Great Moments in Blather: Big government thugocrats to kill taxpayer with his own money

There's a bill in the legislature - once again - to ban the crude and barbaric practice of capital punishment... it is said to have a better chance this year than usual...Here's our post from September 2010 when the last human being was put to death by the state of Washington.

When the statist thugocracy flexes its awesome power by robbing a sovereign tax-payer of his very life, where are the libertarians? (Hint: don't leave the light on for 'em...)

Murderer Cal Coburn Brown will die by lethal injection Friday in Walla Walla by 1 ayem, barring legal intervention; it's the first execution in Washington since 2001.

We witnessed the one in 2001; it was our fifth.

Here, in part, is a BlatherWatch post from December, 2005:

I'm passionately against the death penalty (so passionate I'm eschewing the "royal we," I usually use in this blog).

I was a media witness to the last execution in Washington State and watched the pathetic little death of a pathetic little man named James Homer Elledge who'd killed a couple of nice church ladies in the basement of a Lynnwood Methodist church where he'd worked as a janitor.

I covered it for the Seattle Weekly and Agence France-Presse, a French international wire service who's always hungry for the gory details of American barbarity.

Elledge was deeply disturbed and so ridden with sick Christian guilt, he refused to mount a defense.

It was state-supervised suicide.

I plotz with Christians over the death penalty. The biggest bunch of them, the Roman Catholics, are institutionally against it. That's why Europeans made it illegal long ago- not because they're a bunch of godless socialists as you hear on talk radio- but because they were (are) Catholics following the moral leadership of their church.

(Evangelical, born-again, fundamentalist Christians, (different names for the same orthodoxy) follow the vengeful Old Testament legalism of an eye-for-an eye (agreeing with Moslems, BTW) even though they sentence the Jews to hell for denying the New Testament, which is the Old Testament, The Sequel, starring Jesus. To make it even more conundrumatic, and confusing- most Jews we know agree with the Catholics. Others more orthodox, we hear, do not. The dwindling mainline Protestant brands like Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans agree with the Catholics, and the Reformed Jews. Of course, there are exceptions within each and everyone of these congregations. It just goes to show you: religionists are really hard to understand).

Me ? I'm with the Pope on this one.

My dad, a Republican legislator in the 1950's, helped pass the bill outlawing capital punishment in Washington State. It stood until the US Supreme Court declared all capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. Boy, those 1950's were the days! Redemption was a Christian family value, and Republicans were compassionate. Hard to imagine, no? (And it was too good to be true: The Supremes re-allowed it in 1976, the US joining such national role models of justice as Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China and Yemen).

Today, Dori Monson (KIRO m-f, 12-3p) made jokes about Tookie [Williams, just executed in CA] "getting nookie" and we heard listeners all over the dial opine that the big thug never deserved a trial in the first place.

(The festive vengeance today wasn't so different than the glee I saw in Lagos, Nigeria in 1972 after a Sunday afternoon firing squad dispatched 4 criminals in a soccer stadium before thousands in their Sunday best. It was a picnic event, everybody got drunk and spit on the bound prisoners both before and after they were shot down. Little boys came up, put lit cigarettes into the mouths of the corpses and posed with arms around them for tourist photos. I love the human race!).

The execution I saw in Walla Walla in 2001 was quite different. It was clinical and actually boring. It was such a non-event, I felt myself wanting more. It was if I'd paid for Terminator II, and got the Little Mermaid instead. From The Weekly:

WE SAT ON THE EDGES of our seats like kids waiting for a puppet show. Then the curtain went up, revealing the shitty little room with its exposed electrical conduits, elevated now to the dramatic status of "death chamber."

A small one-way glass window behind Elledge's head concealed the anonymous "injection team." These "licensed medical practitioners" are chosen by prison superintendent John Lambert, their identities known only to him.

Elledge lay on his back on the old wooden gurney. The clear plastic intravenous lines coming out of the wall behind him led to catheters stuck in his arms under a dark blue sheet covering him feet to chin. His arms sat on rests angled away from his sides, hands completely covered with black tape.

With his eyes and mouth closed, he looked already dead. His scraggly beard was shaved, leaving one of those bushy 1970s mustaches favored by cops. His thin, graying hair was combed forward and looked blow-dried; his skin appeared very white. He was laid out like a corpse at a mortuary viewing.

Lambert, a balding man in shirtsleeves, came out and said hurriedly into a microphone, "Inmate Elledge has no last words."

