LowerCaseRepublican

For those of you are movie fans (or people that listen to the talking heads discuss this film), you'll know that the adaptation of Alan Moore's classic "V For Vendetta" starring Natalie Portman comes out today. The story is basically a dystopic England in the grips of a fascist authoritarian government. Out of the shadows comes a mysterious man only known as V. He saves a young girl named Evey (Portman) from attack and may have a possible ally. All the while, bodies have been piling up within the ranks of the England's fairly new but powerful government. All the murders are connected, far deeper than any mere affiliation with any governmental branch. These killings are vastly encompassing, but acutely personal. It is a vendetta: In a totalitarian state, the government has the people convinced that a single "terrorist", V, would have them under siege. But V would stand to say that he is showing the people that they have been under siege by their government. V is out to avenge individuality, and reclaim freedom for the people, even at the expense of their happiness. We are all in prison, and he is "showing us the bars". The line of good guy/bad guy blurs pretty well. A lot of people are whining that this is the glorification of a "terrorist" which shouldn't happen in this time period and some believe that this story was written recently. Alan Moore actually wrote it in the 1980s. The two guys who made the Matrix actually had a script for this film but didn't make it until after their Matrix success. Having read the original comic story from the '80s, I can't wait to see this film tonight. Anyway, just wanted to get some other peoples' opinions on this issue (not that movie is good or not -- that's a time for another thread...or this one as long as there is no spoilers) Do you see the production of this movie as "glorifying terrorism"?

The ep aired 4 months ago. I wonder if the Church of $cientology put him up to it... /tinfoilhat

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_en_...ple_isaac_hayes NEW YORK - Isaac Hayes has quit "South Park," where he voices Chef, saying he can no longer stomach its take on religion. Hayes, who has played the ladies' man/school cook in the animated Comedy Central satire since 1997, said in a statement Monday that he feels a line has been crossed. "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said. "Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices." "South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians." Last November, "South Park" targeted the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers, including actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, in a top-rated episode called "Trapped in the Closet." In the episode, Stan, one of the show's four mischievous fourth graders, is hailed as a reluctant savior by Scientology leaders, while a cartoon Cruise locks himself in a closet and won't come out. Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 8, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) My grandma had a massive stroke, is brain dead and against her wishes my uncle had her put on life support. I then got a ticket for allegedly running a stop sign. Worst 24 hours ever. Wow...that sucks balls Soxy. My condolences.

Hey now, Kap! Some of us don't have a bunch of free time -- like me, who for the next month has to do nothing but sleep, eat, lesson plan, grade and portfolio work. So pardon moi if there is no piece from me echoing what many say in this thread.

Having a really bad day and figured we'd all been there -- and misery loves company. Student teaching isn't bringing me down -- I love teaching, love the kids...it is just the paperwork for my minor. We have 22 state standards to discuss. We must give 3 examples of how we've met the standard in a portfolio. Accompanying each example is a 1 page assignment saying how the example meets the standard. That's 66 pages of example explanations. Then we get to write multiple philosophy statements, reflections on our teaching and a few other things to up it to 90+ pages. Due at the end of the month. I've also gotta write out formal lesson plans from Feb. 20 to today (I have very informal ones that I use to teach and they're effective -- but my supervisor wants all these huge and detailed ones which are a huge pain in the ass to make) Plus, I gotta get ready for this test on Friday...and get ready for my 2nd placement in Mahomet. Not to mention job applications, writing my monthly column for the paper and finishing up other paperwork to appease the University for my minor. Anybody having a rough day? (well, with this UIUC paperwork, it is going to be moreorless a rough month.

QUOTE(DePloderer @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 07:02 PM) If you want to see Hugh Laurie (House) in a very different light and can get to see older British TV, look out for Jeeves and Wooster or better still any of the BlackAdder series'. BTW in case you are not aware BlackAdder also starred Rowan Atkinson in the leading role. A far superiour show to Mr Bean, which I am told was very popular in the US, although I'm not sure why. Brit humo(u)r is quite funny to some people in the States because it is a bit wittier than the Gallagher "Hey folks I got a sledgehammer and a bunch of food to smash!" American blatant laugh-getters.

