It appears that young Lionel Tate will get a new trial after being convicted of First Degree Murder for the killing of a 6 year old girl. Fox News indicates that Tate claims he was imitating pro wrestling which he saw on television. This is the excuse. By the way, the family of the 6 year old - They have no daughter today. There is no appeal or new trial for her.

So what do we do with these little kids who make mistakes, do the wrong thing, find themselves in an unlucky situation? I know I came close to killing or being killed by my brothers when I was younger. An inch this way or that, an extra pound of energy exerted at the proper time and I could have been in either of their shoes.

I suppose the real question becomes, is jail meant for rehabilitation or punishment? Or both? What if young Tate was released and did it again? Would Tate's family feel the same if it were their son who was on the "been killed" side? What a tricky issue. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, removing the ability to blame pro wrestling or other outside factors as an excuse for having done one thing or another. The result still is what it is and the little girl is still dead, the family eternally grieving.

I'd love some perspective on the topic. My current feeling is that while a life sentence seems harsh, it is nowhere near as harsh as the death levied on that little girl. If he killed once and has an excuse, should society bear the risk of another killing with a different excuse in the future? Who should pay the penalty? What about Tate's mother who was sleeping at the time she was supposed to be watching the little girl? Or is simply no one to blame except for the pro wrestling shows or bad luck? That would seem silly to me.

I know, I'm a grump - A cynic too. Here's my thought on Gore's backing of Howard Dean for president. Gore backs Dean which leads to Dean's Democratic nomination. Then Dean loses badly to Bush. In 4 years Hillary Clinton runs for prez and smokes any Republican running. This is not a new or unique theory by any means. But it is the one I am currently subscribed to.

I don't see the Clinton's backing any candidate in the primaries... this is being done by proxy ala Gore.

If Gore/Clinton backed a candidate which had the chance of beating Bush, there could be 8 - 12 years before Mrs. Clinton gets into office and that would be unacceptable. They'd rather the Democratic party lose this time around to facilitate a successful run in just 4 years.

I'll post again if I am proven wrong with a nice contrite message. I'm fairly confident this won't be the case.