Another Execution?

I got this e-mail from New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty:
Thomas Arthur is scheduled for execution on December 6 in Alabama. The state is pursuing his execution despite what appears to be a moratorium on executions in the USA pending the US Supreme Court’s examination of the constitutionality of lethal injections. In addition, Alabama has not granted Thomas Arthur’s request to be allowed to conduct DNA testing of evidence relating to the crime.

The Innocence Project wrote Governor Riley that “We believe that the Arthur case easily fits within the category of cases where DNA testing should be granted… In fact, DNA testing has the potential to conclusively prove that Mr Arthur was not the perpetrator of this crime and to identify the real killer.”

For more about the case, please visit here (PDF) or here.

My long-standing opposition to the death penalty was also exercised by this story on 60 Minutes a couple weeks ago in which “FBI’s Bullet Lead Analysis Used Flawed Science To Convict Hundreds Of Defendants” over a 40-year period, and the agency never notified local officials about the bogus methodology. I don’t know if any of the cases are capital cases, but clearly, many people were wrongfully imprisoned, some for decades.

And that really ticks me off.
ROG

ROG

I Hate the Debates QUESTIONS

I’ve watched none of the debates, Democratic or Republican, in 2007. The problem is that they’re not debates as I understand the term.
Then there’s this October 31 post from GovTrack.US called “Debates giving time based on poll numbers?”
The New York Times has an interesting flash application that breaks down the text of yesterday’s Democratic debate (there was a debate?) by speaker and shows visually the distribution of who spoken when through the debate. They took the transcript, made it visual and interactive, and the end result is a vastly different view onto the debate than anyone had before.

One can’t help but notice that the different candidates are not getting the same amount of speaking time. Clinton spoke more than 3.5 times more words, and the same for speaking time, than Biden. For that matter, basically so did the moderator, who held the floor for more time than anyone but Clinton. It’s no wonder that Clinton is considered “the Democrat to beat” considering she’s in our face more.

If the numbers weren’t so vastly different between the candidates, we’d chalk it up to some random variation that happens from debate to debate. But, from the numbers, the speaking times are clearly planned. It’s so clear that I feel like maybe I missed something. Is it common knowledge that the debates are proportioning time out to the candidates based on their poll numbers (or something equivalent)? It’s not just that the front-runners are getting more time. The statistical correlation is ridiculously high (speaking time versus FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24: r=.96). That is, the debate organizers are basically using this formula to determine how much time each candidate should get:
Speaking Time = 8:26 minutes + 25 seconds * Latest Poll Number (%)

Of course, debate organizers can’t control exactly how long each candidate talks for, but the candidates only deviated from the formula by at most two minutes and twenty seconds (Biden, who spoke less, and Edwards, who spoke more).

1) Are you watching the debates? If so, who’s impressed you, depressed you? If not, why not? Not interested in politics? It’s too early to pay attention? The “debate” format?

There was a question about the Bible at the last Republican go-round:

Joseph: I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?
Anderson Cooper: I think we’ve got a question. Mayor Giuliani?
Huckabee: Do I need to help you out, Mayor, on this one?
(Laughter)
(Applause)
Rudolph Giuliani: Wait a second, you’re the minister. You’re going to help me out on this one.
Mike Huckabee: I’m trying to help you out.
Giuliani: OK. The reality is, I believe it, but I don’t believe it’s necessarily literally true in every single respect. I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.
So, yes, I believe it. I think it’s the great book ever written. I read it frequently. I read it very frequently when I’ve gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don’t believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.
Cooper: Governor Romney?
Mitt Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try…
(Applause)
… I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it’s a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.
Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?
Romney: You know — yes, I believe it’s the word of God, the Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don’t disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.
Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
Huckabee: Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It’s the word of revelation to us from God himself.
(Applause)
And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don’t believe it. But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says “Go and pluck out your eye,” well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical.
But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
And as much as you’ve done it to the least of these brethren, you’ve done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I’m not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.
And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don’t fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small.

I agree with the allegory references by Rudy and Mike, and Huckabee’s suggestion of the difficulty of understanding the Bible. But the idea that “Love your neighbor as yourself” is simple and really easy, I don’t buy; maybe it is in concept, but not so much in execution.