It is his third arm to block the shot.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) Is this you as well? or did you steal your post from here? Unofficial: f*** You! It is my roommate and very good friend -- we've who have had plentiful discussions on the topic and told me to post it for him since he has no acct here.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 06:38 AM) LCR, I sincerely hope the day gets behind you quickly and without too many offensive occurances. I'm using it as a teaching moment at school. We've been talking about discrimination and what it is. So I am going to pose this situation to them to see what they think about it and see if it meets the class definition of discrimination that we came up with. http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper736/...dailyillini.com That's from the Monsignor of the local church here. One of the select times I agree with the Catholic Church on something.

Unofficial St. Patrick's Day is about as accurate at portraying the Irish as if...say, I put on blackface, ate fried chicken and watermelon and then washed it down with a forty in a brown paper bag while calling it Unofficial Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I have chosen not to partake in Unofficial. This is on account of my being neither a virulent racist nor an imbecile so obsessed with finding excuses for inebriation that I am able to shun the analytical thoughts emanating from either my conscience or neocortex. Sporting events are worthy of strong drink. Celebrating one's birthday is likewise a legitimate excuse, if one so desires it. But of course herein lies the problem that people feel the need for a REASON. It is as if a life-threatening and brain-curdling twelve-hour binge miraculously becomes good for a person if he or she puts on a silly green hat and customized single-use t-shirt and does it with thousands of other undergrad sheep. Allow me to give credit to today's celebrants who also believe that Chief Illiniwek is an honorable symbol of Native American culture. At least they are consistent in their views. I, of course, see the Chief as offensive to some but completely harmless in any real terms. If it goes, too bad. It's kind of cool. If it stays, too bad. Some people will still be offended. I would love to poll the Unofficial drinkers on their Chief position. Do I expect to find unanimity? Heck no. I blindly guarantee that a significant percentage of these people will say that the Chief needs to go because it is racist. These people are hypocrites, and need to be labeled such. This is the charming part of the bourgeois liberalism that lurks in the GOP-gerrymandered Congressional districts that turn nearly every American urban metropolis into a blue bullseye on a map. As long as it doesn't affect me, my expensive clothes, my cheap gasoline for my expensive SUV and my cheaply bottled Coca-Cola Classic that together comprise a trip to an Illini sporting event, then I am up in arms. But as soon as they try to take away justification for Mickey Mantle-level favoritism on the liver transplant list, then they have gone too far. But have I, in declaring Unofficial St. Patrick's Day an ignorant and racist celebration, gone too far? I believe not. Allow me to provide a quick history of the legitimate St. Patrick's Day. St. Patrick's day is the feast day of Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, the excluded, and protector from snakes (for much of the past half millennium, the first category fit nicely into the second). He converted Ireland to Christianity from paganism and became Bishop of Ireland. This move allowed the Irish monasteries to preserve literacy and much of Western history during the era of the Viking invasions of the late Middle Ages. The legends of Patrick claim that he drove snakes from Ireland (understood now as symbolism for paganism) and used the three-pointed shamrock to explain to the most powerful Irish chieftain the Trinity: the tri-part nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Over time, St. Patrick's Day has been transformed from a traditional Catholic feast day into a secular holiday celebrating Irish heritage and culture. Dublin, Ireland, has an annual cultural festival that attracts thousands of people from all over the country and Europe. American cities with large Irish populations, such as New York City, Boston and Chicago have parades. Chicago dyes the Chicago River green (they do so fine a job it stays that way year-round). But this international celebration of Irish culture has been expanded beyond this secular celebration. Granted, the wearing of the green has been accompanied by the drinking of the ale, but the sense of community fostered by this celebration has been demeaned by the perpetrators of this cultural travesty called Unofficial into obnoxiously oafish drunkenness with no socially or culturally redeeming value. Phrases like "Kiss me; I'm Irish" are found everywhere on T-shirts. Non-Irish-Americans and Irish-Americans alike buy into the idea that Everybody's Irish on St. Patrick's Day. While this view could easily take the form of solidarity with downtrodden and oppressed people the world over - donations of money and used possessions to charities or donations of time at soup kitchens or homeless shelters - people (both Irish and not) attach the Irish culture to a simple 4-letter word: beer. Everyone is Irish, so everyone is an obnoxious drunk. They envision Ireland as a nation of alcoholic leprechauns and nothing more. They do this not on St. Patrick's day proper (although I'm sure many do that day, as well), but on an arbitrary, convenient day. Can I blame people for consuming alcohol? No. But thousands of people are carrying out negative stereotypes of the Irish with absolutely no regard for what they are doing. It honestly hurts to see my heritage spat on by thousands of people for the sole purpose of consuming green beer. Irish history is rich and complex, transforming from tribal chiefdoms into thirty-two counties separated into a nation of twenty-six and a captive country of six by British delusions about remaining an empire. People here know basically nothing about Irish history. It's all about the shamrocks, crosses and alcohol. These people wouldn't even be worthy enough to carry Bobby Sands' H-Blocks-issue blanket if they even knew who he was and what he did. Culture to these racists is "f**goty" dancing, not beautiful rebel songs that simultaneously warm the heart and stir the soul. Check out the Wolfe Tones performing "A Nation Once Again," "Joe McDonnell," "The Wearing of the Green" and "Come Out Ye Black and Tans" if you don't believe me. My concern here is St. Patrick's Day as an Irish heritage day, much as Columbus Day and Pulaski Day, respectively, represent Italian and Polish pride days. What Unofficial and its thousands of participants convey as being "Irish" or "Irish-American" is tantamount to celebrating an Unofficial Martin Luther King Day on which thousands of students would smear their faces with black grease paint and proceed to wash down their fried chicken and watermelon with a forty-ounce bottle of malt liquor concealed in a brown paper bag. This is not representative of African-American culture. What it is, however, is an abysmal manifestation of our inward unhealth as a society: this crowd of mutant locusts prefers to reinforce stereotypes that demean a minority population at the cost of reifying falsehoods and ignoring countless contributions. Of