Progress Report

Last time I posted, I wrote that my first task at my new job was to get up to speed as quickly as possible, the idea being that, as a contractor, you want to establish some value before the client has second thoughts. I have not had this happen yet, but you can't take it for granted that they will keep a contract going once they start it. For example, they terminated the person before me.

Well mission accomplished, the client seems to like me, and I am getting up to speed fairly quickly. I'm pretty sure I am there until the work ends.

In some ways this is an ideal job. Don't tell Jackie that I like the hours, but it's supposed to be 15-20 hours a week, so my days are short and I get some days off. The hourly pay is really good though.  Up front I am working a little extra to get up to speed and to do some catch-up, but still, 5-hour days. I go in about 9:00 and leave at 2:30, in time to make an early dinner. Five hours is short enough that I never get worn out or start wishing that the day would end.

The client is a recently-purchased start-up, fun to work with. Lots of young software developers, stand-up cubicles, people using cell phones for their work phones, loosely-assigned work spaces. Being the old fogey, I get an office, a phone, a chair, a mouse. To give you some idea, they told me that if I wanted to know the number of the phone in my office, I should call my cell phone from the office and get the number that way. Also, they have sodas and snacks, lots of snacks, and they bring in lunch three days a week -- so far Hawaaian, Greek, Mexican, pulled pork, barbecue. I like it.

My role ends when the client finishes a project, maybe as soon as September 1, although that date may be more aspiration than reality, so it could easily go longer. It seems unlikely that this will result in anything permanent, but working now makes it much more likely that I can find the next job when this one ends.

Something New

Either contract work is a series of hurdles, or I see life as a series of hurdles, but either way, I see contract work as a a series of hurdles. Get past all of them and life is good.

Finding some sort of appropriate work is the most difficult hurdle; in addition to long stretches when nothing is available, I get many possibilities that don;t really fit -- two hour commutes one way, work I am not suited for, low pay, companies that look at my resume and say no right away. Recruiters try to fit me into places where I don't fit well, so a lot of things die before they really get started.

Next hurdle is the interview. My last two interviews went well enough, even though I only got one of the jobs, so I don't hate all interviewers and the whole interview process quite as much as I did a few weeks ago, but if nothing else most potential clients interview two to four people, so the odds are not great even with a decent interview.

Next hurdle starts tomorrow: getting up to speed as quickly as possible. I have not yet tripped over this barrier in five assignments, but I approach new contracts with some trepidation, because it's hard to be sure that I will understand what needs to be done and have the skills to do it until I see the work. Once I get settled, I'm pretty safe, but I always feel there is a possibility that the client will give up on me before I figure things out.

On one of my five jobs, I had a hard time understanding what needed to be done, and it was really frustrating. The client was just awful at explaining the work, and I was worried that they would stop paying me for not really making any progress. Fortunately, I got it after about a week of flailing, and after that I was fine.

So tomorrow is my first day of work in six months, and the mission is clear: figure it out and start being useful as quickly as possible.

Eric Cantor Goes Down

I would say there were a couple of lessons form Eric Cantor's shocking, stunning, astounding defeat in a primary last night.

Before we get to those, a couple of observations. First, haha! Good riddance. I never liked the guy. Second, how shocking is this? The majority leader gets shellacked in a primary? The only polls taken before the voting showed him way, way ahead of his challenger. Cantor spent five million dollars defending his seat, and his opponent spent $125,000. All the reactions I saw last night were complete shock; the phrase "holy crap" pretty much sums it up. I think Daily Kos actually used that precise phrase. Amazing.

Now on to those lessons...

1. Republicans are over-the-top, loony tunes, batshit nutso crazy

This is the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid losing in a primary because they were not liberal enough. As a Democrat, I have seen Eric Cantor at work, and I always thought he was a pain in the ass. He presided over one of the most partisan, conservative, useless, uncompromising Congresses ever. Progressives certainly did not see him as someone they could work with. He was (is) an obstructionist jerk. Apparently that was not enough for the Republicans in his district. They want someone even more uncompromising. If you are a Democrat, the message is clear: Be afraid of these people. Republicans are crazy. If you are a Republican, the message is slightly different: You are crazy.

2. Eric Cantor is Jewish, a rare Jewish Republican

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Not that that could have possibly had anything to do with his defeat.