That leads to:
2) Do you think the question about belief in the Bible is an appropriate one in a pluralistic society for a Presidential debate? Recent episodes of Doonesbury suggest that an atheist would have a very hard time getting elected, although previous Presidents have given only lip service, at best, to the faith – do you agree with that assessment?

3) How would you answer the question about belief in the Bible?
***
A recommended website: Open Congress.org.
ROG

ROG

MUSICAL REVIEW: The Drowsy Chaperone

When I was away visiting my mother in Charlotte this month, my parents-in-law came up to Albany over the weekend to help paint Lydia’s (still unoccupied) bedroom. I came back that Tuesday before Thanksgiving. Then Wednesday, they took Lydia to their house in Oneonta, and Carol and I were able to go to the rapidly-expanding Proctor’s Theater in Schenectady to see The Drowsy Chaperone.

One of the reasons I watch the Tonys every year is to see what’s on Broadway, because I’d otherwise have little idea. Unless it’s a retread from anotheer medium (The Producers, Mamma Mia), it doesn’t get that much coverage. Here’s the
broadcast segment for TDS, a little scratchy, I’m afraid:

It was entertaining enough for us to want to see it when it came to town.

I agree with most aspects of this local review, except that I would have picked Show Off, the song in the above segment, as the highlight. In fact, unlike some of the songs that wouldn’t cut it on their own if it wasn’t part of the farcical faux musical, it would stand up on its own in any production.

Still, as the review suggests, the success of the production is largely on the shoulders of the Man in Chair, the narrator of the piece. The role was originated by Bob Martin, and he was replaced by Jonathan Crombie, who played the role in Schenectady. The Broadway role, interrupted by a now-resolved strike, is now being played by Bob Saget – yeah, the guy from Full House and 1 Vs. 100; I’m having difficulty imagining him in the role. Though not entirely comparable, I think of the Man in Chair as pivotal as the Stage Manager in Thorton Wilder’s play Our Town.

Another performer reprising her role from Broadway was Georgia Engel, probably best known as Ted Baxter’s wife on the Mary Tyler Moore Show. She talks about going on the road here:

I really like the truthiness of this commercial that suggests that we’re not likely to be swayed by the testimonials of “real people”:

So, when I saw THIS one, I laughed out loud:

I don’t know why this winner of five Tonys was was not very successful in its London run; a different sensibility, I suppose. All I know is that The Drowsy Chaperone made me laugh out loud many times. The best recommendation for a musical comedy I can think of.
ROG

ROG

Irony


The Friends of Cuban Libraries PRESS RELEASE

Laura Bush Meets Cuban Librarians in Video Conference

NEW YORK, Nov. 28, 2007 (Friends of Cuban Libraries) – On November 27 Laura Bush held a video conference with members of Cuba’s independent library movement…. [in Havana]
…. According to a White House statement, during the conversation Mrs. Bush “spoke of her admiration for the work of the independent librarians in Cuba who provide a source of uncensored information to their countrymen at great personal risk, and expressed solidarity with them and their cause.”

As a professor wrote on a listserv I monitor: “Great, maybe she could follow this meeting up with a meeting with her husband to talk about the overclassification of US gov’t information and the FBI monitoring computer records of library users!”
ROG

ROG

My My, Hey Hey

What female superhero are you???

Jean Grey

You have a tendency to be the interest of many men. You’re beautiful, intelligent, extremely powerful, but also extremely caring. The perfect woman!

Personality Test Results
Click Here to Take This Quiz
Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

“You have a tendency to be the interest of many men. You’re beautiful, intelligent, extremely powerful, but also extremely caring. The perfect woman!” Well, that IS me. And Jean Gray, a superhero I’ve actually heard of!
***

You Are 83% Burned Out

You are extremely burned out.
You work too hard, and you’re not getting the results you deserve.
It’s time for a life change, as soon as you can manage it.
You’re giving away most of your energy to something you don’t even enjoy.

I’m reminded, of course, of that Neil Young lyric: “It’s better to burn out than fade away.” (Neil’s birthday was earlier this month.)

ROG

ROG
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial