LIBERTY: “The Death Penalty” … … a gubamint crime!

Monday, July 24, 2006

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060724b.html

Death Penalty Needs Fixing, Say Critics
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
July 24, 2006

***Begin Quote***

(CNSNews.com) – The death penalty should be changed or abolished because it is corrupting the U.S. system of justice at all levels, critics alleged on Friday.
“It corrupts all of us. It is corrupting our courts, it’s corrupting prosecutors, it’s corrupting defense attorneys, it’s corrupting juries, it’s corrupting our society,” said Bryan Stevenson, a defense attorney and professor of clinical law at New York University’s School of Law. He was among those participating in a National Press Club discussion on the future of the death penalty.
***End Quote***

I would argue against the death penalty on many points –authority, efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness.
Where does the government get its authorization to kill a citizen? As a principled pro-life little L libertarian I challenge anyone to cite from whence the gubamint gets permission to kill anyone. To prevent the use of force on a citizen, it is justified in stopping an aggression. That’s in a “hot” situation. It’s a logical principal. Once they have stopped the aggression, their right to use force ends. Further, if I can’t morally do something, then just counting more noses can’t make it more right! And, when we allow the gubamint to kill any citizen, they get the idea that they are authorized or permitted to do it. Soon they will think it’s a good idea for any “troublemaker”. Mount Carmel, Ruby Ridge, and the Japanese Internment come to mind.

Does the gubamint do “capital punishment” efficiently? Nah, mistakes abound. That stat of DNA clearing the convicted on death row illustrates the efficiency of the process. We don’t know the size of the problem. There is an old canard about shaking a haystack and having needles fall out means that there are more needles in that stack and why are they there in the first place. So if there are some mistakes we find where there are supposed to be zero, we can be assured that there are many more mistakes we haven’t found.

Is capital punishment effective? So few murders are solved, it’s ineffective by definition. If it’s purpose of is justice, surely that has to left in the hands of the Intelligent Designer. If it’s purpose is retribution, I guess it does that. If it’s purpose is prevention or dissuasion. it does very little. Restitution is not even on the gubamint’s value radar. So I think we can say it’s NOT effective.
Fair? You have to be kidding. Just look at the racial component of the stats. Prima facie, this should stop it on just this basis alone.

Convinced? If not, you do it. Don’t delegate it to a state worker! Pick a citizen out of the jury pool and ask them to do it.

You have to be willing to do your own dirty work.


TURKEY: A seeker could … … “Getting an Education Online for Free”

Monday, July 24, 2006

http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/Online_Education_Free_201_2006.php

Is it the piece of paper or the wisdow that you want? If paper, skip this. If wisdom, here’s free dikw for you.


TURKEY: OK, now you have an offer, what should you do … …

Monday, July 24, 2006

This reminds me of the Sultan’s Dowry problem.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SultansDowryProblem.html

***Begin Quote***

A sultan has granted a commoner a chance to marry one of his n daughters. The commoner will be presented with the daughters one at a time and, when each daughter is presented, the commoner will be told the daughter’s dowry (which is fixed in advance). Upon being presented with a daughter, the commoner must immediately decide whether to accept or reject her (he is not allowed to return to a previously rejected daughter). However, the sultan will allow the marriage to take place only if the commoner picks the daughter with the overall highest dowry. Then what is the commoner’s best strategy, assuming he knows nothing about the distribution of dowries (Mosteller 1987)?

***AND***

The problem is most commonly stated with n==100 daughters, which gives the result that the commoner should wait until he has seen 37 of the daughters, then pick the first daughter with a dowry that is bigger than any preceding one. With this strategy, his odds of choosing the daughter with the highest dowry are surprisingly high: about 37.10% (B. Elbows; Honsberger 1979, pp. 104-110, Mosteller 1987; Havil 2003, p. 136). As the number of daughters increases, this tends towards 1/e approx 36.787…%  (Sloane’s A068985).

***End Quote***

The best thumbnail answer is to listen to about a third and then take the next one that exceeds the highest you’ve heard so far. Not a perfect answer but surprisingly it gets the nod about a third of the time.

So to, the seeker, with an offer in hand, will rarely get a second one to weigh against the offer in hand.

As the inveterate tinkerer, I have some wisdom (I hope it’s wisdom and not barbara striesand) to offer:

(1) I evaluate offers on: (a) actual dollars, (b) commute, (c) “feel”, (d) potential earnings, (e) “potential opportunity”, and (f) “durability”. Being a mathematical kinda fellow, I have established “minimally acceptable” criteria in each dimension.

(2) One dimension doesn’t get to “trump” another dimension. Twice as much money with an arduous commute is not a good trade. I’ve done it I know.

(3) So as not to be labeled “job hopper”, I have to be able to keep the job for at least a year. That looks like two on a resume. That’s durability!

My policy is to take the first offer over the minimum in these six dimensions.

FWIW YMMV
Fjohn


TECH: Microsoft Outlook has morphed once again into LookOut!

Monday, July 24, 2006

After a recent mandatory Outlook update for “security”, I see two things have happened:

(1) Links are turned off in all email messages. Who agreed to that?

(2) The junk mail filter is capturing good emails. Even people who are in the Address Books. What’s that about?


TURKEY: A current or future jobseeker should … …

Monday, July 24, 2006

… alwaysbe “findable”.

In my mind, that means never using your employer’s email address in your networking activities. (I have gmail invites if you need them!)

So, that means you shouldn’t use an email you don’t control for networking sites like LinkedIn and Plaxo.

So, that means that you should join and use address synchronization sites like Plaxo.

So, that means you should track and measure the responsiveness of the people in your address book.

IMHO