course Unofficial MLK Day couldn't fly, even if done with the utmost sincerity. Irish is white, so Irish doesn't count. A leprauchan mascot causes much less division than an Aztec warrior or Plains Chief. It's the way it is. I'm not asking for Unofficial to be forcibly shut down. People should be free to do as they please. I'm not being physically harmed by these drunkards (excluding the potential of drunk driving accidents). It's a mental strain, but that's my issue. That's why I'm ranting here as opposed to in the middle of Green Street, yelling, "Come out ye black-and-tans / come out and fight me like a man / show your wife how you won medals down in Flanders / Tell her how the IRA made you run like hell away / From the green and lovely lanes of Killeshandra." If you're Irish, or at least have a bit of an understanding of what the history is all about, then you know what I'm talking about. I know that it might be asking a bit much, but stop being so self-serving and ignorant. Green beer is a fine part of St. Patrick's Day. It goes along with the corned beef, boiled cabbage and homemade soda bread you should be eating with your family after the parade. When you're going to partake in a racist, essentializing day of selfish hedonism (This is America, after all. For most people, it is a when question, not an if.), at least perform a little favor for the people whose ancestors' graves you are publically pissing on. Learn something. Anything. Find out about Patrick, Bishop of Ireland. Research the history of the Republican movement. Congratulations, by the way, to Sinn Fein, as it is this year turning one hundred years old. Learn about the hunger strikes. The British oppression. The proposed razing of the Irish table in favor of restarting it with "civilized" British blood. The experience of Irish immigrants to America and what they faced here upon arrival. Something. Anything. Give my ancestors some respect before you go out and piss and puke all over their memory.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) Worst.Arguement.Ever. We have laws to prevent chaos in society. Making ANYTHING illegal, doesn't prevent people who REALLY want to do it, from doing it anyway. Guns are illegal in the city of Chicago, have you seen them completely disappear? All it did was prevent the law abiding citizens who have legitimate uses for them from getting them... Now instead of going through the legal means of obtaining a gun, a person would have to go to a gang member or some other illegal operation selling weapons. That sure as hell isn't safer. Does that mean we should roll back all of the gun laws in Chicago, and just give them to every man, woman, and child who might want them, because now it is less safe for some people who want a gun? That arguement is terrible, and the logic behind it is completely flawed when you take it and apply it to anything else, why does it seem to hold so much water with abortion? I don't get it. There is a difference between a firearm and a medical procedure, firstly. Secondly, with abortion -- the history has been that the women who had the influence/money to get abortions done when it was illegal still got them done. The poor tried to get them but it was in a very unsanitary/unsafe set of conditions. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft967nb5z5/ -- source info. There was no significant drop in the performance of abortions by merely making it illegal. Mere prohibition does not solve the problem -- which is the point I was trying to get to in the previous post that was cherry picked.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) The question that remains to be asked is since we ARE there, why is the entire country not doing everything it can for us to win this conflict, so we can come home? Instead, politics rears its ugly head at every turn on both sides, and nothing gets done as well as it could or should, creating a stagnant situation. Why can't libs just say 'fine, we hate that we are there, but realize that just pulling up and leaving isn't a good option. Let's do whatever it needed to win this so we can bring our troops home.' Is it winnable? How will we ever know until all of us actually get behind the idea of winning it in the first place? And just think, if the Dems DID do that, sure they would piss off some of thie rbase, but would they really go and vote Republican out of spite? I don't think so. PLus, it would swing alot of middle-of-the-road voters who would finally think that the Dems are serious about the defense of our country, and really aren't Frenchmen in disguise. It would be a win-win for the Dems!Be on record as aginst the war, but also supporting the troops and our country. When we win, they get to share in the glory. BushCo. (forgive me, it is just easier than typing out Bush and his supporters every time) has done a pretty great job at alienating the allies of the US. These mass stockpiles of WMD have now been found to be bunk. http://www.outragedmoderates.org/ -- Has a story on 9/11 notes from Rummy and Co. that says that the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld was demanding that a link be found between Iraq and OBL so it would justify an attack. Many members of the admin were asking for a regime change to control oil supplies for years as part of the Project for a New American Century. When that is paired with the Downing Street Memos, it paints a damning portrait of a President at worst lying us into war and at best being dreadfully incompetent to put us into a questionable war. (the same could be said of LBJ for the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident or FDR knowing about the Magic Messages) Hell, Francis Fukuyama -- one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq invasion has now said that it was a terrible move for the US to make, especially in the post-war strategy development and justification departments. The justification for the war has changed more than Superman buying some clothes. Other famous conservatives (and neo-cons) have declared it unwinnable. I think this move into Iraq was pretty damn niave by PNAC (basically many of the founding members were in the Bush Administration) and this overarching fear of the terrorists is causing Americans to freely give up their liberties. It suddenly becomes okay for the government to go in without warrants to look at our tangible records (via the Patriot Act...it actually says "tangible records" in the document) It suddenly becomes okay for the government to go in without warrants to tap phone calls. It suddenly becomes okay to go into peoples' homes without warrants (just need to have reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause in the Patriot Act) and never have to say that you were there -- and oh yeah, if you do find out, it is illegal to say anything...even to a defense lawyer (via the Patriot Act again) As the famous patriot Thomas Paine once said: "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." Most Iraqis want us out and they're voting for an opposition-to-the-US group of politics. We've created a vacuum there that I don't know can be fixed by us as the US. Perhaps a multinational collaboration instead. The public was sold one bill of goods for an entrance into Iraq. Now we're being sold something else that is completely different as a reason to stay. I'll defer, for time's sake, to William F. Buckley Jr's new discussion that the war is unwinnable...and then reinterate the old Paine quote I used above.

