Confirmation/Refutation- response (3)

Okay, so let me get this straight, the only supplier of a deadly drug, that is used and purchased by every state in the US, has blamed the shortage on “raw-material supplier issues”. What issues are we talking about exactly? Did the handoff in the alley go bad or what??

In an article distributed by the associated press, Kentucky is noted as having “ contacted other states unsuccessfully in search for sodium thiopental”. Boy would I have loved to hear that phone conversation. “Hi, Ohio? This is Kentucky, How are ya- good good...uh, say, do have any sodium thiopental lyin’ around?... No? Bummer......” Of course, Ohio would be lying because the state obtained enough for an execution on May 13, but uh, they won’t say where they got it.... Seriously, a state, not your next door neighbor, won’t tell you, or anyone else, who their dealer is. Georgia is probably playing it the coolest by saying they have an, “appropriate supply” of sodium thiopental... yes, an “ appropriate supply”..... Excuse me, but what exactly is an appropriate amount of lethal drugs? are we talkin’, like, Bob Marley appropriate, or like Bill Clinton appropriate?? Way to be mysterious Georgia.... My personal favorite however, the one that gets the gold star this time around, was given to us by that great state we call, Texas- listen to this excerpt:

“Prison officials in Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state, refused to discuss how much sodium thiopental they have on hand, saying the information could inflame protesters outside the death house, and "people could get seriously hurt or killed."

We wouldn’t want people getting seriously hurt now would we Texas....

Perhaps this absurdity will put the death penalty in the light it deserves. The issue is in essence, the availability of sodium thiopental, but the discussion of where and how states can get it is so petty and ridiculous when contrasted with the reality, the horror, and the atrocity of court ordered executions. Hopefully postponed deaths resulting from the inability of states to get their fix, will cause the US to consider rehab.

Is nothing holy? Not even ice cream??

As if there was any way that this wasn't bound to happen. Over the years we have seen that which is dearest to us,- romance, friendship, love, raisins- all become mere fodder for selling us products like raisins. Using religion was only a matter of time. Perhaps we can do a slot for pillsbury with Buddha, or a multitasking PDA with Shiva. Jesus will be our savior, and our favorite character on that 8:oo sitcom.... "did you know he had dinner with Angelina Jolie- yeah, he calls her his little Angel"..... insert canned laugh track here.

wikileaks

I've only just recently heard about wikileaks.com. I know its been up for quite awhile, so this may not have the kairos appropriate for a good chunk 'o' rhetoric, but I think it's worth writing about. It seems it's mission has been criticized as much as it has been revered, and I think there's good arguments on both sides. Those in favor of wikileaks would probably maintain a deductive syllogism similar to:

Honest governments are good governments

wikileaks promotes honesty within governments

wikileaks promotes good governments

and those opposed:

Countries depend on a degree of secrecy to maintain safety

Wikileaks prevents countries from being secretive

wikileaks makes countries unsafe to live.

While I've noted that their are good arguments on both sides, for the sake of this entry I will argue in favor of wikileaks.

I believe honesty naturally leads us into a place of vulnerability. Admitting faults to the masses will inevitably put a faulty entity into a vulnerable place where criticism can and should be expected. It seems Criticism in recent years has gone out of style; slight of hand by government officials and the uses of fear tactics in those same governments as well as in the methods of corporate advertisements are in no shortage, and it is rare that serious action is taken against them; but until those whom such falsifiers serve are educated enough to put dishonesty in its place, and the purveyors of it into a vulnerable situation, dishonest organizations, whether governmental or private, will have no need to re-evaluate their character. A democracy by its very definition has no place for secrecy amongst its practitioners, and the thought of something in a democratic agenda being disrupted by honesty is very disconcerting. Yes, a vulnerable position can be considered less safe then a protected one, but all the more reason to expedite the process of legitimization in faulty organizations. The thought of a government or a controlling entity necessitating lies, is far more unacceptable than a period of vulnerability whilst creating an honest infrastructure.

www.wikileaks.com