There's more drama in putting down a dog, anesthetizing a frog, or salting a slug than there was in watching this human die.

I stared at his chest with the dark sheet against the light wall to detect a breath. I saw no movement. Some reporters said they saw a breath, some said an eyebrow twitched; we all saw his jaw relax and mouth open. The first drug, two grams of thiopental, a sedative, was so massive that even if they had stopped the other chemicals, it would have been over. Then came a load of pancuronium bromide, which paralyzed him from the neck down; finally, potassium chloride stopped his heart. In these amounts, any one of these drugs would be fatal. They wanted to prevent a "Rasputin phenomenon," an uncomfortable situation named after the mad monk who wouldn't die.

We witnessed very little. There was no beginning, and we knew it was over only when the curtain fell and Veltry Johnson told us Elledge had been pronounced dead at 12:52 a.m.

I felt ripped off. It seemed a mockery of the witness requirement--we were supposed to view the alleged humanity of this process, but we had no real access to it. His attorney had left him at 11 p.m. For all we know, in the next hour and a half he could have changed his mind, tried to stop his execution, been wrestled down by guards, had a needle stuck in his arm to shut him up, and then been laid out for us to "witness."

I HAVE NO REASON to think this scenario happened--nor that this Department of Corrections is evil. But I can't say that about Texas, Florida, or some future DOC. The awesome power given the state, with so much secret discretion in this life-and-death duty, is for me the overriding argument against capital punishment. Even if the judicial process could somehow be made perfectly just and fair, the power to put to death should not be in human hands.

This execution took place as a new discussion was starting in America about the death penalty. There'd just been a moratorium on executions declared by Governor Ryan in Illinois after law students had sprung scores of death row inmates who they found were mistakenly accused or convicted.

There was great hope and expectation that the American people, who polled at some 70% for the death penalty, may be cycling around to that compassionate place where my father and his peers had been in 1959.

It was not to be. 9-11 happened the following week; the nation saw blood on the moon and suddenly it was wartime and the suffix 'compassionate' was scratched off George W. Bush's self-description and replaced with 'neo.'

Maybe the tide has started to turn once more as our country has grown sick with this is war. But from what we heard today on the radio, we're not making book on it.

Reading: John Grisham's non-fictional The Innocent Man, about the cases that turned the conservative attorney/novelist against the death penalty.

Comments

[Truthseeker]

I see, Puget Sound, that Goldwater became considerably more liberal in the eighties and nineties. I didn't know that.

I think I sum up my philosophy when I conclude that there are no social liberals who are not simultaneously fiscally liberal. I think people who say they are socially liberal are paying lip service to the easy liberal parts but are hanging onto their wallets with clenched fists when it costs them money.

[Truthseeker]

Questions:
#1 Yes, he lied.

#2 I do not support the Patriot Act.

#3 I do not support the use of predator drones.

#4 I do not support the war in Afghanistan. I do not believe it is winnable. I think we should pull out immediately or whenever good liberals who understand the policy and politics determine when and how we should leave. The sooner the better.

Anything else?

[Walt]

I haven't gone anywhere KS. Still here, reading your dribble.

[A Day Called X]

Why scares me about today's Republicans is their idiocy. Rick Perry and the last TX governor foisted on them. You could put up Dick Cheney except there is a constitutional prohibition against one individual serving more than 2 terms as President...

[KS]

TS - I don't think Bush lied about Iraq any more than Obama was being factually correct about Bush-43 being responsible for more food stamps than he.

In Bush's run up to invading Iraq, his advisors cherry picked the evidence that was shown about Iraq moving their weapons - among them Colin Powell. They should have waited six months until the weapons inspectors were through and the Democrats should have paid more attention to what they were voting for. Instead, prominent Democrats (Clinton, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy, and Biden) all voted for us going into Iraq, then denounced the war after it was seen that it wasn't going that well. They wanted it both ways and did not offer any plausible explanation why they had voted for a show of force in the first place except the Bush lied copout. I fault them almost as much as I fault the Bush administration for getting us bogged down there. If they had opposed it earlier, we may not have gone there.

Yes, we should also get out of Afghanistan - Obama's War. We should leave ASAP. The Drones served us militarily when we were engaged, but they too should leave when our troops do. That technology is available if and when ever are in that predicament.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

TS
Where did I say I was a social conservative? I wrote:
"I'm not a holly roller Jerry Falwell type; rather, I am a Goldwater type ie keep Uncle Sugar out of my life and out of my wallet."

