I was just thinking that I should blog something, since I haven't in a while. And my last few posts were on voting and capital punishment, not exactly big yuks. Ideally my funny bone would kick into action now and I'd write something whimsical and smart, but it doesn't seem to be happening. So I'll plod through another annoying topic, Pakistan.
Pakistan is really irritated with us right now because NATO accidentally killed 24 of their soldiers. Maybe they could overlook that, because shit happens, but they were already pissed because we offed Osama bin Laden - not that we didn't have even more reason to be pissed because they were hiding him. But, as the illustrious Michelle Bachmann said, Pakistan is too nuclear to let fail, which seems to be the prevailing opinion.
I don't buy it, though. My first inclination is, "Let's just nuke them into a parking lot and start over." But that is just testosterone talking, and really is much to my dismay. I have a love/hate relationship with testosterone that more often falls on the "hate" side.
So, what to do? Currently we give Pakistan billions of dollars a year, while their citizens burn our flag and call us the Great Satan, or whatever the current term is. Since the accidental killing of the soldiers, even the Pakistani leaders are jumping on that bandwagon. For all we spend on aid and our military, the pissant bureaucrats who run Pakistan seem to be in control. We are blackmailed by their nuclear weapons and strategic location.
As a general principle, it is wrong to give in to blackmail. And so it is with Pakistan. I think it's time to stop paying them to treat us like the weak kids in the hallway. Turn off the aid and impose sanctions.
What about the nukes? It's about time that we realize that eventually terrorists will get nuclear weapons. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The money we give Pakistan would go a long way toward securing our borders against terrorists. More important, we must negotiate from a position of power, not cowardice. It is almost certain that someday we will suffer another horrible terrorist attack. The best defense against that, as it was in the Cold War, is the threat of retaliation.
It's a frightful and depressing situation, but 2 = 2.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Odd Days: Thanksgiving
The last time I went to Bellingham, I whined about how much I don't like Bellingham. So this time I'm not going to do that. Even though it rained and blew coldness at us the entire time we were there. Even though the casinos STILL ALLOW SMOKING.
But there are excellent reasons to go to Bellingham for Thanksgiving. First, there is:
Dad's annual martini. And second..
.
Dad's annual phone call to all living family members. And third...
The incomparable Mount Rainier (when you can see it). And finally...
There is the return to Colorado and its incomparable beauty!
Sappy maybe, but entirely true.
But there are excellent reasons to go to Bellingham for Thanksgiving. First, there is:
Dad's annual martini. And second..
.
Dad's annual phone call to all living family members. And third...
The incomparable Mount Rainier (when you can see it). And finally...
There is the return to Colorado and its incomparable beauty!
Sappy maybe, but entirely true.
Monday, November 21, 2011
SheSez: No Capital Punishment, Part II
I have this urge to respond to two of Durf's comments and then offer up a final conundrum.
First a small quibble. I do *not* believe that most of those who abjure capital punishment are more concerned with protecting the guilty than the innocent. I suspect that the majority are fearful of executing an innocent. But even if it were the case that the majority simply oppose executing another individual, I'd be willing to bet it is more about the issue than the individual. Certainly true in my case.
As for the emotional response, I can't say I feel sorry for those who have committed murder and are about to die. I am, simply, horrified that we see execution as a solution to one of society's problems.
Now the conundrum. What do we do with murderers if we don't gas, hang, shoot, or fry them? Lacking a better solution, I thought dropping them (all of them) onto Gilligan's Island would work for me. Drop them and forget them. Of course if any of them build a boat and try to return to civilization, I guess we'd have to shoot 'em.
First a small quibble. I do *not* believe that most of those who abjure capital punishment are more concerned with protecting the guilty than the innocent. I suspect that the majority are fearful of executing an innocent. But even if it were the case that the majority simply oppose executing another individual, I'd be willing to bet it is more about the issue than the individual. Certainly true in my case.
As for the emotional response, I can't say I feel sorry for those who have committed murder and are about to die. I am, simply, horrified that we see execution as a solution to one of society's problems.
Now the conundrum. What do we do with murderers if we don't gas, hang, shoot, or fry them? Lacking a better solution, I thought dropping them (all of them) onto Gilligan's Island would work for me. Drop them and forget them. Of course if any of them build a boat and try to return to civilization, I guess we'd have to shoot 'em.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
He Sez: Capital Punishment, Part 2.
