Court rejects lethal injection challenge - USATODAY.com

Court rejects lethal injection challenge - USATODAY.com

As I suspected, the Court really did not absolutely clear up anything and more challenges are expected.

Interestingly, Justice John Paul Stevens raised the question that HE THINKS that a Constitutional challenge to the "death penalty" itself will and should be raised EVEN THOUGH he voted, this time, with the majority on this "narrow" issue about the death penalty.

I have never argued with the validity of the death penalty applied to cases and people that indicated justification for such an extreme penalty BUT...

I am now totally disenchanted with our justice system especially the office of the prosecutor. I am totally convinced by past and present examples, that many prosecutors are devoid of the notion of justice and fairness and only want to win and close cases in a bid for higher office.

Just the vast amount of inmates that have been released after many years in jail on DNA evidence proving that they did not commit the crime they were accused, tried and sentenced to jail for, proves our system is far from perfect and we cannot risk executing an innocent person until the system IS perfect!

Does that mean we should stop all executions? No but I would demand "absolute" proof of guilt including DNA evidence; I would never agree to the death penalty in cases where the evidence was only "circumstantial". Even "eye witnesses have been proven unreliable.

As far as the death penalty itself being unconstitutional because it is "cruel and unusual" punishment; that argument fails because in our history it was the "usual" and not "unusual" punishment for certain crimes and as far as "cruelty" is concerned; that has been defined differently throughout our history as to method of execution culminating today in the most genteel of executions.

If your argument is that causing "death" is "cruel" then I would agree and that is why the person that caused innocent death is suffering the same cruelty he or she caused.

Jan's Stinkin Blog: LETHAL INJECTION - too uncomfortable?

Jan's Stinkin Blog: LETHAL INJECTION - too uncomfortable?

SUPREMES VOTE LETHAL INJECTION OK!

I originally wrote about this issue when it was first filed with the Supreme Court (November 12, 2007) - click on link above for text of blog.

The vote was 7-2 with Ruth Ginsburg and David Souter dissenting.

I will have to read the formal opinion to see the basis for the Court's decision but I remembered arguing in my initial comment that there ARE better methods of lethal injection than the 3-drug current method that appears to be hard to administer and may cause unintended "suffering".

The original case brought by two inmates from Kentucky was NOT to stop execution by lethal injection but to USE ANOTHER METHOD like the one-shot Barbiturate Overdose Method.

I am not sure the Supreme Court addressed that specific complaint and herein lies the problem; they don't want to judge what IS "cruel & unusual punishment" and so this issue will keep dragging on - a bullet in the back of the head causes death so fast that the inmate has no time to feel pain - so is it painless for the inmate but painful for us?

Send Iraq Supporters to Iraq / Bring troops home!

Just a quick note to all of you Iraq War supporter nutcases; the Iraq government fired 1,300 government soldiers and police because they deserted rather than obey orders to subdue the Shiite militia under the cleric al-Sadr.

This again shows you that an Iraqi government does not really exist and can never really exist. It is not even Shiite against Sunni; it’s Shiite against Shiite, secular vs. cleric and a civil war will happen whether we leave today or in a 100 years.

Bush just said that he will do nothing for now which means the asshole will leave HIS problem for the next president.

Bush started the war, killed over 4,000 U.S. troops and leaves his mess to the next president. I think all those that supported Bush in his Iraq adventure should be sent to Iraq (and you know who you are) and all the troops there now, allowed to come home for good – deal?

Pope: 'Ashamed' of clergy abuse scandal - Yahoo! News

Pope: 'Ashamed' of clergy abuse scandal - Yahoo! News

Well so far the Pope is doing the "right" thing by addressing the priestly sex scandal head on, apologizing for it and vowing to prevent it from happening again. He is getting good advice or just maybe he is following his own advice. So far, so good - read all about it!

The Pope's Sex Abuse Challenge - TIME

Well I guess the Vatican listened to some of what has been talked about in the U.S. prior to the Pope's visit and now the Vatican has decided that the Pope WILL address the priestly sex scandal at least once during his visit - that's a positive sign!


The Pope's Sex Abuse Challenge - TIME

Hey, Lets Hear What The Pope Has to Say!

Hey Pope Benedict IVI is coming to the U.S. this Wednesday and much has already been written about him and he has not said a word yet.

The New York Times had one of their Catholic reporters write an article about what the Pope’s visit means to him and his Catholic family and he basically said that it means nothing to him and his seriously Catholic family.

