It is numbing to see this country slowly sink into the red. It was a red victory, last November, and it served as a symbol of the red that is already here, and a harbinger of the red to come: The red blood of a country invaded. The red in the eyes of an administration, a congress, a people acting on their anger, their hurt, their post-9/11-vulnerability. The omnipresent red alert signs of terror. The red haze blinding the once sane people that curse France, pray to Fox, and turn a blind eye to Gitmo. The red ink needed to pay for all this bloodlust, since this angry mob was not about to pay for it themselves, with their taxes.
And now, the red states' overflowing streams of blood are running upwards. I have already blogged Connecticut's first execution in 45 years, last May. Last week, it was Massachusetts' turn, as their governor suggested to lawmakers that the death penalty be re-instated in the state. The traditionally sane, blue states—those that fought against slavery, started this country's fight for independence, ignited the civil rights movement, led the fight against the Vietnam war, and have for the most part turned their back on the barbaric practice of state-operated slaughter of human beings—are slowly succumbing to the cry for blood.
This time around, it's Vermont. Last week, a jury in Burlington, VT sentenced a man to be exterminated. This act of God-impersonating was based on a federal statute, not Vermont state law, since the state does not have such savagery on the books anymore. But now, Duncan Kilmartin, a sleazy member of the state legislature, seeks to capitalize on the blood, and re-introduce state-run butchery into Vermont law.
This Kilmartin (yes, his real name) person has actually previously announced that he would introduce such an amendment, only to get cold feet at the last minute. This time around, he obviously thinks that he can ride this Burlington death penalty ruling and get some death back into Vermont statutes. On NPR tonight, he was asked what justification he could offer for the state to assume the right to determine who should live and who should die. His answer? "How would you explain to the victim's family that you did not think that the murderer should pay the 'ultimate price'?" And when asked why Vermont, which voted to abolish the bloody statutes decades ago, should go back to supporting it, the answer: "Well, after 9/11 we live in a different World..." Different indeed. If only the Al Qaida slaughterers could hear this. If this is not a description of their ultimate victory, then I do not know what could be: Murdering more than 3000 Americans on 9/11 has inspired Vermont to pass a law to allow it to kill even more of them.
And you know what? He just might succeed. Yes, he may be one of those trial attorneys-turned-politician who gives attorneys a bad name and revels in feeding off fear, death and misery. Yes, he may be trying to give this homicidal initiative of his some undeserved respectability by asking for a "rational discussion on this valid form of punishment". Yes, he may be bringing red blood to one of tha last vestiges of sanity in the country. Yes, he may be sporting a silver tongue and riding a pale horse. But who is there to stop him, or those like him, or the Hell that follows in their wake?
Where are your leaders, your voices of reason? Where are your Benjamin Franklins, your George Washingtons, your John Adamses?
The answer is simple. They are dead.