Archive for the ‘Law’ category

Roe v. Wade 35th Anniversary-37 Million People Cannot Attend the Party

January 22, 2008


Today marks the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and it is estimated that over 37 million babies have been aborted since 1973 in the United States.  To put that in perspective, if you wiped the total population of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles off the map–that would still be a few hundred thousand short of 37 million. 

There are news stories all over the web today about this–and some sites are having a party.  The National Organization of Women says on their webpage that “continued vigilance is necessary.”  In fact, the President has this to say: “This year we have the chance to elect a new administration and send new members to Congress who will help protect and expand our reproductive freedom. Come November we must elect a president who will be vigilant in upholding a woman’s right to make her own childbearing decisions, including access to birth control and abortion,” said NOW President Kim Gandy.

I thought I would include her picture here:

You see, her picture can appear on this site because her mother did not choose to have her expelled from her womb before she was ready in an intentional act of killing her.  Lucky Kim.

I like the new terms the pro-death crowd is using–“reproductive freedom” and “reproductive justice.”  You see, “freedom” and “justice” are so valuable to us here in America.  Throughout our history men and women have died to preserve the precious nature of “freedom” and “justice.”  But the unborn child–his/her “freedom” and “justice” are in the hands of another.  The unborn child, with no voice, no podium, no blog to write on has to rely on one person to protect his/her “freedom” and “justice.”  That person is his/her mother.  And who better?  For only a mother will love, care and protect a child more than anyone else in the world.  Only a mother understands the pain and joy her child experiences.  A mother would be the first to give her life for her child if called upon to do so.  And yet… Ms. Gandy calls upon mothers to be “vigilant” in her right to end the life of her unborn child.

“Vigilant” is a great word. It means to be keenly watchful to detect danger or to be wary.  You only have to add a small “e” to the end of this word and you get “vigilante.”  A “Vigilante” is any person who takes the law into his or her own hands.  In its adjective form it means “done violently and summarily, without recource to lawful procedures.”

I think that since the “pro-choice” crowd has come up with new terms–to be fair “pro-lifers” ought to do the same.  So let’s call them what they really are:  “Reproductive Vigilantes.”

The definition of “Reproductive Vigilantes” therefore would be one who, without recourse to the rights and freedoms of the unborn, decides summarily and violently to end the life of that unborn child.”

Now with my new PC term in hand, let’s discuss the beautiful State of Vermont.  Today an article hailing the Anniversary of Roe appeared.  In that article we have the following quote:  “For a generation of women and men born after Roe, it is incumbent upon us to remember that the right to make personal childbearing decisions has enable women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often unthinkable before Roe,” said Rep. Rachel Weston, D-Burlington.

Here is Rachel’s picture–lucky for her, her mom chose to not end her life before her voice could be heard in the Vermont Legislature.  Lucky for her, her mother was not a Reproductive Vigilante.

But I suppose I’m being too harsh, after all, a very famous world leader expressed his pro-choice view when he said, ” in view of the large families of native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible.”  Who was that famous person?  Well, lucky for him I can show his picture too: 

 Today of all days, we need to get on our knees and beg forgiveness that we have allowed this Country to end the lives of 37 million people (more than Hitler, more than Stalin) out of convenience and in the fraudulent names of “freedom” and “Justice” and “Equality.”  To use such words in this context is a bullet to the head of the men and women who have fought for such rights only to see the U.S. strip those rights away from the most innocent among us.  This is not a day to celebrate but rather a day to mourn.  It is the anniversary of the death of numerous generations of children and grandchildren and furture scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers and yes, directors of non-profit organizations and state legislators. 

So I would ask us all to focus on those below, those who were fortunate enough to have loving moms instead of Reproductive Vigilantes:

  God Bless every Mom who no matter what the cost, no matter the inconvenience, no matter their age, no matter their economic status, realized that life is precious and that the life of the unborn child growing inside them was more precious than their reputation, their social status, their economic status and their personal selfish plans for the future.  Thank you for choosing LIFE over SELF.


Prisoner Denied His First Amendment Right to Look at Jennifer Aniston

December 6, 2007

Today I bring you a sad tale of horrible torture and the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.  This is sad so please, if you have already had any of the self-realizations in the last 24 hours that are listed below, then I beg of you, do not read this because I do not want to be responsible for sending you in to a deep depression.

