I thought this was funny. Why do councils and legislatures pass resolutions to let people know how they feel? What a waste of time.
I thought the quote from Berkley Resident Bill Newton was even better...
"Frankly I think the City Council is pretty stupid. But the war is pretty stupid too."
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Death Should Be Hard to Watch
This blog got shoveled to the back of IA for this week so I had to post it here to satisfy the needs of my ego.
On Monday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Blaze v. Rees. Just in case you haven’t been one of those uber geek law students who follows the SC like a 14 year old girl watching American Idol, the case is about lethal injection, and whether or not it is cruel and unusual punishment. In executions by lethal injection three drugs are administered to the condemned. The first is basically a pain killer, and it is supposed to drop the blood pressure, kill pain, and cause sleep. The second drug is a paralytic which, as its name suggests, causes paralysis in all the muscles except the heart. The third drug stops the heart. The potential problem arises when the first drug is administered incorrectly. Without the first drug, the second leaves the condemned paralyzed, awake, and completely capable of feeling the third drug rush in and stop the heart (which is apparently very painful).
The argument is about what standard should be applied to potential risks of future harm, who should supervise administration of the first drug, and the availability of alternative methods. It was all very interesting
The part that I found the MOST interesting was an exchange between Justice Stevens and Mr. Englert. Justice Stevens seemed to believe that the problem was not the first drug but the second (this is mentioned several times but this time caught my attention). If it weren’t for the second drug, there would be very little risk of an incorrect administration of the first drug going unnoticed. Without the paralytic it should be pretty easy to tell if the condemned has been effectively knocked out by the first drug because I am pretty sure you could test for feeling, and if the condemned isn’t paralyzed, then the reaction should be pretty apparent. Like fish on a stream bank apparent. Mr. Englert made the argument that the risk was justified because the second drug was necessary to maintain “the dignity of the process.” Not that the second drug was necessary to complete the execution, but only that, “You don’t want to have unpleasant appearance of death at the time.”
Which brings me to my point. The unpleasant appearance of death? Do juries think the person is going to “live on a farm” when the verdict is rendered? It’s not like death row is a tank in a dentist’s office and inmates gets to go back out to sea when they get flushed, kids. Who cares if the death has an unpleasant appearance? I’m not making an argument for or against the death penalty here, but I generally believe death = unpleasant. The idea that executions need to be “dignified” for the watcher is absurd.
Do you think the condemned really cares? Obviously they care if it is painful, but do they honestly care how uncomfortable the witnesses and the warden are? If it were up to me I’d want to go in the most messy and disgusting way possible. If you’re going to kill me you should have to get your hands and your psyche dirty. If you’re going to execute me, I want it to be painless for me, and Tarantino directing it on pay per view. Just saying.
On Monday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Blaze v. Rees. Just in case you haven’t been one of those uber geek law students who follows the SC like a 14 year old girl watching American Idol, the case is about lethal injection, and whether or not it is cruel and unusual punishment. In executions by lethal injection three drugs are administered to the condemned. The first is basically a pain killer, and it is supposed to drop the blood pressure, kill pain, and cause sleep. The second drug is a paralytic which, as its name suggests, causes paralysis in all the muscles except the heart. The third drug stops the heart. The potential problem arises when the first drug is administered incorrectly. Without the first drug, the second leaves the condemned paralyzed, awake, and completely capable of feeling the third drug rush in and stop the heart (which is apparently very painful).
The argument is about what standard should be applied to potential risks of future harm, who should supervise administration of the first drug, and the availability of alternative methods. It was all very interesting
The part that I found the MOST interesting was an exchange between Justice Stevens and Mr. Englert. Justice Stevens seemed to believe that the problem was not the first drug but the second (this is mentioned several times but this time caught my attention). If it weren’t for the second drug, there would be very little risk of an incorrect administration of the first drug going unnoticed. Without the paralytic it should be pretty easy to tell if the condemned has been effectively knocked out by the first drug because I am pretty sure you could test for feeling, and if the condemned isn’t paralyzed, then the reaction should be pretty apparent. Like fish on a stream bank apparent. Mr. Englert made the argument that the risk was justified because the second drug was necessary to maintain “the dignity of the process.” Not that the second drug was necessary to complete the execution, but only that, “You don’t want to have unpleasant appearance of death at the time.”
Which brings me to my point. The unpleasant appearance of death? Do juries think the person is going to “live on a farm” when the verdict is rendered? It’s not like death row is a tank in a dentist’s office and inmates gets to go back out to sea when they get flushed, kids. Who cares if the death has an unpleasant appearance? I’m not making an argument for or against the death penalty here, but I generally believe death = unpleasant. The idea that executions need to be “dignified” for the watcher is absurd.
