Sticks and Stones

For those bloodthirsty and perhaps insane Sticks and Stones readers hoping for some tips for their own personal vendettas, I am sorry to disappoint. Michael Portillo, a former British MP, presented a most interesting documentary about this very issue in a quest to find if there is a truly humane way for the state to carry out the death sentence.

The lethal injection was once advertised as being the perfect way to kill an individual on death row. Three drugs are injected into the veins; the first a strong anaesthetic, the second a muscle relaxant, and the third a drug which induces cardiac arrest. Sounds just swell. The complications in this method arise, however, by the fact that due to the Hippocratic oath, doctors cannot administer the procedure and so mistakes often happen, sometimes including the injection of the drug into soft tissue instead of the veins. The result is a slow and painful death. Furthermore, it is possible for the anaesthetic to be injected incorrectly, so the patient can feel the muscle relaxant and cardiac arrest take hold; the sensation was described as being like having fire running through the veins.

Hanging was the method of death formerly employed in Britain. The idea is that the body is suddenly dropped, with a length of rope proportional to the individuals weight around the neck to fracture the top of the spine and destroy the brain stem. However, slightly misjudging the rope length (by a matter of feet or even inches) can lead to the head snapping off the body completely as happened with Saddam Hussein’s brother. Getting beheaded by a piece of rope is not the nicest sounding death. The number of variables between people’s physical anatomy (muscle strength, shape, neck length, neck thickness etc.) means it is impossible even for scientists today to identify the perfect rope lengths to stop this happening.

The electric chair was the next method looked at. Commonly used in America, the idea is to zap the convict with 2500 volts through a wet natural sponge to the head, and two more at the calves. The problems with this method are well known. This much electricity heading through the body does not necessarily kill the individual. Sometimes the whole process need be repeated several times. Furthermore, as doctors (for the same reasons mentioned above) cannot carry out the procedure, sometimes those who make mistakes. in the US an individual had a synthetic instead of a natural sponge used, which is not nearly as good a conductor. The result was being slowly cooked. Witnesses could hear his muffled screams.

Finally, the gas chamber. This was the horrific death sentence indiscriminately issues by the Nazis in their genocide attempts. Cyanide gas is pumped into a cell until death. If the individual takes deep breaths and remains calm, the poison kills much more quickly than if the individual panics. This is the problem. It is hard to ask somebody to cooperate in their own death. If they do not, they will experience great pain and suffering as they panic to breathe oxygen.

Portillo then discovered what he believed to be the perfect method of killing; hypoxia. The idea is that nitrogen gas is breathed in by the individual, which slowly takes root instead of oxygen in the blood killing the individual. The difference is that the experience is not painful but euphoric; the feeling is like being extremely drunk. It is not painful.

But as an American lobbyist who supports Capital Punishment pointed out, you and I will not necessarily enjoy Euphoria in death. Nor did the convict’s victims. So why should he/she? Perhaps the point is that we all have different ideas about what a humane and dignified death entails. Some of us would like to see a vindictive and retributive one. Others would rather not see one at all. Either way, I hope you use the knowledge responsibly and do not kill any human beings yourself any time soon.

1 Comment

Jeff Buckley was a musician who even after his death enjoys resounding acclaim, not only by myself and Udayan, but music critics and musicians alike. The son of Tim Buckley, a popular folk singer, Jeff released only a single album in his lifetime, Grace (1994) before tragically drowning in 1997 at the age of just 30.

I do not claim to be a music mogul, nor do I claim to be in a position to understand the intricate components which comprise a song. I could certainly never write one despite my (distinctly-amateur) guitarring. However, Buckley’s music was just beautiful. His voice had such an impressive vocal range and sublime sound. His lyrics are pervading, meaningful and timeless. His music is modest and understated. He is quite simply, my only true musical hero.

And it is a shame when you realise that your favourite artist of all time only lived long enough to release one album in his lifetime, and for some sketches and unreleased recordings to be released after his passing. Although I only found his music 8 years after his death, I miss him and wrote this post to share my passion for his work.

If any of you do enjoy Coldplay, Radiohead or Muse perhaps it is worth listening to an individual who influenced all of them yet who is so unknown in comparison. A tragic story indeed; the most talented of musicians who would have had so many great records to offer lovers of great music, whose life cut short when he drowned in the Mississippi on May 29th, 1997. Ten years on, barely thirty songs, and yet his ethereal voice draws legions of new fans every day.

1 Comment

At first glance, international adoptions appear to simultaneously solve the growing demand by infertile parents for children to adopt and the constantly growing number of child orphans in countries such as China and Romania. Yet the issue is a complex one, and one that certainly merits some attention.

International adoptions create several problems; children feel dislocated with parents who are ethnically and culturally different to those that they have become accustomed to, international adoption has been used as a front to child laundering and trafficking with children being “stolen” in order to feed the high demand and large amounts of money that Western families are prepared to spend, and the creation of an international market can make it harder for domestic and more suitable parents to adopt needy children since they cannot compete financially.

Some of these problems are clearly more pressing than others. The issues relating to a sudden change of culture and a feeling of dislocation, for example, are not very significant in a multicultural and tolerant community such as that of the USA. In order to solve the problems associated with children trafficking, however, it is necessary for international adoptions to become truly international; with clearly transparent regulations through approved international bodies, with the support of participating nations as well.

International adoption has the potential to (and indeed often does) allow parents to provide the love and support they wish to those who need their love and support. For this reason, it is certainly a desirable goal and one that deserves our efforts to achieve.

No Comments

… and I should jolly well have the right to express my thoughts. Most of the time.

You see, freedom of expression is one of the very few areas that I have found it hard to form a definitive view about. I think that in rational debate, the rational viewpoint will hold true. I think that when Nick Griffin comes to speak at the Oxford Union, that the intellectual audience will be able to show how abhorrent his views are.

But not every audience is the Oxford Union, and not every debate is a rational one. If we allow people to express themselves completely freely then a ridiculous and abhorrent view which may or may not incite violence could influence the thinking and ideas of another. That’s not good.

The problem though is that the statute books cannot stop us speaking freely! Imagine racist opinion expression being made illegal. Would that stop a racist telling his racist friends his racist views? No, of course not.

So where does this leave us? I guess we need to support legalised free speech so long as it does not incite other illegal activity, but as individuals it is worth us taking on ridiculous views in a debate forum IF we so happen to face them there, such as in the Oxford Union, but perhaps not doing our utmost to invite them to those forums in the first place.

1 Comment

It has recently occurred to me, in another one of my numerous “mind-journeys” that most art would be more appropriately termed “fart”. Gone are the days of fine painting, of clever expression through surreal landscape, of talent.

Instead we have inanimate objects with signatures polluting the galleries in the middle of our metropolitan cities. But this begs the question, as art is so relative to the viewer, can it ever be objectively defined? One man’s masterpiece is another man’s cultural puke. Indeed, the da Vincis’ and Van Goghs’ were considered the same in their day, and yet we marvel at their work with awe all over the world.

Perhaps my great great great grandchildren will one day hold today’s nonsense in this regard. Perhaps I am not wrong and they wont and will look at the art I admire as the measure.

Perhaps, the reason this “trash” is art, is because of what it is making me do; form opinions, discuss, and react to an expression through whatever medium. And that is why art can be defined. Only art can provoke such strong reactions in so many people.

No Comments