Rachel Maddow on Botched Execution in Arizona

Contrary to what you may have heard, Rachel Maddow is separate and apart from most pundits and talking heads. As much as I might enjoy some of the others, and can grudgingly see why some that I don't like have a following, Maddow stands alone. She focuses on stories no one else is talking about, or at least comes at them from another angle. She gives history and context on the subject she is talking about. And she usually makes you forget you're essentially listening to a professor's lecture. You don't get bored, and you always learn something.

Over the past year or so, Maddow has been tracking death penalty cases, particularly those with botched executions. She's focused on the problems with the state finding elusive lethal injection drugs, and openly wondered about the wisdom of capital punishment, if we can't abide by the Constitution's command against cruel and unusable punishment. Or, should we even be killing people at all?

So, when this Arizona botched execution story broke, it was actually pretty amazing that The Rachel Maddow Show was able to jump right in with a very thorough story on the subject. You don't have to be a liberal to get something out of this.
 

Yet Another Execution Goes Horribly Wrong

Image from source, Think Progress

We keep having these botched executions, and I know, it's difficult to care. I mean (barring the wrongly accused), anyone on death row is generally an awful person. And I've heard some say, "they deserve what they get." This is the United States of America, however, and we're not supposed to be all "eye for an eye" on criminal justices. There's a thing called the Constitution, and a line about cruel and unusual punishment.

So, what's the reason for all of the problems with something that ought to be fairly easy to do? Well, companies that make some drugs don't want them used for the purposes of causing death. And other drugs? Untested, and who ya gonna test 'em on? Well, looks like, the condemned. And it's not going so well.

[Excerpt]

Arizona’s Execution Attempt Goes Horribly Wrong As Man Remains Alive Nearly 2 Hours After Injection
 
Using an unusual concoction of drugs this afternoon, Arizona attempted to execute a man on death row. One hour after he was supposed to have been lethally injected, however, Joseph Rudolph Wood was still alive, “gasping and snoring.” Wood’s lawyers filed an emergency request to stay the execution and give the man life-saving help, but it was too late: After two hours, he died. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Gay 21-year Old Iranian Man Almost Hanged

Photo from TowleRoad, which also has coverage of the story

From my side of the fence, opposition to gay people from any quarter is difficult to understand. I mean I get it, some folks think it's "icky." But to take squeamishness to Fred Phelps levels, or to actually institute a death penalty for icky-ness? I'm sorry folks, that's just insane. They're just body parts. And most people, gay or straight, look icky doing it.

[Excerpt]

Top Judge Halts Iran Execution

Iran's Chief Justice has halted the execution of 21 year old man who allegedly had sex with another male when the accused was only 13 years old an international human rights group reports.

But Mouloodzadeh's legal problems are not over.

As is usual in Iran when a male is charged with having sex with another person of the same sex the charge against Makvan Mouloodzadeh was listed as rape. . .

Read more at: 365Gay.com, or if that makes you feel icky, try this one: MSNBC

What is "Pro Life" Anyway?

This subject occurred to me, totally apropos of nothing, completely separate (as far as I know) from anything in the news this weekend. It's certainly not an original thought, but one I've never seen answered adequately.

Namely, why is it that people who consider themselves "pro life" are only actually pro life as it occurs in very narrow circumstances? As far as I know, the only "life" they seem to be concerned with is 1) fetal life, 2) persistent vegetative-state life, and 3) stem cell blastocyst life.

The pro life group seems to be, in contradiction to their name, 1) pro war, 2) pro death penalty, 3) pro guns, and 4) unconcerned with what happens to babies who were not aborted--they just don't want any tax dollars to go to them. They also tend to be against universal health care, which should surely be covered by the "pro life" banner, if anything should.

To clarify my position, as a gay man, I have no dog in the abortion fight, and never will. So I don't get overly animated about the issue. The people who do, however, on the pro life side, seem to be the very same people who are also against gay rights issues. I guess we aren't "life" either.

The point is, how can we expect honesty and consistency out of our politicians, when we can't even get it out of voters. The pro life crowd is probably only one group of many different constituencies that is all over the map on issues they think they're consistent on. In my opinion, we as citizens need to start thinking of "life" and everything else as more than just bumper-sticker slogans. We need to start thinking, period.

End of rant.