Don’t read any further if any of the following has come to your mind today:

1.  That you cannot possibly get everything finished in time for Christmas,

2. That one of your parents wants to live “the rest of his/her life” under your roof,

3. That your 16 year old daughter wants a belly-piercing,

4. That you missed your Christmas bonus elligibility by one dollar/hour/sale, etc….

5. That you just broke off a long-term relationship.

Okay–here goes.  yesterday an AP story by Scott Bauer broke entitled,  Inmate Loses Bid to Hang Aniston Photo .

Here are the tragic details:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) – All Jevon Jackson wanted was to hang a picture of Jennifer Aniston in his room. But because his room was a cell at a Green Bay prison, the warden wouldn’t allow it. Jackson took his case all the way to federal court, which ruled in favor of the prison Wednesday but offered the inmate a ray of hope.

A convicted murderer, Jackson ran afoul of the state prison system when he ordered a commercial picture of Aniston, who gained fame on the television series “Friends.” Turns out the prison has a policy against inmates receiving, and thus displaying, commercially published photographs.  The prison adopted the policy in 2006 because of the increasing volume of mail. It told the court that it gets about 1,500 pieces of mail a day and processing it required a ban on commercially published photos, which often contained nudity or other forbidden content such as gang symbols.  Inmates are allowed to display pictures of non-celebrity friends and relatives, as well as commercially produced photos published in magazines. Neither Jackson nor the prison said there was anything inappropriate about the photo he wanted to display.

“That’s good,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its unanimous, and somewhat snarky, opinion. “In 2000, Aniston sued ‘Celebrity Skin’ magazine for publishing photos taken of her while sunbathing topless in her own backyard!” The three judges also identified Aniston as an actress who appeared in “several forgettable recent films.” They named a couple: “Rumor Has It” and “Along Came Polly.”

Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder in the 1993 killing of a woman who had just left a Milwaukee fast-food restaurant. He was 17 at the time of the murder. Now 30, he sued after his complaint was dismissed by the prison. He argued that his First Amendment rights had been violated. He also said it didn’t make sense to disallow commercial photographs but at the same time allow magazines that could contain hundreds of images.

In ruling against Jackson, the appeals court said the prison’s policy was reasonable – and Jackson could always get around it by ordering magazines. Even though Aniston may not be in every issue he subscribed to, the court said, “the likelihood of an eventual photograph of her is sufficiently high to suffice as an alternative.”  Jackson had argued a commercial photo would be less trouble for the prison than if he had to order several magazines to find the one picture of Aniston he wanted.

Oh the humanity!  How dare that pretentious arrogant 7th Circuit write a “snarky” opinion saying that Ms. Aniston has appeared in “foregettable recent films.”  What about “Leprechaun” 

  or the hit TV movie “Camp Cucomonga” 

  or who could forget “The Thin Pink Line”


But seriously the point of this story is that this poor murderer is being denied the one and only thing he wants- a picture of his favorite hottie–is that so wrong?

I mean look at his prison:

 Prison cell nicethis is just shameful–what a dreary horrible location (ok–this isn’t really “his” prison but it is a real prison–author’s license and all ya know)

Anyway–back to the real story–after an interview with the warden of the prison who instituted this “no commercial photographs” policy but nevertheless allows magazines in cells, he has decided to alter the policy slightly.  He realizes that Jackson does have a point–I mean the LAST thing we want to do to a murderer is violate his First Amendment right.  You know the First Amendment which states in relevant part, ” Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to hang pictures of hot babes in their prison cells.”

The warden said that “hot babes” is not defined in the constitution and since he doesn’t think Jennifer is “hot” he won’t let her picture be used.  He then referred me to an excellent blog post regarding beauty written by the world famous Laurie Kendrick (“The Beauty Post“).  Beauty therefore is definitely in the eye of the beholder or the air brusher or the make-up artist.  The warden is kind of a naturalist and believes that true beauty is found when you shed all of those man-made props and so he is now willing to relax the policy to allow some commercial photos that are limited to the following photos ONLY: (by the way the warden sounded very sarcastic during the entire interview–more on that in a moment):






 and finally as a bonus picture–this next one is the most popular in cell block D


 I withheld my comments during our discussion but asked the warden if I could take his picture for my blog post–he obliged:

 I don’t know but I think the warden has a hidden agenda going on here–nevertheless, finally all of the murderers, theives, rapists, molesters and drug dealers will have some commercial photos to look at as they pass their time away behind bars.