As a Former Death Penalty Proponent

With a botched execution in Ohio Oklahoma [thanks Mike], the death penalty was a hot topic again, at least for a few days. I used to believe in the death penalty, but somewhere along the line I changed my mind and decided that the disadvantages outweigh any advantages.

I have no real moral objection to the death penalty; my arguments against it are practical (although we could debate whether accidentally executing an innocent person is a practical or a moral issue. I suppose the innocent person would want to argue both.)

Following are the arguments that did, and did not, sway me.

Arguments that did not work for me

We Don't Have the Right

It seems to be a common feeling among death penalty opponents that we should just never pronounce this ultimate judgment on anyone, that it is barbaric, morally repugnant. While I understand the sentiment, I just disagree, and there is not much you can say to demonstrate that I am objectively wrong. It is very likely that nearly anyone who supports the death penalty has already resolved this issue for themselves and has gotten past any moral objections.

My example for this question is Timothy McVeigh. He killed civilians and children, 168 people in all. You don't think we should say that he forfeited his right to live? You are a kinder soul than I am. I'm glad he's dead. I feel fine with that. I doubt you can change me.

It Impacts the Poor and Minorities Unfairly

So do drug laws and probably almost every crime from DUI to armed robbery to rape to murder. This is an indictment of the American justice system, where the wealthy can purchase "better" justice for themselves. It is not a problem unique to the death penalty. If we can level the playing field such that the courts don't discriminate against those with less money, great, but the problem is not caused by the death penalty.

It's Cruel

Perhaps I need to educate myself, but why can't we kill people cleanly? We euthanize animals humanely, and we even have assisted suicide. Is there no way to execute someone without torturing them?

The human brain shuts off after just a few seconds without blood flow, so why is it cruel to use a firing squad? Guillotines are messy, but are they cruel? What about hanging - snap the neck and it's over. I can think of a dozen other ways (drop a boulder on their head) that seem like they would be quick, if not 100% painless. So a painful execution just seems like a question of incompetence, not cruelty.

Arguments that changed my mind

We will execute innocent people

Not surprisingly, this is the main problem that resonated with me. There will always be mistakes, but beyond that, if you give this weapon to every district attorney and police force in the country, someone somewhere will abuse it. It's easy enough to say that we should only execute someone if he or she is really, truly guilty, for sure. Unfortunately, that isn't how our justice system works. And unlike any other sentence that may be given to a defendant, this one cannot be reversed or mitigated once it is carried out.

For anyone who thinks that the death penalty is a great thing that is administered fairly, I would strong recommend the movie The Thin Blue Line. (Actually I recommend it for anyone -- it's great.) The film is a documentary about a man sentenced to death for murdering a policeman in Dallas, Texas. This case is one where I believe the death penalty could be justified -- for the prosecutor, police, possibly one expert witness and a judge who conspired to convict and sentence to death a man whom they had to have realized was very obviously innocent. The defendant might have been executed in time if not for the movie being made. This movie leaves little doubt that not everyone we execute is guilty.

So the conviction of innocent defendants is clearly the biggest downside of capital punishment, but not just because of mistakes. It also matters that we cannot completely control who in law enforcement is given this weapon, and that they are using it in a manner that we would think appropriate. You have to envision the worst scenario.

The Cost

It costs a lot to execute someone. This is because of the previous concern: We really want to be sure that anyone we execute is competent enough to be responsible for their actions, and that they were definitely guilty, and so, quite rightly, we have an extensive process to review death penalty cases, and it costs more than holding a prisoner for life. Which brings us to the next point...

Why?

It has been well established that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent to committing crimes than life imprisonment, so why do we need it? I wrote above that I am glad Timothy McVeigh is dead. On the other hand, Charles Manson has been in prison for more than 40 years, and I'm fine with that too. The two punishments are more or less the same to me; both are severe punishments for severe crimes, and both take the guilty parties off the streets. I'm not sure why the world would be a better place with Charles Manson dead instead of stuck in prison, so why waste money executing him?

If I were a death penalty activist, those are the three arguments I would bring out over and over: executing the innocent, the cost, and what are we achieving? I suspect that those arguments will work better than trying to convince anyone that capital punishment is inhumane.