Do you think the condemned really cares? Obviously they care if it is painful, but do they honestly care how uncomfortable the witnesses and the warden are? If it were up to me I’d want to go in the most messy and disgusting way possible. If you’re going to kill me you should have to get your hands and your psyche dirty. If you’re going to execute me, I want it to be painless for me, and Tarantino directing it on pay per view. Just saying.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
I am speechless...
I don't even know what I can say about this...
Apparently no legal/constitutional argument too absurd or far fetched for Dick Cheney.
Wow... All I can say is Wow...
Apparently no legal/constitutional argument too absurd or far fetched for Dick Cheney.
Wow... All I can say is Wow...
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Apparently I am a Moron
Today I had more fun with a law professor than I have ever had.
It started innocently enough. We were having a conversation about the separation of church and state. I can't exactly say how it happened but the conversation devolved into an argument about how any reasonable person could possibly believe in Christ's resurrection, walking on water, raising people from the dead, or the emaculate conception.
According to my professor I am a brainwashed moron, incapable of rational thought. No reasonable person can possibly believe that Jesus was resurrected. No sane person could possibly believe in the emaculate conception.
This conversation occured in the lobby of the school. There were several observers who seemed a bit shocked at my professor's tone, volume, and vocabulary. There was a slight giggle when he said, "We should stop talking before I start to get insulting."
I don't really care about the argument. I was kind of having fun. I've spent years defending my belief in God against accusations of diminished mental capacity, dishonesty, and brainwashing. I was a pro at it for 2 years.
What really made me laugh is the degree to which the professor became animated in public. I like the guy. I really do. I just wonder how he could lack the common sense to hold off on that kind of talk until we were in the privacy of his office.
The faces of my classmates were priceless. I can't wait to see who sends an email of complaint to the Dean. I'll be the first to defend the professor but I will laugh out loud with him about being dumb enough to try to have a spirited conversation in a school where every little non PC comment is the subject of an inquisition.
For the record... I do believe in God... I don't know if I'm a moron or not but if I am... I'm ok with that.
It started innocently enough. We were having a conversation about the separation of church and state. I can't exactly say how it happened but the conversation devolved into an argument about how any reasonable person could possibly believe in Christ's resurrection, walking on water, raising people from the dead, or the emaculate conception.
According to my professor I am a brainwashed moron, incapable of rational thought. No reasonable person can possibly believe that Jesus was resurrected. No sane person could possibly believe in the emaculate conception.
This conversation occured in the lobby of the school. There were several observers who seemed a bit shocked at my professor's tone, volume, and vocabulary. There was a slight giggle when he said, "We should stop talking before I start to get insulting."
I don't really care about the argument. I was kind of having fun. I've spent years defending my belief in God against accusations of diminished mental capacity, dishonesty, and brainwashing. I was a pro at it for 2 years.
What really made me laugh is the degree to which the professor became animated in public. I like the guy. I really do. I just wonder how he could lack the common sense to hold off on that kind of talk until we were in the privacy of his office.
The faces of my classmates were priceless. I can't wait to see who sends an email of complaint to the Dean. I'll be the first to defend the professor but I will laugh out loud with him about being dumb enough to try to have a spirited conversation in a school where every little non PC comment is the subject of an inquisition.
For the record... I do believe in God... I don't know if I'm a moron or not but if I am... I'm ok with that.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Con Law II: An illustration of the problem.
I just had a nice little heart to heart with my Con Law professor. Yesterday he came out in class and said a few things about the students who sit on their hands and say nothing. It was a not so thinly veiled shot at the kids who dislike his liberal rants but don't want to be harassed in class. Some of them went to the Dean. I wasn't surprised. It's just another example of the problem with U.S. Politics today.
You see... People hate each other. They don't just disagree, they hate, and classrooms like ours are only making the problem worse. You're going to create a divide when a professor stands at the front of the room saying things like "are there any [members of political party] who aren't evil?" or "I have come to the conclusion that all [members of a political party] are evil."
Some people say that he's just speaking his mind. Some say he's just telling it like it is. I say he's being an ass and he needs to take a look at the bigger picture. The gridlock created by partisan politics is a HUGE problem. On the large scale we have one half of the nation willing to do anything just to make sure the other half doesn't get its way. This is productive.
Let's take the most popular issue of the last few decades... Abortion... One side says, "No abortions, never, not ever, for no reason whatsoever." The other says, "Abortion when, how, where, and why I want. No notification, no consideration, no regulation." Does anybody really agree with eather side? Does anybody really feel that having an abortion is like ordering a burger? NO. Nobody wants to see an increase in abortions. Ask the folks at Planned Parenthood. Their whole goal is to promote education and responsibility so we don't have to have abortions.
Does anybody really believe no abortions ever? What about when it will kill the mother to give birth to a child that can not possibly survive? What about a 12 year old girl who was raped by her father? Do we really believe there is NEVER an occasion when abortion might need to be available as an option.