The Argument for Bigger Governmental Control of Our Lives: Chapter 7: The END of The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis

December 5, 2007

Well it had to happen sooner or later–the silly citizens of the US have gotten themselves in a bind over sub-prime mortgages and since we are soooooo stupid, the Government (our loving father and mother) has decided that we have been punished long enough.  Today, our Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (admit it–you didn’t know until just now who that was–neither did I) stated that banks are “close to a deal” to rewrite loans that are set to increase in interest next year to try and stop the massive amount of foreclosures expected.

See, what happened here is that people were given an option to purchase a home (sometimes that they could not afford) and get a great interest rate for a few years that would increase later when their income (wishful thinking) would also increase to handle the additional payments.  The weird thing is that the borrowers in these cases all received documents that explain everything–including how their interest rate would increase over time.  Also, the ultimate decision to buy a house that they could not afford—was theirs since they signed the contracts.  But as we know, we simply cannot take care of ourselves. 

Since the Government is considering some form of socialistic law or buyout to help those who made these decisions and are about to lose their home, I propose that the Congress pass sweeping legislation to help all of us out of stupid decisions.

I would call the act “THE FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCES ACT OF 2007” Here are my ideas:


  Under this section of the bill it should say:  “In all cases where a person (as defined herein) decides to drink beverages that contain alcohol in such quantity and in such a short span of time as to constitute what people call an “all night bender” then should that person do any of the following they will receive an amount of money equal to what they spent to obtain, destroy such items or the amount it would take to correct such purchases or activities, whichever is greater:

a.  Lip, Tongue, Belly or “privates” piercings

b. Tatoos

c.  Destruction of Property (including, but not limited to, sheetrock from fist punching, lamps, or rugs with vomit stains)

d. Contraction of illness or disease

e. Any form of destruction to an automobile, truck, lightpole or fence.

f. Things said to known persons in excessive hatred or imagined love (this would likely result in reimbursement for therapy and anti-anxiety medication)


  Under this section of the bill it should say:  “In all cases where a person (as defined herein) has decided, despite their income, to use their credit cards to make excessive purchases (as defined below), that person will receive full release from all interest rates charged on their credit cards, an extension of future credit for use on future purchases and, in cases of extreme gluttony, full relief from the purchases themselves.  “Excessive purchases” would include, but not be limited to the following:

a.  More than 50 Webkins dolls

b. A TV larger than 51″ that is either plasma or LCD

c. 2 trips to Starbucks each day for coffee that when ordered takes at least 4 words to say (i.e. ‘Grande, Sugar-Free, Vanilla, Breve, Latte)

d. An Xbox360 obtained for the sole purpose of being able to play Halo 3.

e.  Any Star Wars Collectibles

f.  KC Lights for your Truck

g. All purchases at Sam’s Club

h. Memberships in Wine Clubs


    Under this section of the bill it should say: “In all cases where a person (as defined herein) gets married or has kids or both and discovers it was a horrible mistake then that person will receive a free divorce and a full refund for any and all costs associated with having a bad child.  For purposes of this section “Horrible Mistake” is defined as marrying any of the following:

a.  A person to replace your mother

b. A sibling or cousin (for Arkansas only) (Louisiana can apply for this before a review committee)

c. Anyone who during the dating period uttered the words “You complete me”

d. A person that thinks a fun night begins by dressing up like an Ummpa Loompa.

e. Anyone related to the Clintons, Kennedys, Pelosi’s or a citizen from France.


    Finally, in this section it should say:  “In the event that a person (as defined herein) purchases a bad haircut, that person will be entitled to a full refund from the Government.  The person must send a picture of said haircut with their refund request.  This refund does not apply to John Edwards,  or any person who purposely gets a mullet because even the Government can’t help you.

