We all have just one shot at this terrestrial earthly life. Pope, prince, or pauper, we all will die. But everyone should be assisted to live, and to lives as long as possible, I truly believe. So I oppose both abortion and capital punishment.
As long as someone is already just starting out, as all we necessarily have done, first as a cluster of human cells beginning to then form a baby/a person/an actual human being, someone waiting to be born to become a living, breathing individual associating and working here among us--unique even as a twin--then I do support that incipient life, even at its earliest stages. That life should not be taken away.
And although someone may have actually taken the life of someone else, inadvertently or even on purpose, I still don't believe that tragedy should be compounded by also killing that individual. So now I do oppose the execution of Christa Pike. Killing her would not undo the harm she has already done; just adding to it in my opinion. The family of her victim may feel some satisfaction if she is killed now, an eye for an eye, but that is not sufficient reason to actually do it. I'd like to post her image here, but I won't do so in order to err on the side of caution. I've already had my knuckles rapped for posting unauthorized photos. You know what she looks like.
Regardless of my own opposition and that of many others, Christa is still due to be executed, though perhaps not until January, since Tennessee's governor has suspended all executions through the end of 2026. Christa has requested an all-female execution team. Will they get it right next time? Many of us have witnessed having our beloved ailing pets "put down" with a lethal injection The lethal solution to carry out an execution needs to be injected into a vein, not just tissue, as happened last time. Pike's previous executioner was simply incompetent, missing the vein. Does the state still deserve another chance after having botched Pike's execution or does she deserve a commutation now? How many times can a death-row inmate be made to face execution?
Tennessee has now bungled one execution attempt for Christa Pike, who may still be the first woman executed there in more than 200 years. She is already bringing notoriety to the state, and not necessarily in a positive way. In light of this whole ongoing drama and unfortunate debacle, why not place an indefinite moratorium on the death penalty there by just keeping her locked up, perhaps in solitary confinement and in isolation, as is done in some other states and in other modern nations? Tennessee should consider stopping any and all executions right now and then going forward. Instead, Christa could be kept in solitary indefinitely, as is being done now with Norway's notorious mass murderer. Just let her live completely alone with food being provided through a portal, as in the Norwegian killer's case, thus exacting its own kind of punishment.
A long-time death row inmate in the US, who served life in prison, has now died.
The longest surviving death-row inmate in the US was Clifford Smith, convicted of killing a night watchman in 1949, although always maintaining his innocence. He died in custody in Connecticut at age 101. Let's see if his image will remain posted now after he is gone. How far will the blog police still try to go? Will they start digging up graves to verify what I'm saying here? I've had quite a few run-ins with them already. Thankfully, Smith lived to an advanced old age, never being subjected to the death penalty after all.
Here's someone who never got to live his full life. A mass in Ecuador was being live-streamed when the priest, Patricio Sánchez, age 53, was killed by a falling crucifix. Was he felled by divine justice or just a random quirk of fate -- by the effect of karma or a mere bolt out of the blue? Members of his congregation are debating that question right now.
========================================================================
Besides the death penalty, another prominent issue now being discussed here in the US is the "right to bear arms." Is having a personal firearm our God-given right? Or is that something actually quite dangerous and wrong?
Now under consideration is to take a page from Switzerland to allow shooting ranges, where NRA members can pull a trigger hour after hour just to their heart's content. But if that sort of program should be adopted here, those guns must never be allowed to be taken home, because that's where the mayhem starts. No more guns in the home. That should be the rule. And any ongoing disputes, even among family members, should be settled in court without involving any weapons at all. Family members, not strangers, are most at risk from just having a gun in the home. (Look at the numbers of who actually gets injured or killed.)
The "right to bear arms" may possibly have been appropriate here 250 years ago when militias were formed to emancipate the fledgling American nation from British colonial rule. But now in modern times, when police and the military provide citizens with widespread protection, civilians no longer need personal firearms, which only end up posing serious risks to themselves and to their very own families. If you have a gun in your home, it is 99% more likely to kill a family member than any thief or intruder. I am sorry to report that even little Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, where my son and I live now, there is a gun shop where you can buy all sorts of firearms.
Nor should wild animals still be killed by hunters, as their numbers are shrinking too fast. Let those endangered animals live as well.
Here is a Mexican gray wolf with her pup. Wild wolves should now be protected, not killed.
And it's always best to settle a grievance without using any weapon at all. The era of the pacing duel has long passed. That was when 2 opponents standing back-to-back, walked 10 paces to turn around to fire at each other, thus killing one or both. Was the invention of firearms really an example of human progress? Wars fought with bows and arrows or even with spears and swords could only do finite damage because fighters had to be able to actually see their opponents. Now with atomic and nuclear weapons, whole swaths of civilians can be wiped out within minutes, all sight unseen. That is why there is a moratorium now on the use of nuclear weapons. Those weapons proved to be actually much too dangerous and too effective to even exist.
Nighttime intruders almost never enter private homes in this country these days to rob them (of what?). And, if they did, wouldn't the homeowner's use of a firearm actually just make matters worse? Let a robber take the wife's jewelry or grandma's silverware collection. Better than being killed in the exceedingly rare instance of a visit from a thief, something that very few Americans will ever confront. If it actually did happen, the homeowner would be much more likely to actually die in a gun fight with a robber than if the robber simply were never even confronted. So just pretend to be asleep if that should ever happen to you, which is really very, very, very unlikely. It's much more likely that you will be killed in an auto accident, even if you always observe the speed limit and remember to fasten your seatbelt.
Fewer guns in private hands means fewer gun deaths and injuries, just look at the numbers in other modern nations lacking the so-called "right to bear arms." In fact, most thefts now don't even happen in the home at all, but rather online with commercial banks. That even happened to me back with Citibank in Washington, DC, when an employee working "virtually" along the convoluted chain of bank transactions, robbed me before I'd even noticed it. If you think a bank is a safe place to keep your money, think again. Under the mattress is probably safer. Nor was I ever fully compensated because the thief lost her job as a result and could not repay me. I did not see any point in going to court and putting her in jail. The bank itself took almost no responsibility.
Money is important and useful, but if we have enough to eat and a place to sleep, how much money do we even really need? Having too much money is actually quite risky. Very wealthy people need guards for their home and also personal body guards to accompany them everywhere--no privacy at all. They would actually be more comfortable with only a modest income and personal anonymity just like you and me.
===========================================
Despite a judge's orders, Donald Trump keeps authorizing tree removal at the DC golf course, where he plans to continue golfing even after his presidential term ends. He will no longer be president then, but he apparently plans to keep on interfering with the government, so he wants to stay in Washington to keep on rallying his supporters. Therefore he needs a local golf course where he can keep on playing for relaxation without being bothered by having so many trees. If you think that Trump plans to retire from harassing other people, including government officials and especially Democrats, you will soon find out otherwise.
I'll let readers know if this image of cut trees from the Washington Post has to be removed. Yoohoo, Washington Post, I'm giving you a little free publicity right now.
Here is someone whom I actually know, who would probably remember me if we ever met again: Luis Manuel Otero, now exiled to the US, whose article in The Guardian, "I spent five years with criminals" describes his unmerited incarceration in Cuba. I would recommend reading it.
No comments:
Post a Comment