But those are the choices we're left with. Abortions for all or abortions for none.
Why is it so? Because nobody has enough respect for their political oponent to sit down and actually try to come up with a resolution that may require some compromise. We'd rather cut off our nose to spite our faces.
I think it sucks. I think it is up to those who stand in positions of authority to do something to stop it. People wonder how these talking heads with radio shows make money... It's because that's the culture we're promoting.
So here's my suggestion... Let's be big enough to be the first ones to exercise a bit of self restraint. Let's put away our pitch forks, swallow our hate, and recognize that this kind of division will only lead to the ultimate failure of our government.
Perhaps in a few years we'll have two or three candidates running for political office in this state who happened to attend the same law school. Perhaps they had spirited debates in class but still had a healthy respect for each other and a cordial social relationship. Perhaps they'll run tv ads about issues and not about how one candidate wears red underwear while dancing naked on a burning American flag.
Perhaps we'll have people talking about their differences rather than defacing signs in the stairwell...
Just a thought... Maybe I'm wrong...
Footnote
Wow... The Prof came out today and pretty much repeated our conversation. I will have to take back many of the horrible things I've said about him.
You see... People hate each other. They don't just disagree, they hate, and classrooms like ours are only making the problem worse. You're going to create a divide when a professor stands at the front of the room saying things like "are there any [members of political party] who aren't evil?" or "I have come to the conclusion that all [members of a political party] are evil."
Some people say that he's just speaking his mind. Some say he's just telling it like it is. I say he's being an ass and he needs to take a look at the bigger picture. The gridlock created by partisan politics is a HUGE problem. On the large scale we have one half of the nation willing to do anything just to make sure the other half doesn't get its way. This is productive.
Let's take the most popular issue of the last few decades... Abortion... One side says, "No abortions, never, not ever, for no reason whatsoever." The other says, "Abortion when, how, where, and why I want. No notification, no consideration, no regulation." Does anybody really agree with eather side? Does anybody really feel that having an abortion is like ordering a burger? NO. Nobody wants to see an increase in abortions. Ask the folks at Planned Parenthood. Their whole goal is to promote education and responsibility so we don't have to have abortions.
Does anybody really believe no abortions ever? What about when it will kill the mother to give birth to a child that can not possibly survive? What about a 12 year old girl who was raped by her father? Do we really believe there is NEVER an occasion when abortion might need to be available as an option.
But those are the choices we're left with. Abortions for all or abortions for none.
Why is it so? Because nobody has enough respect for their political oponent to sit down and actually try to come up with a resolution that may require some compromise. We'd rather cut off our nose to spite our faces.
I think it sucks. I think it is up to those who stand in positions of authority to do something to stop it. People wonder how these talking heads with radio shows make money... It's because that's the culture we're promoting.
So here's my suggestion... Let's be big enough to be the first ones to exercise a bit of self restraint. Let's put away our pitch forks, swallow our hate, and recognize that this kind of division will only lead to the ultimate failure of our government.
Perhaps in a few years we'll have two or three candidates running for political office in this state who happened to attend the same law school. Perhaps they had spirited debates in class but still had a healthy respect for each other and a cordial social relationship. Perhaps they'll run tv ads about issues and not about how one candidate wears red underwear while dancing naked on a burning American flag.
Perhaps we'll have people talking about their differences rather than defacing signs in the stairwell...
Just a thought... Maybe I'm wrong...
Footnote
Wow... The Prof came out today and pretty much repeated our conversation. I will have to take back many of the horrible things I've said about him.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
What have YOU done for America?
Have you ever heard an argument between two people about US politics where one throws down the "I served my country, what did you ever do for America" trump card?
It is an interesting thing for me. In part I get tired of that crap. I don't really feel like any one person's ideas are more valuable because they have given up some part of their life in serving the country.
On the other hand, I do feel a bit annoyed by people who enjoy the freedoms our nation provides but have never really given anything back to the nation. Some argue that they have voted or protested or recycled faithfully but to me it's just not the same.
This is why I propose a 2 year service requirement for those who want to vote or enjoy other "premium" citizenship benefits.
No... I'm not suggesting that everybody has to join the Army. I think everybody should be required to "serve" for two years. People can chose to go build homes for the homeless, provide medical care to the poor, teach in public schools, etc...
There would have to be some sort of Americorps organization keeping track of the service. It would have to be controlled by some kind of legislative oversight (to keep the rich kids from "serving" at country clubs).
I think this would do a whole lot of good. Nobody would be able to say that they are more or less worthy of citizenship, we could get a whole lot of stuff done for the disadvantaged population and people would be forced to leave their little social bubbles and meet their countrymen.
I like it...
Of course there are all those pesky constitutional issues about depriving people of liberty but then again, we could apply that part of the constitution only to those who have served...
I'm brilliant.