The arguments against capital punishment are, as always, that it is more important to save the guilty than to protect the innocent. Just as drunk drivers are sometimes sentenced to view numerous photos of horrific traffic accidents, perhaps those opposed to CP should be required to view photos of the victims of capital crimes. That might remind them that there is more at stake than a squeamish feeling in their stomachs.
There are only two reasons to think that CP is barbarous: religion and emotion.
The religious statement is that all human life is special and must be protected. Fine, believe what you will.
Even rational people, however, are subject to the tugs of emotion. Preservation of the species is the strongest human instinct, even stronger than preservation of self, so when we see someone in a vulnerable position it is usual and normal for us to want to save them. When Saddam Hussein was found in a hole in the ground, picking fleas from his scraggly beard, I saw many letters and op-eds expressing sympathy for him. The same did not occur after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, perhaps because we did not see him in a vulnerable position and our emotions were not aroused.
To become a superior society we have to give precedence to our intellects, not our hearts.
There are only two reasons to think that CP is barbarous: religion and emotion.
The religious statement is that all human life is special and must be protected. Fine, believe what you will.
Even rational people, however, are subject to the tugs of emotion. Preservation of the species is the strongest human instinct, even stronger than preservation of self, so when we see someone in a vulnerable position it is usual and normal for us to want to save them. When Saddam Hussein was found in a hole in the ground, picking fleas from his scraggly beard, I saw many letters and op-eds expressing sympathy for him. The same did not occur after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, perhaps because we did not see him in a vulnerable position and our emotions were not aroused.
To become a superior society we have to give precedence to our intellects, not our hearts.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
SheSez: No Capital Punishment
I am strongly against capital punishment (of the killing variety), but unlike Durf, I fear my reasons are more emotional than rational.
That's not to say I haven't considered the pros and cons he describes. And I've even formed an opinion or two. For example:
1. Durf suggests that although capital punishment is not currently a deterrent, it could become so. But I am of the opinion that killers are a different breed. I would be very surprised if a quick execution would serve as a deterrent.
2. As for disproportionately executing minorities of one sort or another, I do believe it is directly related to capital punishment. When a capital crime is committed, there is a blood lust response by the public and law enforcement. Someone has to pay. And I believe society finds it a lot more comfortable to pull the trigger on members of certain groups rather than others.
3. And finally there is the fear of executing the wrong person. But I wonder...are all wrongly convicted people created equal? For example, suppose the wrongly convicted person was a criminal. Is it less awful if he is wrongly executed? (I sat on the jury for a gang murder once and fully half of the members wanted to vote for conviction because even if the kid did not commit the murder, he was a bad person and belonged in jail anyway.) I too am horrified at the thought that an innocent might be executed. But it's not something I want to fix. It's just one more reason for abolishing capital punishment altogether.
Which brings me to why I am against capital punishment. Simply this: Most horrifying of all is the notion that we as a society might choose to solve one or more of our problems by killing another person. It's the ultimate in barbarity.
As to the alternative, I'll save that for another day.
That's not to say I haven't considered the pros and cons he describes. And I've even formed an opinion or two. For example:
1. Durf suggests that although capital punishment is not currently a deterrent, it could become so. But I am of the opinion that killers are a different breed. I would be very surprised if a quick execution would serve as a deterrent.
2. As for disproportionately executing minorities of one sort or another, I do believe it is directly related to capital punishment. When a capital crime is committed, there is a blood lust response by the public and law enforcement. Someone has to pay. And I believe society finds it a lot more comfortable to pull the trigger on members of certain groups rather than others.
3. And finally there is the fear of executing the wrong person. But I wonder...are all wrongly convicted people created equal? For example, suppose the wrongly convicted person was a criminal. Is it less awful if he is wrongly executed? (I sat on the jury for a gang murder once and fully half of the members wanted to vote for conviction because even if the kid did not commit the murder, he was a bad person and belonged in jail anyway.) I too am horrified at the thought that an innocent might be executed. But it's not something I want to fix. It's just one more reason for abolishing capital punishment altogether.
Which brings me to why I am against capital punishment. Simply this: Most horrifying of all is the notion that we as a society might choose to solve one or more of our problems by killing another person. It's the ultimate in barbarity.
As to the alternative, I'll save that for another day.
Friday, November 18, 2011
He Sez: Capital Punishment.
I am *strongly* in favor of capital punishment. I think every politician in Washington should be thrown out of office because… oh, the other capital punishment.