 Finally, “Person” for purposes of this act is defined as anyone who was born into the United States with a sense of entitlement, anyone who is naturally selfish, anyone who believes that they are standing still while the Earth revolves around their awesome presence, or anyone who believes that they are just too stupid to breathe without a little help from Uncle Sam.


A Gender Neutral Christmas-For the Delusional

November 28, 2007

Well, in Sweden there seems to be some debate as to whether or not women and men are different.  I thought this was settled in the first two chapters of Genesis, but I admit, I know little about women and understand less so I could be wrong.  See the following story: (Topless Women Make Waves)

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (Nov. 22) – A group of Swedish women is making waves by taking their tops off at public swimming pools in a protest against what they call gender-biased rules on swim wear. About 40 women have joined the network and staged topless protests in at least three cities, said Sanna Ferm, 22, one of the founders of the group called Bara Brost, or Bare Breasts. “The purpose of the campaign is to start a debate about why women’s bodies are sexualized,” Ferm said Wednesday. She said the fact that men can be bare-chested in public swimming pools but not women is “a concrete example of how women have fewer rights than men.” Reactions from other swimmers have ranged from support and encouragement to anger and even indifference, she said. The network was formed after two women who were swimming topless in a public swimming pool in Uppsala, north of Stockholm, were asked to cover up or leave. Women can sunbathe topless in the summertime at beaches around Sweden, which is known for its relaxed attitude toward nudity, but they are required to wear tops at public swimming pools. Inger Groteblad, a manager at the swimming facility in Uppsala, said it was a matter of security. “We want to make sure that girls don’t get subjected to sexual harassment,” she was quoted as saying by tabloid Aftonbladet. The women have filed a complaint against the facility to Sweden’s Equal Opportunities Ombudsman.

 Ummm…Okay so I guess the point is that since men can be topless-women should be able to as well.  At first I wanted to say–hello, men don’t have breasts, but then I saw this:

  Okay so maybe you have a point Sweden.  But what the heck does “sexualized” mean?  I’m not even sure it is a word.  So I went to and looked and sure enough it means the following:

“sex·u·al·ize:  -verb; to render sexual; endow with sexual characteristics. “

So, the point is that the women of Sweden are tired of having people render their body with sexual characteristics.  Oddly the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman is an organization that fights for gender equality in the workplace.  So where in Sweden are women wanting to be allowed to work topless?  Odd.

I think we should just stop this madness altogether right now.  Let’s face it–the women of Sweden are right–they are not sexual objects.  For example–see this picture of the Swedish Bikini Team I found on Google Images:

 yeesh!  Hideous don’t you think?  It’s like they are women-but maybe they are men–hard to tell.  So then I suppose the real point is that we should all think about whether or not it makes sense to differentiate between genders.  After all aren’t we all humans first?

I propose that this Christmas all the parents try and buy gender neutral gift so that their kids don’t get sucked into this whole gender identity issue.  Here are some suggestions:

1. Gender Neutral Ken Doll

  Is it a man?  Is it a woman?  Who cares?

2. Gender Neutral Doll House

Who lives there?  Mom and Dad?  no…just some humans.

3. Teletubbies

  No one know what they are–the oldest/biggest carries a purse with an upside down purple triangle on his/her head.  Perfect for your little human.

4. A Blue Tutu

  For the little dancer in all of us.

5.  Hello Kitty Ninja Warrior

  She/He can kick butt in either gender.

Maybe if we all try really hard to throw out these tired notions of male and female we can all eventually live in a harmonious society where everyone looks like this:


The Argument for Bigger Governmental Control of Our Lives: Chapter 6-No More Spanking!

November 27, 2007

It is time for another addition in the ongoing epic journey into why the Government should control all aspects of our lives.  As stated before–we cannot do it alone.  We have too much going on with eating, sleeping, breathing, blinking, walking, sitting, we hardly have time for working, parenting, or managing any other part of our lives.  My solution—let the Government do it–what other body of individuals knows better how we should live and act than our esteemed elected officials?  None.

