How about Chris Dodd - who lied about the loophole forced on him by the Obama administration to allow for AIG bonuses.?

Yeah, Citizen Sugar, how bout do a story on that one. I know he's not a host on Comedy Central but he's still newsworthy.

A wonderful decision by New Mexico.

That Dodd story is interesting. I don't understand why politicians lie, they always get caught and have to tell the truth eventually, just admit to it up front. Morons.

Good for New Mexico.

I wonder how that is going with the bonuses.

Sad about Natasha Richardson. I enjoyed her work.

I'm going to try to stay up and watch Leno tonight. I just hope I can make it.

I am curious to see how many AIG employees return their bonuses.

The Dodd comments made me laugh. I had just finished reading an article discussing the GOP sending out talking points with Dodd as the target.

And your point is?

Yea New Mexico!

Yeah New Mexico!! Unfortunately Md could not step up to the plate we lost the repeal by about a couple of votes.

I disagree with New Mexico's decision in a huge way.

In a purely fiscally conservative perspective, it is far more expensive to send a prisoner to death than to life in prison. I think New Mexico's ban makes good sense.

piper23, I love your icon!

The thing with the death penalty has been making headlines, but since New Mexico has only executed one person in the past 30 years, it's not actually making a huge difference.

True Modus- actually it seems that if a state gets rid of the death penalty its only because they don't use it anyway.

Which is good, because regardless of how you feel about the death penalty, a state that has it on the books but doesn't use it is a bad thing because it is so wasteful to put the time, energy, and resources into the appeals process.

I'm not clear on what you're saying Modus - you don't mean that it's wasteful if no one's put to death in the end (in death penalty states) do you?

I'm saying to have this elaborate and expensive appeals process set up, if it's a foregone conclusion that no one will ever be executed, is wasteful.

If we do away with the death penalty, the appeals process stays in place for people who feel they've been wrongly convicted. To someone who gets a life sentence knocked down to 10 years or nothing, that doesn't seem wasteful. And if an innocent person gets out of jail by appealing a wrong decision, that isn't wasteful.

And clearly those aren't the situations I'm referring to.

Then I'm still confused - if there's no death penalty, there is no appeal process for death penalty convictions, so what's wasted. (not being snarky, genuinely confused)

I think Modus is referring to the fact that, in the vast majority of states, if not all states, more appeals are permitted when the death penalty is on the table.

So the time, energy and resources are wasted if in the end, the prisoner who loses all their appeals isn't actually put to death?

I can't really speak for Modus, but I feel she's saying it's wasteful to have the extra appeals that wouldn't otherwise be there just because the death penalty is technically a possibility when it isn't actually a possibility.

Okay - I looked it up and I think I get what she's/you are saying.

Yes, I'm talking about wasted resources fighting something that will never happen anyways.