It is an interesting thing for me. In part I get tired of that crap. I don't really feel like any one person's ideas are more valuable because they have given up some part of their life in serving the country.
On the other hand, I do feel a bit annoyed by people who enjoy the freedoms our nation provides but have never really given anything back to the nation. Some argue that they have voted or protested or recycled faithfully but to me it's just not the same.
This is why I propose a 2 year service requirement for those who want to vote or enjoy other "premium" citizenship benefits.
No... I'm not suggesting that everybody has to join the Army. I think everybody should be required to "serve" for two years. People can chose to go build homes for the homeless, provide medical care to the poor, teach in public schools, etc...
There would have to be some sort of Americorps organization keeping track of the service. It would have to be controlled by some kind of legislative oversight (to keep the rich kids from "serving" at country clubs).
I think this would do a whole lot of good. Nobody would be able to say that they are more or less worthy of citizenship, we could get a whole lot of stuff done for the disadvantaged population and people would be forced to leave their little social bubbles and meet their countrymen.
I like it...
Of course there are all those pesky constitutional issues about depriving people of liberty but then again, we could apply that part of the constitution only to those who have served...
I'm brilliant.
Monday, March 5, 2007
RIP Thomas Eagleton
Thomas Eagleton 9.4.1929 - 3.4.2007
US Navy Veteran
Harvard Law Graduate
Youngest Attorney General in Missouri State history
Missouri Lieutenant Governor
US Senator
Professor of Law
Even has a courthouse named after him...
But not good enough to be:
Candidate for Vice Presidency of the United States of America
Apparently Mr. Eagleton's fatal flaw was seeking medical attention for "physical and nervous exhaustion." He sought help for depression. Newspapers and critics seized upon his past medical history and eventually Eagleton had to step down.
He could have just kept it under his hat. He could have used alcohol or drugs to self medicate (although many accused him of alcoholism). Perhaps he could have engaged in some other maladaptive behavior to find release from his inner unhappiness... But wait... That would have made him... Just like every other politician in US history.
Why is it America will condemn a person who takes a couple of Prozac a day to deal with a legitimate medical condition but put full faith in a person who voluntarily chooses to occasionally depress their nervous system and get pissed drunk?
Well... It's not like it mattered anyway... McGovern went down in flames against Nixon. Fortunately America chose to elect a candidate who was a big fan of full disclosure. Just imagine the horrible things that could have happened if we had elected a person with a mood disorder.
US Navy Veteran
Harvard Law Graduate
Youngest Attorney General in Missouri State history
Missouri Lieutenant Governor
US Senator
Professor of Law
Even has a courthouse named after him...
But not good enough to be:
Candidate for Vice Presidency of the United States of America
Apparently Mr. Eagleton's fatal flaw was seeking medical attention for "physical and nervous exhaustion." He sought help for depression. Newspapers and critics seized upon his past medical history and eventually Eagleton had to step down.
He could have just kept it under his hat. He could have used alcohol or drugs to self medicate (although many accused him of alcoholism). Perhaps he could have engaged in some other maladaptive behavior to find release from his inner unhappiness... But wait... That would have made him... Just like every other politician in US history.
Why is it America will condemn a person who takes a couple of Prozac a day to deal with a legitimate medical condition but put full faith in a person who voluntarily chooses to occasionally depress their nervous system and get pissed drunk?
Well... It's not like it mattered anyway... McGovern went down in flames against Nixon. Fortunately America chose to elect a candidate who was a big fan of full disclosure. Just imagine the horrible things that could have happened if we had elected a person with a mood disorder.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Joe Biden opens his mouth...
I don't care what your political stance is, this is funny.
Here's what Joe Biden had to say about Barack Obama in an interview with the New York Observer.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”
So am I to assume that all the other "mainstream" African-Americans before Obama were inarticulate, moronic, unkempt, and ugly?
He also referred to Al Gore and John Kerry as "the perfect blow-dried candidates" who "couldn't connect."
I'm not sure what connection he's looking for but if he thinks he could have run a better race against GWB in 2000 or 2004 he should have put his hat in the ring.
On a good day I don't like most of the folks on Biden's side of the aisle but this guy truly stands out among his peers. Keep it up Joe... The GOP needs all the help it can get in 2008.
Here's what Joe Biden had to say about Barack Obama in an interview with the New York Observer.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”
So am I to assume that all the other "mainstream" African-Americans before Obama were inarticulate, moronic, unkempt, and ugly?
He also referred to Al Gore and John Kerry as "the perfect blow-dried candidates" who "couldn't connect."
I'm not sure what connection he's looking for but if he thinks he could have run a better race against GWB in 2000 or 2004 he should have put his hat in the ring.
On a good day I don't like most of the folks on Biden's side of the aisle but this guy truly stands out among his peers. Keep it up Joe... The GOP needs all the help it can get in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