Today the Boston has the following story about helping all of us out in an area that we fail at day in and day out–parenting:


BOSTON — Lawmakers on Beacon Hill are set to consider a proposed ban on spanking children in the commonwealth. NewsCenter 5’s Shiba Russell reported that the issue is set for debate at a Statehouse hearing Wednesday morning.  The Boston Herald reported that State Rep. Jay Kaufman filed the spanking ban petition at the request of an Arlington, Mass., nurse who wants Massachusetts to become the first state in the country to stop corporal punishment.   If this proposal does become law and parents are caught hitting their children who are under the age of 18 they could be charged with abuse or neglect.

It is about time don’t you think?  I mean after all, “spanking” is obviously a form of abuse.  I, um…this is hard for me…was a victim of spanking.  Yes it’s true and it has caused me great emotional distress and anguish over the years.  For example, I break into hives everytime I see any of the following items:


And this next one–well I’m choked up even mentioning it:

  Oh, it is so awful.

But I’m one of the lucky ones.  Despite the “waterboard-like” torture I received as a child, I rose above, through grit and determination I suppressed my memories of those days in hell and went to law school and am doing well.  But not all people can say that.  Some never really get over their spanking experiences.  Like these poor ballet stars:


 Some sickos actually made a career opportunity out of their experiences:

So I must give my praise to Mass. for such innovative and parental-controlling legislation.  Mass. has always been so smart about parents though.  For example, in 1999, in a case called ENO v. LMM the Superior Court decided that there can be such a thing as a “De Facto Parent” a person-not a real parent-that has had such an influence on a child’s life that he/she can get visitation rights for that child.  What a great idea!  Along with the anti-spanking and the chance to see a Kennedy, I’m really considering a move.

Having given the De Facto Parent idea some thought I have decided to petition the Court in Mass. to declare certain individuals a De Facto Parent of mine.  Here are my choices:

1.  Donald Trump-He has made me realize the importance of allowing my hair to naturally bald itself right on out–for that reason alone I think he should be declared my De Facto Parent–and he is freaky rich.

2.  Oprah Winfrey-She has influenced me so much.  I know now that if you eat all the time, you will not lose weight.  I know that if you write down in a book that all you have to do is think about something and it will happen, she will put that book on her show and make you rich.  One of her good friends is Dr. Phil-need I say more? –I think she should be declared my De Facto parent because of her influences–and she is freaky rich.

3. Billy Joel–(first–I have all of his Cd’s so–duh)-But also-he has shown me that you can be kind of a 1 in looks and still marry 10’s.  He has shown me that you can be short and balding and still marry good looking intellingent girls that are half your age.  For these reasons-he has taught me to never give up and therefore he should be my De Facto Parent–and he is freaky rich.

Hopefully one of these will stick.  As for the spanking issue–who can argue with it?  After all–these people were never spanked and they are famous:

Hillary Silly  This was the only time she was spanked actually.

  The Kennedy’s never spanked.

  So famous–and no spanking.

   Not only famous-but ellusive and a master at video technology.

 Thank you Mass.  Now I can create a family where Donald Trump and Oprah are my parents and I know they won’t spank me if I’m bad which will allow me to become a world-famous, egomaniacal, drunk murderer who will continue to thrive despite my wrongdoings and get lots of TV time.

The truth is–without laws like this we will continue to adhere to thoughts like this one:

 Because as we all know–if the Government doesn’t tell us how to parent–how will we know how?


The Argument For Bigger Governmental Control of Our Lives: Chapter 5: Cell Phones

November 5, 2007

And now for this week’s chapter in the ongoing epic detailing blow by blow, word by word, why the Government should control all aspects of our lives.  As you know, the Government “cares” about it citizens and “worries” about their well-being.  We, of course, are all nothing but silly sheep herding around looking for a Shepherd with a website that ends in “.gov” to show us the way.  We are like children with no parents, like ducks with no “V” to fly in , like dung beetles with no dung, like…you get the picture. 

Thankfully, the Government “knows” what is best for us and when it sees a problem in society it swoops in with what can only be called the “best and ONLY solution.” 

For example:


Star-Ledger Staff

Beginning March 1, people who send text messages or use hand-held cell phones while they drive should be prepared to fork over $100.