You know, personal liberty. Seems like you have 'locked on' to a point and are doggedly holding on to it for some reason.

TS you say, "Are you against New Deal programs? Those are the criteria one has to answer honestly to be considered socially liberal."

Which 'New Deal Programs' are we talking about? He proposed many and a number of them were struck down by the Supreme Court. FDR then tried to get around that by 'packing' the Supreme Court.

If you are talking about things like the SEC, FDIC, FHLB, Glass-Steagall, Social Security I can agree with these things. And others. But please check your history to ensure you understand what you are saying if you mean agree with FDR or you are not a Liberal. FDR was a man who imprisoned hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN citizens for no crime or wrongdoing other then being of Japanese Descent. FDR did nothing to integrate the US Military or propose meaningful concepts such as anti-lynching laws or civil rights.

FDR believed in large gov't (btw his programs failed to improve unemployment) and I hope you are not trying to say that one must believe in large gov't to be socially liberal. Is that your point? Please tell us what you mean rather than dance around it. Do more than 'google' you're way around the conversation.

Keep engaged, Truthseeker, and you'll find what you say you are looking for.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

In terms of Gov't, for those folks idly wondering how it would be great for Newt to get the nomination because Pres Obama could beat him easily, just remember in an election anything can happen. In fact, Newt is making plans already per a great website hosted by Dave Weigal (I can picture Sparky heading to Canada, don't forget Fremont!)

Newt Gingrich Is Looking Out for You
By David Weigel | Posted Sunday, Jan. 29, 2012, at 8:45 AM ET
On Sarah Palin:

The Republican presidential candidate told CNN Wednesday evening that if he wins the White House, he'd ask the ex-Alaska governor to take a "major role" in his administration.
On Herman Cain:

Gingrich said he hopes Cain will co-chair a commission to lead the policy discussion on the economy and taxes... “I realize that as a co-chair of a commission like that, there would be a little thing called 9-9-9 that would be brought in and put on the table. So I fully expect that,” Gingrich said.
On Rick Perry:
I’m told reliably that Governor Perry will head up a 10th Amendment project for Speaker Gingrich to rally Governors and state legislators toward a plan of devolving power from Washington.
By waiting so long to make an endorsement, Michele Bachmann might be blowing her shot at running the Gingrich administration's Gardisil Study Group."

[KS]

Seems like the Republicans could have a difficult time uniting after this bloody campaign is over. Newt would probably have the toughest time if Romney is the nominee. There is a thing called the enthusiasm gap which has probably decreased some for the GOP. Can they get their enthusiasm back ? The TEA party is out there and will have an affect on this.

For the Dems who are reliant on the Occupiers to have an enthusiasm affect, don't think that will fly. They are too obsessed with One world government, bureaucratic fat cats, corporations - evil. They may well repudiate Romney as a Wall Street type. Don't see them endorsing Obomba lately because they know he is a corporatist, as he received more contributions from Wall Street than anyone - even though he keeps pounding that rich pay their fair share ad nauseum mantra, they don't trust him, which is one area that I agree with them.

[Truthseeker]

"You say you're a social conservative, use MLK to make your point, and then call yourself a "goldwater conservative?" Sounds like hypocrisy to me."

If you had followed the preceding posts, you would have caught the error: It should have read "You say you're a social liberal, use MLK . . . "
---------------------

Which programs? All of them.

---------------------FDR? Don't put words in my mouth. We are not debating FDR.
---------------------Packing the Court was a tactic and not a program and was legal at the time.
---------------------
Interning the Japanese was wrong from my point of view but that is twenty-twenty hindsight. Have you posted your outrage over The Patriot Act or the incarcerations and torture and Guantanamo?
---------------------

From WIKI: Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[1] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left

Nice to know you spent time rereading and thinking about the conversation. Any other questions? I have separated points to help you keep them straight. Can you answer as succinctly as I did yours in this post AND the previous set of answers to you? It would help keep the conversation on point.

[Truthseeker]

I do plan to be out much of today. So far I'm enjoying the debate although analyzing your posts takes time.

Now, don't call this a walt-ism or I might will have to resort to renaming it "pete-ism" since he opted out without responding to my question. Don't you think it preferable to eliminate all name calling entirely? When I started on this blog, I was told those were the rules.