SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: LindyBill11/24/2005 7:19:28 PM
   of 766662
 
You are going to be reading a lot about a Texas case where a witness has recanted. What will not be mentioned is that the hoodlum who was executed was in jail for shooting and trying to kill a police officer. He was then ID'd and executed for a previous killing.

Is a “Beyond All Possible Doubt” Standard for the Death Penalty Workable?
By Patterico on Crime

In response to my argument that no death sentence should be imposed unless the defendant’s guilt is proved with absolute certainty, some have argued that my standard is unworkable. I disagree. How can we know who is right?

One way is to ask someone who has actually been on a jury that imposed the death penalty on someone. So when commenter George S. left a comment on my blog saying that he had been on such a jury, I sent him an e-mail which said:

Thanks for your comment. I am interested to know whether you would have convicted your defendant, and sentenced him to death, applying a standard of beyond all possible doubt. What about the other members of the jury? Could you leave a comment on the blog, or respond in an e-mail that I can quote in a post? It’s important to the debate. Thanks.

He responded:

This was a case of “Beyond all Doubt.” The first poll of the jury after selection of a leader was 12 for guilty. We played devil’s advocate for a while but all agreed very strongly on the guilt. At the sentencing phase the result of the first poll was death (as opposed to a prison sentence of life) (it wasn’t discussed but I think all the jurors knew that it would be less than “life”). We again discussed it in great detail, the pros and cons and should we or shouldn’t we. Every poll (of several) agreed to the death penalty.

It’s hardly a comprehensive survey, but George S. has more relevant experience than most commenters here on the issue of what it’s like to confront these issues in the real world.
patterico.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (148641)11/24/2005 7:23:14 PM
From: Lane3
   of 766662
 
<iThey have been chewed to death here, and we both know them.

I don't want to go there either. Didn't mean to suggest that. Don't worry. I don't plan on going there nor to I plan to allow anyone to drag me.

The context of the discussion was whether Bush etc. lied. I have repeatedly suggested that he selectively read the tea leaves rather than lied. Nadine argued, as I understood her, that that was incompatible with the bad-intellegence cover-up/stonewall. I don't understand her point. It seems not only compatible but very natural to me.

I don't remember you being outspoken against us going in before the war, but I am not sure when you started posting here.

Actually, I argued strenuously that entering the war was precipitous (KLP will remember that one) at best and ill considered. I even argued at the time that he selectively read the tea leaves. Odd that you don't remember that. There were so few of us and it caused a lot of heat.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148642)11/24/2005 7:39:52 PM
From: Lane3
   of 766662
 
After I posted and after the edit window closed, it occurred to me that part of our disconnect may be that the piece I posed was from my oldies but goodies collection. It was written about the time that the war started nearly three years ago. At that time the current complaints about who saw what intelligence and who lied were not factors. You may be assessing it in the context of current events.

You can suppose all you like the neocons read too much into the evidence because of their subconscious views or whatever, but you won't persuade me until you find some evidence.

What evidence could there be? We can't possibly find clues that they were distorting their input. If they were, in fact, doing that, they probably didn't/or don't know it themselves so how can we find evidence of it.

The only evidence I have is that the decision to proceed was made very early. You spoke earlier today of a "14 month runup to the war" where they were working out the details but the decision go decision had been all but made. That was easy to recognize between the lines.

During that runup, everything I heard lead me to judge that the war wasn't warranted. Meanwhile they firmed up their commitment to the war. I explain that by judging that they read things differently from how I read them due to our disparate predispositions. That explanation makes a lot of sense to me. The only alternative explanations I could come up with are much less flattering to them than the one I have chosen. You would maybe prefer that I and others think Bush lied? <g>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (148622)11/24/2005 7:41:04 PM
From: D. Long
   of 766662
 
I just remembered that you posted about wanting to buy an X-Box

Must be thinking of someone else - I'm not a console fan. There are a select few PC games that I enjoy playing though, mostly strategy games. I do like Quake and Half Life, too.

Derek

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (148618)11/24/2005 7:48:46 PM
From: Alan Smithee
   of 766662
 
EU May Stop Providing US-Bound Air Passenger Information

Let's see how long it takes them to come around after Homeland Security says that Air France, Sabena, SAS, Lufthansa, etc. has been denied landing rights.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: D. Long who wrote (148620)11/24/2005 7:51:04 PM
From: Alan Smithee
   of 766662
 
Every year has its "Cabbage Patch Doll".

Or Power Rangers.