http://www.darrenmcgavin.net/ It is with great sadness that we announce the death of Darren McGavin at approximately 7:10 A.M. Pacific time today, Saturday 25, 2006. Darren was just three months short of his 84th birthday. While we suspect none of us can imagine a world without the beloved, feisty little red-head, it is time to reflect, give thanks for his life and hold in reverence his memory. Darren is gone, but in many respects he will always be with us: as Carl Kolchak, fighting authority and battling monsters; the grumpy Old Man sending curses over Lake Michigan; as David Ross, the outsider, Grey Holden, captain of the Enterprise, the irascible detective Mike Hammer or any number of memorable guest star appearances, most notably as Joe Bascome on GUNSMOKE and as the washed-up old actor from "Distant Signals." Please take a moment in your sadness to reflect upon all the ways Darren touched your lives, say a prayer and raise a glass to toast a career which spanned over fifty years and affected us all in ways too numerous to count.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) Ah! One of the great ironies around here. Conservatives in favor of capital punishment and against abortion. Liberals opposed to capital punishment and in favor of abortion. The only real difference is that the unborn are totally innocent ... always. Anybody who doesn't have serious moral reservations about abortion is pretty nuts. Anybody who doesn't have serious moral reservations about capital punishment is pretty nuts. Not directed towards you only, YAS. As many have argued for the sanctity of life being inherent then there is nothing that a person can do to lose that. Only people can choose to take it away from them. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The legislators should focus on sane/rational discussions of sexual education with children so they can be prepared for sexual activity in the future instead of merely banning it. As we've seen with alcohol and the war on drugs -- mere prohibition does not work and is not effective. A serious, well-reasoned discussion giving people all the benefits and risks of sex and sexual activity would do wonders to cutting down the rate of abortions -- much more than abstinence only education. Simply making abortion illegal will not stop abortion -- it will just make it less safe for women who want them to get them.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown...ll-Petition.wmv Olbermann got himself and his staff to sign the petition live on the show last night.