Gov. Jon Corzine signed a bill yesterday that makes talking on a hand-held cell phone a primary offense, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. New Jersey becomes the fourth state to enact such a measure, joining California, Connecticut and New York.

Those dadgum cell phones are causing so many accidents.  Of course, as the Government wisely points out–it is not humans that cause them, but devices such as cell phones and SUV’s.  I am thankful for such laws, for without them we would be running our cars into each other and we would surely all perish.

However, I think the Government has made a good start here, but it seems that it is just not enough.  After all, cell phones are one of MANY distractions that actually cause accidents.   I am writing a letter to my Senators (ooops, can’t–its Hutchison and Cornyn)–okay, I’ll just write Sheila Jackson Lee and see if she can suggest a Federal law that is similar along with outlawing the following other activities while driving.

  1. Eating a taco or hamburger
  2. Opening a straw covered in plastic instead of paper
  3. Painting your nails
  4. Finding the right CD
  5. Skipping a song on your IPod which is hooked to an IRadio device
  6. Arguing with your spouse
  7. Arguing with your kids
  8. Arguing with yourself
  9. Rolling down the window to give someone a 3-D flip-off
  10. Rolling down the window to spit
  11. Lighting a cigarette/cigar
  12. Driving within 30 minutes of finding out you failed a final exam
  13. Driving on the Kansas Turnpike when you have to go to the bathroom
  14. Reading the mail, newspaper, latest Danielle Steel novel
  15. Blinking
  16. Sneezing
  17. Coughing
  18. Laughing
  19. Crying
  20. Singing
  21. Thinking (unless about driving)
  22. Digging for change for the toll road
  23. Driving by the Ocean
  24. Looking at a beautiful person walking down the road
  25. Looking at a map (especially a Yahoo map)
  26. Wishing upon a star
  27. Looking at a rainbow
  28. Pointing out the moo-cows to your 2 year old
  29. Passing
  30. Turning
  31. Stopping
  32. Driving with an insect in your car (felony if it is a bee or wasp)
  33. Listening to NPR if you are a Conservative
  34. Listening to Rush if you are a Liberal
  35. Listening to Rap at all
  36. Listening to any sporting event except soccer
  37. Writing a check
  38. Writing a grocery list
  39. Checking a to-do list
  40. Digging for a Bed Bath and Beyond Coupon
  41. and of course, any form of sex.

I know there are more–but alas, I’m not nearly as smart as the Government.  This should get them starting.  We can only hope that the final list will be endless, cover everything and then, finally, we will be safe on the road.


The Supreme Court to Decide Whether 7 Minutes of “Possible” Pain is too Cruel and Unusual for Our Nation’s Most Heinous!

November 1, 2007

Well, Texas and all other States with the death penalty have decided to issue a halt to all executions pending the Supreme Court decision as to whether or not lethal injection is “cruel and unusual.”   The Supreme Court halted the execution a Florida inmate who is challenging the method of execution.  In that case, like the Kentucky case that the Supreme Court will hear next year, (Baze v. Rees) the inmates lawyers argue that the cocktail of three drugs used to numb, immobilise, and eventually kill the prisoner does not constitute a painless death.  How tragic!  I suppose this means that they think the prisoner might endure some amount of pain after receiving the drugs.  How barbaric!

So what did this Florida inmate Clarence Hill do to deserve such a harsh and obviously prehistoric sentence?  In 1982, yes 82!, he was convicted of shooting a police officer to death while robbing a bank in Pensacola.  Just for reference, “Eye of the Tiger” was the number one song that year.  The police officer’s name was Stephen Taylor–here is a post on a Site dedicated to memorials posted by his brother: 

 My Brother Police Officer Stephen Taylor (13157) Almost 24 years ago my loving brother Steve was killed when he answered a robbery in progress call at a bank in Pensacola, Florida. His killer, Clarence Hill, is still on death row. He was to be executed on 1-24-06, but received a last minute stay. Steve, I wish I could have seen you, hugged you, laughed, or cried, with you for the past 24 years!! You knew how much your family loved you because we told you so often and we knew you loved us for the same reason. I, and your other sisters, your brother, your Mom and your Dad (who sadly passed away last Feb.) have loved and missed you every day of lives since you left us and always will!! You are our hero…. not just because of your actions on Oct. 19, 1982 when you answered that call at the bank and was left to die on a curbside (the memory of which will be forever etched in our hearts), but because you were always such a kind, gentle, loving man. You weren’t ashamed to share your faith and love for God and to let your family and friends know that you loved and cherished them…qualities that portray the measure of the real man that you were. Our family was so blessed to have you for 26 years and we thank God for every single day of that 26 years!!