I recall they were very big about 10 years ago.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (148622)11/24/2005 7:52:07 PM
From: Alan Smithee
   of 766662
 
I just remembered that you posted about wanting to buy an X-Box. I am sure some of my grandchildren are getting one for Christmas.

I'd hold out for the Play Station 3.

DontTrustMicrosoft.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: greenspirit who wrote (148599)11/24/2005 8:01:25 PM
From: Thomas A Watson
   of 766662
 
Gee Mike, I never ever interfere with my wife when she decides to climb a latter for any reason. I'm still working getting her to use tools beyond the drill. I don't get it, she's great with the chain saw, but seems reluctant with the sabre or skil or table saw. But my daughter is the real problem. She seems to always being borrowing my ladders and my tools. Then she buys her own and packs mine away somewhere and forgets about them. I now have two of everything and she has all her own.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Lane3 who wrote (148646)11/24/2005 8:02:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 766662
 
I explain that by judging that they read things differently from how I read them due to our disparate predispositions. That explanation makes a lot of sense to me. The only alternative explanations I could come up with are much less flattering to them than the one I have chosen

I can think of another. They knew more about the situation than you do - or not to point fingers at you, than anybody who mainly gets his/her news from the MSM. The MSM has spent many years spiking most of the bad news from the Middle East, leaving what they do report open to politicized interpretation.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: Nadine Carroll11/24/2005 8:04:13 PM
   of 766662
 
Another take on Sharon's split from the Likud:

It's the Economy, Stupid!
by Yisrael Ne'eman

PM Ariel Sharon's break off centrist party may technically be only "in the making" but widespread support can be expected for its pragmatic agenda. Sharon and much of the Israeli public are completely fed up with the Palestinians and do not believe there can be a negotiated peace with any representatives from the land of chaos, anarchy, terrorism, Palestinian Authority corruption, the Hamas, the Al-Aksa Brigades and the Islamic Jihad. Sharon is seeking to unilaterally marginalize the conflict, letting the army and security forces handle the Palestinians on a daily basis while he gets on with more important issues. Were it up to Arik (and many Israelis) he would draw the borders, finish building the fence, remove settlements (or "disengage") from areas not to be held by Israel and move all security issues to the perimeter of the Israeli national agenda. Just let the army deal.

Israelis feel much safer today and would like to finish the job by being "separated" from the Palestinians. After five long years and disillusionment with the "Oslo Left" and the "Greater Land of Israel Right" people are looking for a positive challenge and a better future. The new center will seek to put both the Palestinians and the right wing settler movement behind them. No more distractions.

Both Labor and Likud in the 1990s sought to rebuild the economy. Tourism was to account for 10 - 15% of the GNP and was expected to grow, especially as the millennial year of 2000 approached. Israel's technology industries were expanding and were expected to lead the country into a solid First World position. Many spoke of the Jewish State as the R & D center of the world, enjoying trade relations with both the EU and the dollar bloc. Plans were set into motion for massive agricultural development in the Negev with Beersheva serving as the frontier boom town and possibly the largest future urban center in the country.

In 2000 all of these projects were put on hold as Israel confronted the Palestinian Terror Offensive. Today the country is getting back on track, but without the Oslo illusion (delusion?). Increased security guarantees tourism and the foreign investment necessary to realize a technologically driven economy. Water development through recycling, desalinization and damns trapping desert flood waters will bring Israel to a serious water surplus of up to 50% by 2010, a far cry from the droughts and shortages of the early 1990s.

The country is "getting ready for take-off" and expectations are rising. If Labor's Amir Peretz is making his pitch to the lower classes, Sharon will appeal to the middle and upper middle eschelons of society. His appeal will be for a renewed Zionism, Ben Gurion style: work, invest, develop the country, especially the Negev.

After peeling away all the military and security bluster, Sharon's new party is really an economic initiative. Israelis do not leave the country due to security threats, but rather in search of economic opportunities. Recently Israel is suffering from a brain drain. A revived economy will be a blessing and an anecdote, but this time there will be an added dimension.

The PM, the Negev ranchman, knows the potential of the south and will capitalize on the reported $5 billion in loans and grants offered by the US as a springboard for its development. The World Zionist Organization and Jewish organizations have already been primed to work in this direction over the past two years.

Sharon wants to leave the right wing ideologues behind and disentangle from the Palestinians. He hopes to challenge the public with nation building and turn the corner towards a more promising future. In his old age he apparently returning to his own youth of the 1950s and is appreciating the vision of the Old Man from Sde Boker more than ever before.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10