|
 Friday, November 7, 2003
Ultimate Punishment: A lawyer's reflection on dealing with the death penalty - Scott Turow. Everybody has an opinion on the death
penalty, and usually a fairly strong one. That is why logical
discussion on the topic is so hard to conduct. Those pesky emotions
keep getting in the way.
... Ultimate Punishment: A
lawyer's reflection on dealing with the death penalty by
Scott Turow
Farrar, Strauss and Giroux
ISBN: 0374128731
176 pages
Buy from Amazon
[David Harris' Science & Literature]
I'll buy this book. With the recent plea arrangement for the Green River killer, the debate about the death penalty is going again. Because, if you can get life for killing 42 woman (at the very least), how can it be fair for someone who only killed 1 or 2 to get the death penalty? If you did give them death, wouldn't that only encourage people to go on a big killing spree, since you get a better outcome if you kill more? Too many slippery slopes and dangerous precedents. None would have to be considered if there was no death penalty. But we could never consider that, right? 10:39:12 AM 
|
|
Victory for evolution in Texas. Despite vociferous efforts on the part of anti-evolutionists, sense and
reason won the day when the Texas State Board of Education today voted
to adopt the textbooks that had passed scientific peer review and were
supported by scientists.
Striking in the adoption was that the textbook publishers had strongly
denounced the anti-evolutionists' campaigns in their responses to
feedback. Presumably the Texas State Board of Education agrees that the
textbooks and the reasons given for them to write them they way they
did are the best representation of science suitable for students.
Now the anti-evolutionists have lost every single state they have
battled in. Unfortunately, don't count on them giving up any time soon.
Although evolution is winning where the voting is done, their PR
campaign is extremely effective and we can't afford to let it get out
of hand or else the public, duped by the lies and deception of
anti-evolutionists, will start to vote in board members more compliant
to the anti-evolutionists crusade.
Even though the Dallas Morning News were duped by the
anti-evolutionists, the other Texas papers saw through the lies and
printed editorials harshly criticizing the anti-evolutionists.
Editorial at the Austin-American Statesman
This fantastic editorial explicitly shows the loopholes that anti-evolutionists try to squeeze their campaign through.
Editorial at the Houston Chronicle
A key aspect of this editorial is that it denounces the common
conservative claim that anybody against them must be unpatriotic, etc.
It deals primarily with the lawsuit due to the Board rejecting an
environmental science text because it suggested that offshore drilling
and other practices could have bad environmental consequences (shock,
horror!) Amusingly, the oil companies themselves acknowledge there are
problems and are saying they will try to improve. Apparently the idea
that destroying the environment could be bad for the environment was a
new idea to roughly half the Texas Board.
[David Harris' Science & Literature]
I love it when Texas shows that it can make reasonable decsions on science, since so much of the media likes to portray it as the opposite. of course, it was pretty much the way they describe it - about 30 years ago. I am not surprised that the Austin and Houston papers get it right or that the Dallas paper gets it wrong. Most of the really smart people live in Austin or Dallas ;-) (For my mother, a Houstonian) 10:25:14 AM
|
|
Annals of Premature Accusations. Kevin Drum updates the score in the ongoing debate between Mann, Bradley and Hughes (climate scientists) and McIntyre and McKitrick (a couple of economists). The latter claim to have re-analyzed data from a famous paper of the former’s on global warming and found numerous errors that, when corrected, make the results go away. The climatologists have responded vigorously, saying that their critics have botched the job. Both sides are preparing further responses at the moment, so the issue is on hold.
That, however, hasn’t stopped Iain Murray from writing a quite inflammatory article in the NRO about all of this. The article tries to stamp the whole issue with his preferred spin:
The whole affair bears strong resemblance to the recent Bellesiles controversy. Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles won a Bancroft Prize for his argument that gun ownership in early America was not widespread. It took an amateur historian, Clayton Cramer, to point out that this claim could not be substantiated on the basis of actual gun-ownership records. Eventually, an Emory University investigation strongly criticized Bellesiles, and the Bancroft Prize was withdrawn.
Given what we know about the present case, this is an indefensible comparison. [Crooked Timber]
Manipulating data and the publishing it in an obscure journal seesm to be a great way to make friends in this Adminstration. I am sure we will hear the misleading conclusions of the MM paper spouted by officials for a long time, even though it looks like they removed parts of the data that would allow them to make the political points they wanted to. Ain't it great when science becomes politicized? Wonderful time will be had by all. 10:22:29 AM
|
|
I got the link fromCrooked Timber. A devastating article with this choice paragraph:The British urged the Americans not to disband the Iraqi army, but to keep it in being and continue to pay its soldiers. They advised strongly against President Bush[base ']s Leninist policy of telling Iraqis that [OE]he who is not for me is against me[base ']. They urged that it would be wiser instead to treat as a potential friend any Iraqi who did not take up arms against the occupiers. All this was ignored.