He was more or less saying what many if not most American Catholics feel about THIS pope; nothing. Maybe they don’t know him and maybe this visit will change that.

One underlying sentiment about American Catholics that I am hearing is that they basically do what they feel is right despite what the Vatican thinks or even demands from them. I think the Pope knows this.

The other item or issue that I am hearing about is the lack of care by the Vatican about the “American” priestly sex scandals that have bankrupted a number of large parishes in this country. It appears that the Vatican thinks that by ignoring the problem people will soon forget about it. Or making it into an ONLY AMERICAN problem, world Catholics will just say “those crazy Americans, here they go again…”

I personally think the problem is worldwide and has been in existence from the beginning and the Vatican has done a great job hiding it through the centuries but is having problems in continuing to hide the problem of pedophile priests and I think the Catholics in the U.S. want the Vatican to take some responsibility, acknowledge that the problem exists and describe steps it has taken to address the problem.

I think the Pope has no plans to address the priestly sexual abuse scandal while in the States because the Vatican considers the matter “closed”. I think we may see some organized protests on the matter and why not.

Time Magazine also talked a lot about Benedict and the Americans. The magazine thought Benedict actually likes Americans and America and remembers all the good deeds we did for Europe after WWII.

The Wall Street Journal had a big piece about the President of Notre Dame and what he thought about the Pope’s visit. He is looking forward to it especially the speech the Pope will make to leaders of Catholic education. Notre Dame is not known for sticking to official Vatican teaching instructions.

Benedict is a smart man – I am looking forward to hear what the man has to say.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

More thoughts on the “2nd Amendment” issue before the Supreme Court; that’s the one that allows us to “bear arms”?

As I mentioned before, if you are going to interpret our Constitution in a constructionist way (as it was written and intended originally) you will have to know something about the issues back when it was being written.

The second amendment as written grants the right to bear arms to citizens ONLY as a regulated militia. I argued that since each state has a NATIONAL GUARD that takes the place of a State Militia, the amendment does not have any validity because it addresses something that DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

In cases where the Constitution does not address a specific issue, the matter is turned over to the States since it is now NOT a federal matter but a STATE matter.

BUT when I carefully studied the debate between the Federalists (pro-Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (against the Constitution) a big concern was the ability of the states to protect themselves from a too aggressive central government – yes that was a valid concern.

This issue was such a concern that for the Constitution to be ratified, the states demanded the inclusion of a BILL of RIGHTS into the Constitution to address those very issues.

So the 2nd Amendment’s purpose was to grant the states a means of protecting themselves from an overbearing central government. Yes, they meant to “fight” the central government if they did not like what they were imposing on the individual states – hard to believe in today’s U.S.

In those days, the citizens of each state would comprise the state militia and could be called upon to serve in times of crisis – fair enough?

But here is the problem, the Constitution granted power to the central government to “nationalize” the state militia if the need arose – see a conflict?

Our state national guards who took the place of state militias have been nationalized by the central government in the past. Remember Alabama and the school segregation stand-off with Wallace, et.al? Well the state national guard that was blocking entrance to the school was nationalized and told to stand down and desist, in effect, over-ruling the state.

So the writers at that time were obviously aware of the fact that the central government can always “trump” the state government by just “nationalizing” their militia so what did they really mean for the 2nd Amendment to do?

It specifically grants the bearing of arms to individuals ONLY as members of a militia and for the protection of the state NOT individual property or person.

As much as I try to see what others want me to see (individual’s right to bear arms); it’s just not in the Amendment – sorry!

That does NOT mean (and I again repeat) that individuals DO NOT have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The 2nd Amendment does NOT give them that right and the SUPREME COURT should say just that, excuse themselves and send the matter back to the STATE COURT who should decide the case based on the specific STATE CONSTITUTION.

Amen to that!

And the beat goes on and on and on...

How sad was it to watch general Petraeus come before Congress ONCE AGAIN with his hat in his hand, saying the same damn thing; we cannot pull out of Iraq right now because things are kind of fragile and it would be irresponsible and dangerous to do that right now. I suggest we wait another few months and see…

But sir, you have said the same thing every time you have come here and we have asked you – when is the war going to be over, when are we pulling our troops out, when will the Iraqis take care of themselves…

President Bush, predictably once again states that he will listen to the advice of the good general because the general is the one who knows the best course of action in Iraq at the present time…

The Wall Street Journal nods agreement and criticizes Democratic critics of the war as irresponsible politicos who don’t give a shit about anything except their own political future – what a crock of shit.