Yet one more reason I hate that softheaded moron. Funny enough that he doesn't know but how do his handlers not know?!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) yea, Olbermann isn't getting canceled. Bill O'reilly is an idiot Something we can both agree on. /O'Reilly -- he's a uniter and not a divider. He just unites anybody with sanity, logic, reason and facts against him.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) To have an abortion just to get rid of the baby is Murder plain and simple. Yet if you wait a few years and lethally inject him just to get rid of the person, it is "justice". Funny how that works.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:49 PM) very classy It is called a joke. I thought it was so tongue in cheek that the green wouldn't be needed.

With all the corporate deals tied to those getting sweet assistance from the Bush administration, we're likely to know if abortion will be overturned if somebody can dig up facts related to coathanger companies' relationships with BushCo.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) I believe he changed his mind on the subject in its entirety. Actually it is in this case that he is doubting capital punishment -- mainly because he no longer believes the snitch that upped it from life w/out parole to death. Yeah, the guy is guilty of the crime but the two things that upped it from life to death are debunked. Hence, his change in this case. That's why he was arguing with the governor for clemency in the case. But all politicians want to be seen as 'tough on crime' (a la Bill Clinton going back to Arkansas to execute a retarded guy) so clemency doesn't happen too often. And SS, the possibility of success with the death penalty is one reason they use it against those with public defenders. Those lawyers who make an assload of money would make it difficult for the state to succeed, hence the state not wanting to pay the extra costs without it being a 'sure thing' (well, as sure as it can get in making a case)