Like abortion, CP is a life-or-death issue that inflames people's passions. CP opponents say that it is immoral, that it brings government down to the level of the criminals, that its imposition is racially biased, that errors are made, and that it is too expensive. I am neither for nor against CP, but there are logical arguments in its favor.
First, if anyone opposes CP because of their religious faith, so be it. Faith and logic are incompatible, and I do not question anyone's faith - not out loud, that is. But if religion is not part of your equation on the issue of CP, please read on.
The primary argument in favor of CP is that it is a deterrent. Persons contemplating committing a capital crime might be less inclined to do so if they knew they were risking their own lives. The current data do not support that hypothesis. Crime rates in states that have or do not have CP are essentially the same. Another argument is that CP is too expensive when considering all the legal hurdles that must be met. Both of those arguments are valid, but only because of the way CP is currently administered.
A person arrested for, say, murder knows that she would not face execution for many years, during which legal appeals would proceed. Furthermore, only a small percentage of those sentenced to death are ever executed. Those facts essentially eliminate the deterrence aspect of CP and put great strain on our legal system.
My proposal is that any person sentenced to death would be executed within 6 months after sentencing. Then not only would the threat of CP become a more effective deterrent, but also the process would be significantly less expensive than confining someone to prison for life.
Are blacks disproportionately sentenced to death? Perhaps, but that is a problem with our legal system that is not directly related to CP.
Is CP immoral and does it reduce the status of government? I argue strongly that it is not and it does not. The real question is whether it saves innocent lives, which it surely would do if executed promptly. A criminal might be ambivalent about the prospect of life in prison, but would surely find it hard to ignore the prospect of being dead within half a year. Lost in the argument that CP is immoral is the real immorality of putting many innocent lives in danger.
It is true that many persons sentenced to death have been vindicated, generally by the relatively new science of DNA analysis, which is now available at the time of trial. Nevertheless, it is realistic to assume that mistakes would be made and occasionally an innocent person would be executed, a tragic result. That is a small price, however, when compared to the hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives that could be saved by the deterrence that CP could and should have.
Humans will always make mistakes, but that should not stop us from trying to do the right thing, and the right thing clearly is to try to protect as many lives as possible.
Like abortion, CP is a life-or-death issue that inflames people's passions. CP opponents say that it is immoral, that it brings government down to the level of the criminals, that its imposition is racially biased, that errors are made, and that it is too expensive. I am neither for nor against CP, but there are logical arguments in its favor.
First, if anyone opposes CP because of their religious faith, so be it. Faith and logic are incompatible, and I do not question anyone's faith - not out loud, that is. But if religion is not part of your equation on the issue of CP, please read on.
The primary argument in favor of CP is that it is a deterrent. Persons contemplating committing a capital crime might be less inclined to do so if they knew they were risking their own lives. The current data do not support that hypothesis. Crime rates in states that have or do not have CP are essentially the same. Another argument is that CP is too expensive when considering all the legal hurdles that must be met. Both of those arguments are valid, but only because of the way CP is currently administered.
A person arrested for, say, murder knows that she would not face execution for many years, during which legal appeals would proceed. Furthermore, only a small percentage of those sentenced to death are ever executed. Those facts essentially eliminate the deterrence aspect of CP and put great strain on our legal system.
My proposal is that any person sentenced to death would be executed within 6 months after sentencing. Then not only would the threat of CP become a more effective deterrent, but also the process would be significantly less expensive than confining someone to prison for life.
Are blacks disproportionately sentenced to death? Perhaps, but that is a problem with our legal system that is not directly related to CP.
Is CP immoral and does it reduce the status of government? I argue strongly that it is not and it does not. The real question is whether it saves innocent lives, which it surely would do if executed promptly. A criminal might be ambivalent about the prospect of life in prison, but would surely find it hard to ignore the prospect of being dead within half a year. Lost in the argument that CP is immoral is the real immorality of putting many innocent lives in danger.
It is true that many persons sentenced to death have been vindicated, generally by the relatively new science of DNA analysis, which is now available at the time of trial. Nevertheless, it is realistic to assume that mistakes would be made and occasionally an innocent person would be executed, a tragic result. That is a small price, however, when compared to the hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives that could be saved by the deterrence that CP could and should have.