I read the Journal because I am a businessman but I have to question the sanity of its editorial board; any jackass, even Petraeus sees that the Iraqi factions are just playing us for more money and more time; rebuild everything, make us all rich and powerful and then get the fuck out.

This whole affair is beyond sad and pitiful; it is embarrassing. Even the soldiers in Iraq say get us the hell out of here – we are being used and abused for absolutely NOTHING (they are saying this on camera, on major networks).

AND the administration is asking for more BILLIONS to rebuild their police stations, etc. the same ones that they will blow up a few days after we build them…

Why are we as a people putting up with this? Are we just waiting for the elections – why, McCain is actually predicted to win and he WILL continue the war for another 100 years?

Our representatives in Congress have abandoned us and are trying to outdo each other in how much money will they give to each jackass that bought a home they could not afford – we are truly in a Twilight Zone!

Cardinal's Response Enlightened!

Thanks to Tom for sending a link to the Vienna Cardinal’s explanation as to why he approved the Hrdlicka exhibit at the Vienna Cathedral Museum with such “objectionable” material.

It is obvious that Cardinal Schonborn had no idea about any individual works to be displayed but generally, knew that Alfred Hrdlicka (80) was a well respected artist with some well known and praised pieces of art. The museum director was directly responsible for the pieces on display and I think, was responsible for selecting them in the first place as he was the curator of the show.

In any case, I found the Cardinal’s explanation, or if you prefer, his justification for the exhibit quite refreshing and oh so “enlightened”! Quite frankly, I was stunned.

He obviously rejected as inappropriate any works that “committed Christians” clearly viewed as blasphemous or pornographic but he held out his hand of encouragement to those artists that are not committed Christians but still feel the need to express themselves in their art on biblical issues. It’s as if the Cardinal welcomed a religious dialog with an unbeliever or a searcher, no matter how the subject was raised.

Number one, the Cardinal’s response was a huge antithesis to the response the Muslim clerics had to the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The Islamic clerics called for death and torture to the infidels that perpetrated this crime against Allah and his prophet, etc, etc……………..ad nauseam!

I swear it is like the clash of the Age of Enlightenment with the Dark Ages. On the one hand you have a cleric comfortable with his faith and his god and on the other, clerics that still treat their god as a puppet that needs to be dressed and fed daily and protected against people that may say bad things against him.

I hope my praise at the way this whole situation was handled is not premature. I am not sure if the same situation would have been handled with such civility in the United States. Remember the “Crucifix in a glass of Urine” debacle some years back; even some U.S. Congressmen threatened to remove all federal funding for the museum that displayed that piece of “art”.

I still have to examine my initial and probably lasting revulsion to the little I saw of the pieces. I can blame natural heterosexual revulsion instincts to homoerotic art even though I am in no way anti-gay. I can also blame no understanding for the artist’s message; maybe that will be explained to me.

Telling me that some of Hrdlicka’s works represent the “carnality of religion” does not really do much for my understanding of his message, if there is one but obviously, I will defend his right to express it – every time!

A Catholic Art Exhibit Gives Pause!

There was news of an art exhibit in Vienna, Austria at a museum attached to the Roman Catholic Cathedral there. The art works were by renowned Austrian artist Alfred Hrdlicka who was celebrating his 80th birthday with his show entitled “Religion, Flesh & Power”.

I saw a brief video of the pieces on exhibit and I read descriptions of the art works and I will tell you; I was a bit stunned.

Mind you, this exhibit was put on and therefore sanctioned by the Catholic Church in Austria and the museum curator is amazed at having to defend the exhibit.

I will hasten to say that one piece “The Last Supper” is basically a homosexual orgy of the Apostles – graphic to say the least. Another piece showed the crucifixion with a Roman soldier basically holding Jesus’ privates while whipping him. These are just short glimpses that I had. The video was done by GLORIA TV which is a Catholic web site.

There are a lot of themes playing here. Obviously, some Catholics cried “blasphemy” and were very confused how this exhibit came to be supported by the Church.

Others mentioned the Mohammed Cartoons in Denmark and how this was similar in the outrage it provoked – BUT NO ONE WAS RIOTING – YET – and we shall see if Austrians can show the Muslims what freedom of speech really means in Europe.

An Austrian Cardinal did yank the “Last Supper” off the wall but was quick to add that it was NOT CENCORSHIP but, in his words, “reverence for the sacred” – interesting!

I will follow this story a bit because it so intrigued me but also my own initial negative reaction to the exhibit intrigued me – why?