Interesting that our only ally in this mess is becoming increasingly disenchanted with our endeavor. Seems like we continue to alienate everyone, even those who would try to be our friend. Ah, but an empire does not require friends, right? Only the fearful and sycophantic. What a wonderful world it will be! 10:14:14 AM
|
|
Treasure hunt in the stacks. Kieran has previously reported on all the fun one can have browsing the stacks in Firestone Library at Princeton. The library used to require that patrons sign their name when borrowing a book and Kieran managed to find the signatures of some famous people on the cards that had been left in some books. The system wasn’t so great about privacy, but it sure allows for an interesting glimpse into a book’s life. [Crooked Timber]
Blogging in the old days! 10:05:38 AM
|
|
Keeping the Protesters Out of Sight and Out of Hearing... (Charles Levendosky). Keeping the Protesters Out of Sight and Out of Hearing... (Charles Levendosky) [Common Dreams]
When a man peacefully holding a sign saying 'No More War for Oil' can be charged with a federal crime, free speech is no longer a consideration by this government. Moving peaceful protesters off of public spaces and herding them into compounds miles away is not what the framers of the Constituion meant by free speech. This is wrong and must be protested. expect the Repubilcan convention in New York to be a site of some really big protests but do not lose sight of the fact that this Adminstration continues to destroy rights we have had since the founding of this Republic. It is my right to stand peacefully on public space and protest the policies of any government offical. To somehow claim that negative comments are dangerous to the President while positive comments in the same space are not is devastating to the free exercise of our fundamental rights. Intimidation by government officials is one of the big reasons the Bill of Rights exists. Apparently this Adminstration is not too fond of the Constitution. Tough!! 9:57:44 AM
|
|
Banging My Head Against the Wall: Refuting Ann Coulter. Kenneth Quinnell brings us the second in his weekly series, Banging My Head Against the Wall: Refuting Ann Coulter. In this edition, he deconstructs the Lies of War, Ann-style. [Open Source Politics]
I loved reading this. Hateful columnists of either political stripe (although conservatives seem to makea real point of gratuitous venom) are part of the problem. The solution will be, I think, a continuing degradtion of interest in most mass media of today (i.e. TV, newspapers). They will cater more and more to the extemists as they continue to lose mainstream readers. A new generation will get its information from different sources because they chose to refrain from the increasingly isolated hatred that is the major media. At least the smart ones will ;-) 9:48:50 AM
|
|
One Party State. This is pretty unbelievable:
The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.
...
The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."
...
It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."
Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."
[Eschaton]
We sure would not want any of those pesky Democrats to ask a question of the head of our government. Let's see. We have a representative form of government where someone represents my views in Washington. If I have a question about taxes, I can write them. They can then ask the President to clarify just how the Executive branch is implementing the tax legislation. Unless my elected representative is Democrat!!! Then I have to rely on another representative from a different party and maybe a different state. I do not know what form of democracy you would call that but it surely is not representative. Imperious presidency? Fuedalism? Elected monarch? 9:23:53 AM
|
|
Maher Arar: terrorist? Innocent computer scientist? It's who you know.. Maher Arar -- a dual Canadian-Syrian citizen who operated a computer consulting business -- was arrested by US officials during a stopover at New York's JFK airport, then and deported to Syria by the US government. The FBI flagged him as a "suspected terrorist." After year of torture in a Syrian prison (he describes having been beaten with objects including shredded electrical cables, and living in a urine-filled, rat-infested 3'x6'x7' "grave"), they seem to have decided he was innocent, and safe enough to ship back to Canada. From Joi Ito's blog:
Obviously, it's probably easier for a Syrian national to get on a "list" than a Japanese, but this really scary. They say he had had a relationship with another suspected terrorist who is also being imprisoned and tortured now in Syria. He says he barely knew the guy. So what does this mean for us? If we meet someone, we should not "become friendly" with them until we are certain that they are not a suspected terrorist. What does this mean? We need to make sure they don't hang out with other suspected terrorists. So if you believe in six degrees, it's likely at some point you will be a suspected terrorist.
How do they know if you hang out with someone? Friendster? LinkedIn? Your email? We need to be VERY careful about the privacy of not just the content of our communication, but the privacy of who we are in touch with, often called sigint, or signal intelligence. Seriously though, this will cause a chilling effect on meeting, calling, emailing or otherwise "being in touch with" anyone who you don't know very well that could land you on the "suspected terrorist" list.
Among questions being raised by Arar's advocates: why was he deported to Syria, notorious for violating the human rights of prisoners, instead of being returned back to Canada -- where he lived for 15 years, and owned a technology company? There are now calls for an open investigation in Canada -- and in the US. Here's a link to one article in which Arar describes his imprisonment, Another in which his Canadian citizenship is said to have prevented more severe torture, and here's a link to the Google News search. (Thanks, Ned) [Boing Boing Blog]
This is a reason our allies will have a harder and harder time dealing with us. Canadians will not see this as a etrrorist sent back to Syria. They will see it as a Canadian citizen turned over to torturers by a feckless US. He just disappeared for a year, tortured and put in a grave because of the horrendous decision of government officials with the possible complicity of the Canadian government. (They are making the same sorts of lame pronouncements as Bush - 'We have a process to investigate this. Let the process go forward.') 'Hey, since we can't torture anyone, let's send him to a country that can do it for us. What a great idea!' This sort of treatment sure makes me feel safer. Not!
More and more people from friendly countries will be hesitant to come to the US to visit (heck, this man was not even visiting. He was on a layover on his way back to Canada.) This would make a great TV movie, much more provocative and important than a Reagan telepic. But who would show it? 8:50:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