Humans will always make mistakes, but that should not stop us from trying to do the right thing, and the right thing clearly is to try to protect as many lives as possible.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Odd Days: Felled by Eccentricity
I've been meditating on the eccentricity comment by Anonymous. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth there.
I suppose nowhere is my eccentricity more apparent than in my pursuit of physical activity. I'm a junkie, I admit it. One of the reasons we moved to Colorado was so that I could be among my own kind. That's not to say I'm skilled at all of my endeavors. Quite the contrary. But what I lack in innate ability, I try to make up for in willpower and brute force. I suppose that's where the eccentricity starts to show.
In college, I made the basketball team, not by being a good shooter or a deft passer. I did it by being the roughest toughest girl on the court. Opponents would see me coming down the court straight at them and drop the ball out of sheer terror.
As a runner, I certainly have an eccentric style. I barely lift my feet off the ground, which means I can trip over a dime. And because I'm always looking at the scenery instead of the road, I spend a lot of time in splat position on the pavement.
And then there's dance. Whereas some might yearn for k.d. lang's skill, I want to be Savion Glover in my next life. Although aware that I haven't a graceful bone in my body, over the years I have stubbornly heeded Milton's clarion call, "Come, and trip it as you go, on the light fantastic toe." So when we moved to CO, I took up Zumba and tap. Determined not to fall behind, I practiced salsa and brush strokes *endlessly* in our basement. One can only do this at my age if you have OCD. The result: twisted knees and tortured hamstrings.
My bicycle injuries are unprintable.
Most recently I've taken up weightlifting for the feeble, fully expecting to look like Linda Hamilton one day soon.
I guess I'll cop to the eccentric charge.
I suppose nowhere is my eccentricity more apparent than in my pursuit of physical activity. I'm a junkie, I admit it. One of the reasons we moved to Colorado was so that I could be among my own kind. That's not to say I'm skilled at all of my endeavors. Quite the contrary. But what I lack in innate ability, I try to make up for in willpower and brute force. I suppose that's where the eccentricity starts to show.
In college, I made the basketball team, not by being a good shooter or a deft passer. I did it by being the roughest toughest girl on the court. Opponents would see me coming down the court straight at them and drop the ball out of sheer terror.
As a runner, I certainly have an eccentric style. I barely lift my feet off the ground, which means I can trip over a dime. And because I'm always looking at the scenery instead of the road, I spend a lot of time in splat position on the pavement.
And then there's dance. Whereas some might yearn for k.d. lang's skill, I want to be Savion Glover in my next life. Although aware that I haven't a graceful bone in my body, over the years I have stubbornly heeded Milton's clarion call, "Come, and trip it as you go, on the light fantastic toe." So when we moved to CO, I took up Zumba and tap. Determined not to fall behind, I practiced salsa and brush strokes *endlessly* in our basement. One can only do this at my age if you have OCD. The result: twisted knees and tortured hamstrings.
My bicycle injuries are unprintable.
Most recently I've taken up weightlifting for the feeble, fully expecting to look like Linda Hamilton one day soon.
I guess I'll cop to the eccentric charge.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Moon.
We call the sphere that orbits our planet "the moon," but that is kind of silly. There are almost 140 known moons in our solar system and there are about 300 known stars in the Milky Way that have planets and surely there are many more, with who knows how many moons. Then there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the (our) universe. So calling our one moon "the" moon is presumptuous at best. Someday when intelligent aliens are visiting Earth and one of us looks up and says something like, "The moon is bright tonight," you can imagine them holding their stomachs and bending over going, "Snirk, snirk, snirk. 'THE' moon! Snirk, snirk, snirk." So we should fix that.
I'm not proposing a contest to name our moon. That would be dumb. Imagine saying, "There's a full Clarence tonight." Even though many of the moons in our solar system have names, that doesn't sound right. I propose that we just name our moon "Moon," which kind of makes sense. "Moon is full" or "Cow jumped over Moon" sound okay and show some affection for that orb that does, really, affect all of us.
Here are a couple of other spacey things:
Photos of NuSTAR, which will launch in 78 days.
Cool representation of deep space.
I'm not proposing a contest to name our moon. That would be dumb. Imagine saying, "There's a full Clarence tonight." Even though many of the moons in our solar system have names, that doesn't sound right. I propose that we just name our moon "Moon," which kind of makes sense. "Moon is full" or "Cow jumped over Moon" sound okay and show some affection for that orb that does, really, affect all of us.