But, of course, Mr. Hill might experience some pain if he receives the lethal injection for his crime and wouldn’t that be unusual and cruel?  How dare us even consider hurting Mr. Hill during the last seconds of his life–its unthinkable.

 So yesterday, the Supreme Court gave a Halloween present to another inmate–this one from Mississippi.  Mississippi inmate Earl Wesley Berry, who has been on death row for 19 years for the murder of a woman, had been served his last supper and was 15 minutes away from execution when the court intervened.   Earl Wesley Berry was to be put to death for the kidnapping and murder of Mary Bounds in rural Mississippi in 1987.  Mary Bounds was 56 years old in 1987 when Mr. Berry abducted her from choir practice and subsequently beat her to death.  He confessed to killing her but never said why and never showed any remorse.

Again, how could we even consider inflicting any amount of pain on a murderer who beat his victim to death.  It’s unthinkable.  Here is Ms. Bounds husband pleading with the corrections officer regarding the Supreme Court’s decision:
Charles Bounds, left, speaks to Mississippi corrections official Chris Epps about the stay of execution for his wife's killer, Earl Wesley Berry.

And how about that Kentucky case that started all of this insanity?  The appeal was filed by two Kentuckians who received death sentences for double murders. Ralph Baze was convicted of the shooting murders of a sheriff and a deputy sheriff in Powell County, Ky., in 1992, when they were trying to serve felony warrants on him from Ohio. They were killed execution-style. Thomas C. Bowling was convicted of the shooting murders of a couple, and wounding their two-year-old son, as the victims sat inside their car in a business parking lot in Lexington, Ky., in 1990. Bowling had run into their car with his vehicle, got out and shot the three, and then fled the scene.  Both of these gems from our society are challenging only the method of execution, not whether they should receive it–but the implication of the ruling from the Court could halt hundreds of executions all over the Country.  Today, the Harris County District Attorney’s office stated it would not seek execution dates from any convicted murderers until after the Supreme Court makes its ruling–which will be late next year!

Their petition argues that there is “undisputed evidence” in the record “that any and all of the current lethal injection protocols could be replaced with other chemicals that would pose less risk of pain while causing death than the tri-chemical cocktail currently used.” The three chemicals are sodium thiopental, to include unconsciousness; pancuronium bromide, to paralyze the muscles, and potassium chloride to cause cardiac arrest and death. The petition particularly focuses on the second chemical, contending that it masks the excruciating pain that results from the protocol’s used, so that the inmate suffers needlessly before dying.   Death usually occurs within 7 minutes.

Well pardon me Supreme Court–7 minutes?  Forget whether you agree with the death penalty or not before you comment here–the case is not about that–it is ONLY about whether the method is cruel and unusual–not the actual death part.  Okay? 

Now–focusing the debate on that only–are we really arguing in our society whether Mary Bounds life is worth Mr. Berry suffering some portion of 7 minutes of pain?  Are we really arguing whether Stephen Taylor’s life is worth Mr. Hill suffering some portion of 7 minutes of pain?  I can tell you this–if my mother/wife was Mary Bounds or my father/son/brother was Stephen Taylor I would be angry that 7 minutes is all it takes.  I think Mary suffered during her beating more than 7 minutes, I think Stephen Taylor, who was left on the curb to die suffered more than 7 minutes.  And the victims’ families and loved ones–they get the joy and pleasure of suffering for the rest of their natural lives.

7 minutes of pain is cruel and unusual–for the victims.  It is hardly much to ask from the murdering psychopaths who have recklessly and mercilously destroyed the lives of these police officers, sherrif’s deputies, and church-going, granmothers leaving choir practice.   How dare we even consider this ridiculous appeal.  I am ashamed and I can only hope the Court writes an opinion upholding the practice once and for all!