Oh yeah -- I don't get to focus on anything really. The majority of the project is just going to be what their families experienced. And yes, we have come a long way from the past (especially post 1947 and 1954, respectively -- with Jackie Robinson and Brown v Board) but we've still got a long way to go. I got lots of stuff about good and bad of what happened to immigrants. All I ask them to do is look at the experience as a whole and decide what they think. The main thrust of the grade is going to be the justification for the position they take. I told them stories about my dad's side of the family that came from Italy and ran a successful grocery store without any repercussions. But at the same time I think it is important for kids to see a lot of what happened in the past -- not only because it shows how we got to where we are but also for the simple fact of "Never again." in regards to discrimination. When my co-op and I told stories that there used to be black schools and white schools, their jaws dropped. Some kids even laughed at the idea of pre-1960s that there was such a hubub about JFK being Catholic. My co-op grew up in the town and has taught there for 34 years so he was telling a lot of stories of his experience pre and post-Brown v Board in the community. Interesting stuff. Plus, when you show how the bad parts changed -- it shows them that their actions can change things if they put their mind to it. We've spent a lot of time on value analysis. We'll take situations like Jackson in Florida or Jackson's Indian Removal and weigh pros/cons (with me always playing Devil's Advocate) and pressing for reasons why people think the way they are. Then there's the role reversal questions (if thought it was good, how would you feel if you were being harmed by the situation and vice versa) and universal consequences (what happens if everybody commits the action in question) and what alternate ways could this have gone down? It isn't so much telling them what to think but how to think and formulate an opinion with facts/justification. Whenever we've had a discussion I make up a page or two of readings -- 1/2 supporting the action with reasoning and 1/2 against. Then the class goes into debate mode with me just throwing questions out to play with their minds a little bit and not having me commit to either side of the argument.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_...ornia_execution Seems the whole Hippocratic Oath is keeping doctors from performing the "necessary" task. The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional. The anesthesiologists would have joined another doctor who is on duty at all California executions to declare the prisoner dead and ensure proper medical procedures are followed. The doctor does not insert any of the intravenous lines and is not in the room during the execution itself; typically the doctor watches the inmate's vital signs on electronic monitors outside the death chamber. And it also says something about the death sentence for this guy when the trial judge no longer believes the jailhouse snitch in the case that upped it from life in prison to the death sentence.

The reason violent offenders are sometimes forcibly paroled is due to mandatory minimum sentencing via the War on Drugs. Judge James Gray (Libertarian candidate a few years ago) has written extensively on this topic. The vast majority of those arrested in the War on Drugs are non-violent offenders that have amounts for personal use with no intent to sell. The statistics of the nation further prove this point. Due to the DOJ and the White House (both parties) wanting to be seen as "tough on crime", they put mandatory minimum sentences in place -- which have severely tied the hands of trial judges. Since these people are forced to serve their mandatory minimum for having a few joints for personal use, violent criminals are forced back out on the streets due to prison overcrowding. The answer seems simple. End the War on Drugs and then you can keep violent offenders in for their terms and only release them if they are truly rehabilitated. And CKnolls -- my point was that true conservatives want to severely limit the power of the state. If you believe that they are too inept for poverty payments etc., why give them the power to kill? Especially after the DA's in many states have been busted for hiding evidence that would exonerate a defendant, having witnesses lie, DNA exonerating criminals that they believed were guilty. For a government to say that individuals taking life is illegal and morally bankrupt, then shouldn't this stand for the government as well? If they believe in the sanctity of life, then shouldn't it stand to reason that the state cannot violate such sanctity if it expects its people to do the same? Aside from the philosophical debate about capital punishment, there are plenty of practical reasons to oppose state sanctioned murder. As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated: "The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment...It is also evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society." And a little empirical evidence for that Marshall quote: Over 80% of people executed since 1976 were convicted of killing white victims, although blacks make up more than half of all homicide victims in the US. A defendant who can afford his or her own attorney is much less likely to be sentenced to die. 95% of all people sentenced to death in the US could not afford their own attorney.