have been a mistake. A mistake which seems to be the rule for the Ledge and for which they offer no explanation most of the time. Is that a sign of Intelligence or ...? You be the judge. 

Now comes Pat Lynch to the stage for an examination of his thinking.  One thing can be said for Lynch. He admits to being a liberal and is proud of it. Whether being proud of being a liberal is uh ... well ... anyway. Lynch says that the court decision to not execute those under 18 is a moral decision but it didn’t go far enough to outlaw the death penalty all together. He thinks that the Supreme Court has a moral duty to outlaw the death penalty for all capital crimes.

Mr. Lynch, read the following carefully. It isn’t the duty of the Court to tell us what is moral and isn’t moral, particularly in this matter which is a function of each individual state. If the people want the death penalty they should be able to have it. And the Constitution only says that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be used. Death has been used for the punishment of those who kill or commit treason for centuries and is quite Biblical. The accused in other words forfeits the right to live when found guilty of certain types of crimes. He or she should be aware that the ultimate penalty might be exacted. That is justice and if the jury says that life in prison is the punishment, then undeserved mercy has been extended.

The argument of cruel and unusual won’t stand scrutiny when life and death are fully understood. Death is the natural end of life and is only cruel if methods that are used to bring it about cause suffering and or are unusual in the manner of the application of the ultimate punishment.

Lynch misses the point, a common malady of liberals. Would he say the society would be better off if Ted Bundy had been allowed to live or any of the other killers that have been executed? As with most liberals, he is so concerned about the criminal that he doesn’t mention the victim or victims. Why isn’t it cruel and unusual for the criminal to kill, considering the methods they choose for some victims?