Yikes, clearly the acting gene didn’t get passed on to little Chester.At least he’s a good sing…Er, at least his dad is rich enough to pay for his music videos.

I’d absolutely watch a show with him and Anthony Bourdain just reading a list of things they hate.

I saw an advanced screening of We Bought a Zoo, and if you sit through the credits, there is a bonus scene that sets up the sequel:

Wow, I really need to start ordering rush service when I call for a messenger pickup to my office (#swag) because the messengers that show up here look NOTHING like any of these people and if they smelled like flop sweat, it would be a huge step improvement. And all of their ‘messenger bags’ are made out of newspaper and duck tape.

Ten years later, a woman tells the world how Jeremy Piven saved her from an untimely demise by nearly running her down with his emmy-stroller.

I get that but what do the families have anything to do with it? If they did a selection process like calling people to jury duty and the person who was called had to execute someone, it would probably happen a lot less too.

But what I’m saying is, saying the families should be the ones to do it makes it sound like the families made the law, decided on the punishment, and therefore need to do it personally, which is just not true. I just don’t see why that specific example makes any sense.

And the argument is kind of putting these people on trail (so to speak, I know that’s confusing because these things have real trials too) for having extremely complicated emotions that probably none of us could or should ever have to understand. One of their family members was just murdered. Why should they now be called out for having feelings that in no way actually effect how these decisions are made?

I know this is all a hypothetical scenario, but it just seems like a very ill conceived one and it supposedly makes sense.

I disagree that having the family be the ones to perform the execution is a good idea. It strikes me as a terrible idea, regardless of where you stand on the death penalty.

A. The family may want revenge, but the law isn’t there to appease the victims family (at least not entirely), it’s there to mete out justice on a national level (again, for better or for worse), and this is the way they saw fit to do it.

B. Making them do it is heaping on way more trauma to a family that already suffered a tremendous loss. Just because they want (or think they want) something, it doesn’t mean they have to personally do it. Again, it is the law that decided that these people should die, so why should the family have to deal with the psychological ramifications of killing someone on top of dealing with their loss?