Today's New York Times

Some things stuck out for me today...

In the article titled "In the Congo, hunger and disease erode democracy." I was struck by something I never thought much about when reading about the Congo; it put things in perspective about how bad it is there.

In less than a decade, an estimated four million people have died, mostly of hunger and disease caused by the fighting. It has been the deadliest conflict since World War II, with more than 1000 people still dying each day.

The deadliest conflict since World War II.

Next is "Doctors See Way to Cut Suffering in Executions" It was about suffering during lethal injection. I'll be up front and state that I am against the Death Penalty because I believe the role of the State is to set the example of how people are to treat each other. If we decide collectively that people should not kill one another within our domain; then the state should not kill either. I'm not saying there are never legitimate times to kill a person; i'm saying the death penalty does not fall within that principle. People simply want revenge and peace for whatever crime has been done. The criminal has lost their right to proticipate freely within our society but thats as far as you can take it, too many factors are involved with such drastic crimes: mental health, and sociological realities; this does not legitimize the crime but it does put the breaks on the general publics thirst for blood. The first thing that stood out is the fact that with execution methods the concern is with how those viewing the execution are effected by the site of watching a person die in the manner that many of the drugs cause a person to die.

But medical experts say the current method of lethal injection could easily be changed to make suffering less likely

At the core of the issue is a debate about which matters more, the comfort of prisoners or that of the people who watch them die. A major obstacle to change is that alternative methods of lethal injection, though they might be easier on inmates, would almost certainly be harder on witnesses and executioners.

With a different approach, death would take longer and might involve jerking movements that the prisoner would not feel but that would be unpleasant for others to watch.

"Policy makers have historically considered the needs of witnesses in devising protocols" for execution, said Dr. Mark Dershwitz, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Massachusetts who has testified about the drugs used in lethal injection

because drugs like Pavulon can mask suffering, many states outlaw them for animal euthanasia.

We won't do it to other animals, we must want the person to suffer. What does that say about us?

Then it goes on to an interesting sociological pattern. Doctors and nurses tend to refuse to do the injection

Although some doctors and nurses do help in executions, lethal injection in many states is carried out by paramedics, technicians or other prison employees who do not have special training in anesthesia.

So there must be something in their training that causes them to refuse. This is an example I've heard about academia. Some people phrase it saying, Academia trains people to be atheists. Which seems strange to me from being in University. I was never once trained to be an atheist; I was trined to be rational, and methodical in regards to backing up whatever position i'm taking. So in a round about way academia does train people to be atheist since most rational and emperically valid methods of coming to a position on religion lead too uncertainty in an a definative answer and therefore the mythology of the society for which you live in will not magically be an answer that seems legitimate. My point is, something in the training of medical professionals keeps them from participating in the barbarian blood sport of tax funded revenge. So there must be some social benifits that can be applied to others to help promote ethical reasoning when dealing with very terrible occurances.

Finally check out the op-ed A Look at Republican Priorities: Comforting the Comfortable