Here are a couple of other spacey things:
Photos of NuSTAR, which will launch in 78 days.
Cool representation of deep space.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Odd Days: War of the Roses
Years ago, I stopped reading articles about why couples fight. Boring. At least to me. Durf and I appeared to be outliers, because none of our issues were ever on anyone's list. Then one day a headline caught my eye: "Thermostat Wars." Aha! What a relief it was to discover that there were others who put this issue front and center!
Don't laugh. How would you like it if you had to go stand on the porch in zero degree temperatures just to cool off because the house is a sauna? It's enough to get your blood boiling. Or what about having to put on three layers of clothing while sitting in your office even though it's 95 degrees outside? Seriously, it's hard to maintain your equilibrium.
Over the more than 30 years Durf and I have shared living space, I have discovered that Durf has a very narrow range of comfort. It goes from 68 degrees to 68 degrees. Summer, fall, winter, spring. 68 degrees. I, on the other hand, adjust to the season. So if I had my druthers, I'd keep the house at 84 in the summer and 66 (65? 64?) in the winter.
Before you howl, let me remind you that adaptability is a virtue!
But Durf and I don't really fight in the traditional way. We have mastered the art of stealth fighting. So there I was working away in my office yesterday when I noticed sweat dripping down my face onto my papers. I looked up and saw that the outside temperature was about 50, but inside the house it was (gasp) pushing 70. I tiptoed out of my office and very quietly pulled down the cover to the thermostat. AHA, it had been turned up! I rewound it to a breathable level and tiptoed back to my office.
I dare say Durf does the same thing because I find I have to make several trips a day to the thermostat.
We're still married, though, and I don't see that changing in the near future. I can only assume the thermostat wars are not as fatal as the money wars.
Don't laugh. How would you like it if you had to go stand on the porch in zero degree temperatures just to cool off because the house is a sauna? It's enough to get your blood boiling. Or what about having to put on three layers of clothing while sitting in your office even though it's 95 degrees outside? Seriously, it's hard to maintain your equilibrium.
Over the more than 30 years Durf and I have shared living space, I have discovered that Durf has a very narrow range of comfort. It goes from 68 degrees to 68 degrees. Summer, fall, winter, spring. 68 degrees. I, on the other hand, adjust to the season. So if I had my druthers, I'd keep the house at 84 in the summer and 66 (65? 64?) in the winter.
Before you howl, let me remind you that adaptability is a virtue!
But Durf and I don't really fight in the traditional way. We have mastered the art of stealth fighting. So there I was working away in my office yesterday when I noticed sweat dripping down my face onto my papers. I looked up and saw that the outside temperature was about 50, but inside the house it was (gasp) pushing 70. I tiptoed out of my office and very quietly pulled down the cover to the thermostat. AHA, it had been turned up! I rewound it to a breathable level and tiptoed back to my office.
I dare say Durf does the same thing because I find I have to make several trips a day to the thermostat.
We're still married, though, and I don't see that changing in the near future. I can only assume the thermostat wars are not as fatal as the money wars.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
He Sez: Voting, Part 2.
Twila brought up an interesting question about whether one should have to pass a test to vote. I don't think it would be right to deprive anyone of their vote, but I have an alternate idea.
The best a democracy can hope for in the long run is mediocrity. That is assured by the one citizen/one vote rule. Whenever someone suggests modifying that rule there is a loud outcry of complaint, but there is no question that some votes are worth more in a qualitative sense than others. Some people vote after a thorough study of the issues, others with only a modest idea of what's going on, some are fueled by slogans and anger, and some have no clue whatsoever. If we wish to have a government that is better than mediocre -- or, in our current situation, a government that is able to function in any way -- we must give more influence to voters who know the most.
Once voting by computer, whether online or in a polling place, is standard, reasonable solutions become possible. I would propose that shortly before an election a bipartisan or non-partisan committee draw up 200 questions relevant to the candidates and issues in the election. When a person has initiated the voting process, he would have one vote. Then he would be presented with 8 of the 200 questions chosen randomly, and for each two questions answered correctly he would receive an extra vote; that is, his votes would count more. For example, if he answered only two questions correctly, each of his votes would count as two. Every person's votes would then have a weight of 1 to 5.
There would be no reason to keep secret the list of possible questions. Indeed, studying the list would improve most people's ability to vote sensibly.
I think this method of weighting votes would work very well until we achieve the ideal - government that is run entirely by computer.
