photo courtesy of Bdewan

–>Or so say many people in Maryland, who apparently agree with me that some people just need to be dead but lack my skepticism that the government is competent to make those kinds of choices with sufficient accuracy. It’s unfortunate that WTOP chose to report on this so uncritically and not point out that people like State’s Attorneys Doug Gansler and Joseph I. Cassilly are clearly more looking to thump their chest than accomplish anything.

After all, how seriously should we take seriously a complaint like “The longer we have a death penalty statute on the books but an inability to carry it out, the frustration will undoubtedly mount among prosecutors and families of victims of crime” when Maryland has executed five people in the twenty-one thirty-one years since the 1976 Supreme Court decision that re-authorized the death penalty? In light of that statistic it’s hard to understand the complaint against O’Malley wanting to wait till January to see what the legislature is going to do – they’d normally have managed to execute 1/9th 1/12th of a person by then!

[thanks for the catch, Ms. Tart, even if it means confronting the fact that it’s been 10 years since DMB put out “Crash” and that I ain’t 27 anymore…]

6 Comments so far

  1. Ms. Tart (unregistered) on July 10th, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

    And by twenty one, you mean thirty one.

  2. Don (unregistered) on July 10th, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

    Oooooooooh I am SOOOOO stuck in my twenties! You mean it’s TWO THOUSAND AND seven, not NINETEEN-NINTY seven? Dammit!

    That means I jerked up the math too. O’Mally’s only going to have time to execute 1/16th of a person between now and Jan!

  3. bdewan (unregistered) on July 19th, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

    Hey Don,

    I didn’t give permission for the use of that photo, so I’d appreciate it if you would remove it. Apologies, but I have to keep a handle on my publishing rights.



  4. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on July 20th, 2007 @ 9:04 am

    Hi Bdewan,

    Your photo is currently listed as having a By-ND Creative Commons license, which allow others to use the photo, so long as it’s attributed (which it is), and non-derivative to the image itself (which it also is).

    We were going by the CC license when we posted it, initially. At your request, we’ll remove it, but I believe that we were acting within the restrictions of the license that you chose to publish the photo under. Please revisit your use of those licenses as part of your Flickr publishing if you don’t want others to use your works.

  5. Don (unregistered) on July 20th, 2007 @ 9:25 am

    Yeah, I used your photo after doing a search on flickr explicitly for people using the creative commons license, which you can do on the advanced search page.

    Your photo was (and still is – apparently all your photos are) under the CC-no derivatives license. If you look on the right hand column of the page for that picture you’ll see under ADDITIONAL INFORMATION the link Some rights reserved.

    At some point you went into the Flickr account preferences page and altered the setting for “What license will your photos have.” If you don’t want people using your shots without advance permission then you need to rectify that, toot sweet. We’re not interested in stepping on anyone’s toes but the letter of the license is such that someone less agreeable can tell you to piss off – you set that license and they’re within their rights to use the shot, even if you subsequently change your mind.

  6. bdewan (unregistered) on July 20th, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

    Thanks for the edu-ma-cation. It’s been fixed. Don’t know what I was thinking when I set that preference. Must have been feeling all socialist with my universal healthcare and whatnot.


Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.