Here's a nice sentimental piece on the passing of the Pontiff;

The Bush in the pews

a hope in the heaven's loop ?
supani

a poop in the earthy goop

From the article, referring to American Catholics:

"According to a poll by Gallup, 78% want the next pope to allow Catholics to use birth control; 63% say he should let priests marry; 59% believe he should have a less strict policy on stem cell research; 55% say he should allow women to be priests."

American Catholics who believe like that are in the wrong church. The solution is simple. The Catholic Church won't change, so change churches.

They didn't ask in the poll how many Catholics wouldn't mind being excommunicated.


"Forgive me father for I have sinned...
just don't tell me what to do, okay?"

Something you won't hear from Republicans is that Pope John Paul II spoke out against the illegal invasion of Iraq. Another thing not mentioned is that the Church supports a "culture of life" that is against the death penalty.

and abortion

But the Republicans and the Church agree on that one, along with prohibition of birth control and extramarital sex. My point is that the Church is more pro-life than the Republicans because the Church is against unnecessary and illegal war and is against the death penalty. The implication of this is that the Republicans are hypocritical in claiming they are for a culture of life.

Who coined "culture of life" anyway?

When I hear the phrase come out of Bush's pie hole,
I have to go dump my lunch in the shitter.

When he was Governor of Texas, he allowed 150 executions,
50 of those in the year as a candidate for prez,
now there's a culture of life.

(I'd better go easy on the purging, or I'll end up with a feeding tube just like Schiavo and the Pope.)

I'm fine with converting a certain subset of beings into fertilizer if they have earned it, although I am also concerned with the problem of mistakenly convicting innocent people or errant judges doling out excessive sentences.

I am not against the death penalty, in principle, either. However, the way it is implemented has not been "fair" to say the least. The argument, against the penalty, that death is irreversible does not wash, as taking ten years away from a person can't be reversed either.

can an illegal war still be a good war (in the long run, for the people, for the future, for women, for the surroudning countries.....)?

i just wonder, if we examined the legality of any past wars, whether (m)any "side(s)" would have had a legal position to start it, join in or ignore it.

See below (courtesy of BBC news) for reasons to be cheerful, part 1:

Prisoners 'aware' in executions


Prisoners are alone in the death chamber when they die

Prisoners executed by lethal injection in the US may have been aware of what was happening to them, researchers claim.

A team from the University of Miami looked at information on anaesthesia and awareness in prisoners.

They suggest some suffer unnecessarily, and claim standards do not meet those for putting animals down.

The researchers, writing in the Lancet, call for the use of lethal injection to cease to prevent "unnecessary cruelty".

'No observation'

In America, lethal injection is the most common way that people are legally put to death, largely because it is seen as relatively humane and does not violate the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.


Current practice for lethal injection for execution fails to meet veterinary standards



Dr Leonardis Koniaris, University of Miami


Prisoners are first given sodium thiopental, which acts as an anaesthetic before pancuronium bromide is given to cause paralysis. Potassium chloride is then given to cause death.

Without anaesthesia, the person would experience suffocation and excruciating pain - but would not be able to move.

The researchers collected information from the states of Texas and Virginia, where around 45% of executions in the US are carried out.

They also interviewed officials involved in executions.

It was found that most had no training in executions, and that drugs were administered without any direct observation, physical examination or electronic measurement.

The researchers said that it appeared executioners assumed prisoners had been anaesthetised successfully if they were given the standard dose of thiopental.

But they warn this might not be true if the drug is given incorrectly, or if the execution takes longer than anticipated. Anxiety or serious substance abuse can also affect how high a dose the prisoner needs.

'Stain on US record'

The researchers then analysed autopsy data for 49 prisoners who had been executed in Arizona, Georgia. North Carolina and South Carolina.

They found that concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than that required for surgery in 43 cases. In 21 of those, the concentrations in prisoners' blood were consistent with them being aware of what was going on.

Writing in the Lancet, the researchers, led by Dr Leonardis Koniaris, said: "We certainly cannot conclude that these inmates were unconscious and insensate.

"However, with no monitoring and with little use of the paralytic agent, any suffering of the inmate would be undetectable."

They add: "The absence of training and monitoring, and the remote administration of drugs, coupled with eyewitness reports of muscle responses during execution, suggest that the current practice for lethal injection for execution fails to meet veterinary standards."

In an accompanying editorial, the Lancet said: "Capital punishment is not only an atrocity, but also a stain on the record of the world's most powerful democracy.

"Doctors should not be in the job of killing."

American Medical Association ethical guidelines bar physicians from taking part in executions. But a survey has shown that 19% were willing to inject lethal drugs.

Rick, remind me, has the UN actually stated, since the original resolutions that seemed to support the invasion of Iraq, that it deems the war illegal? And in this context, the UN is the law maker, of course. And what is your opinion about the ridding of Sadam from Iraq through the vehicle of the war. Many consider that, with hindsight and the WMD issues, the war might/should have been avoided, but since it took place, an emergent property (the fall of Sadam) means that the outcome is beneficial and thus the war was a good war, especially for the people of Iraq.

1. The UN has not passed a resolution, to my knowledge, declaring the invasion "illegal." However, if one reads the resolutions dealing with legality of war in general, the invasion fits the definition of an illegal war. See http://lawofwar.org/outline.htm

2. If we were to undertake to rid the world of all tyrants by force, then we have many more wars to fight. Why didn't we start with Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam? We had many chances over the last 50 years, and many dismal failures. Do we just pick on the easy targets? Do we let it be known that we stand against injustice only so long as the perpetrator is weak?

No, the UN hasn't accepted the action either. The UN sometimes has a hard time doing anything.

Easy? What do you think? Mission accomplished! We invaded North Korea and failed. We invaded Cuba and failed. We invaded Vietnam and failed. Iraq was a cakewalk in comparison.