The best a democracy can hope for in the long run is mediocrity. That is assured by the one citizen/one vote rule. Whenever someone suggests modifying that rule there is a loud outcry of complaint, but there is no question that some votes are worth more in a qualitative sense than others. Some people vote after a thorough study of the issues, others with only a modest idea of what's going on, some are fueled by slogans and anger, and some have no clue whatsoever. If we wish to have a government that is better than mediocre -- or, in our current situation, a government that is able to function in any way -- we must give more influence to voters who know the most.
Once voting by computer, whether online or in a polling place, is standard, reasonable solutions become possible. I would propose that shortly before an election a bipartisan or non-partisan committee draw up 200 questions relevant to the candidates and issues in the election. When a person has initiated the voting process, he would have one vote. Then he would be presented with 8 of the 200 questions chosen randomly, and for each two questions answered correctly he would receive an extra vote; that is, his votes would count more. For example, if he answered only two questions correctly, each of his votes would count as two. Every person's votes would then have a weight of 1 to 5.
There would be no reason to keep secret the list of possible questions. Indeed, studying the list would improve most people's ability to vote sensibly.
I think this method of weighting votes would work very well until we achieve the ideal - government that is run entirely by computer.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
SheSez: Voting
Before I weigh in on the issues Durf raised, let me just say that voters befuddle me. It seems as though *everyone* has an opinion and yet lots of people don't vote. People say their vote won't make a difference and yet they have strong opinions about efforts to disenfranchise voters. And finally, what about all those people who vote *against* their best interests. That one knocks my socks off. Which brings us to the issue of the uneducated voter and...
Mandatory voting
My take: Very very bad idea
In my perfect world, everyone would educate themselves on the issues and then *everyone* would vote...and, of course, vote like me. I actually do care how people vote. But given that many people do *not* educate themselves on the issues and (sputter) often vote for precisely the issues that will cause them most harm, I actually get down on my atheistic knees and pray that those people do not vote. The thought of making voting mandatory is horrifying. However, the very fact that a person might want to vote is a huge plus in my mind, which leads me to issue #2.
Internet voting
My take: If it will make voting easier, then why not?
I think voting should be easy and that anyone who wants to vote should be able to do so without having to venture out in a snowstorm to a polling place or a mailbox (if that would keep them from voting). So yes, I vote for internet voting.
Pass a Test to Vote
The previous two issues are notable for not being terribly controversial. Missing from this debate is the highly controversial "pass a test to vote" issue. Let me narrow the question: Suppose you could in fact come up with a test that accurately measured whether or not the potential voter had a basic understanding of the issues on the ballot (or even a subset of said issues). Assume further that you were able to eliminate all prejudicial aspects of administering said test. (I realize that this is hypothetical in the extreme, but just go with it for now.) Then would you support a test, the results of which would determine whether or not a person could vote, and on which issues?
Mandatory voting
My take: Very very bad idea
In my perfect world, everyone would educate themselves on the issues and then *everyone* would vote...and, of course, vote like me. I actually do care how people vote. But given that many people do *not* educate themselves on the issues and (sputter) often vote for precisely the issues that will cause them most harm, I actually get down on my atheistic knees and pray that those people do not vote. The thought of making voting mandatory is horrifying. However, the very fact that a person might want to vote is a huge plus in my mind, which leads me to issue #2.
Internet voting
My take: If it will make voting easier, then why not?
I think voting should be easy and that anyone who wants to vote should be able to do so without having to venture out in a snowstorm to a polling place or a mailbox (if that would keep them from voting). So yes, I vote for internet voting.
Pass a Test to Vote
The previous two issues are notable for not being terribly controversial. Missing from this debate is the highly controversial "pass a test to vote" issue. Let me narrow the question: Suppose you could in fact come up with a test that accurately measured whether or not the potential voter had a basic understanding of the issues on the ballot (or even a subset of said issues). Assume further that you were able to eliminate all prejudicial aspects of administering said test. (I realize that this is hypothetical in the extreme, but just go with it for now.) Then would you support a test, the results of which would determine whether or not a person could vote, and on which issues?
Friday, November 11, 2011
He Sez: Voting.
During the last week I read three proposals regarding voting that I'd like to mention and comment briefly upon.
Proposal 1: Make voting mandatory.
My take: BAD IDEA.
Although I have my own ideas about things, I really don't care how people vote. I only ask that they be informed. The solutions to many of our issues, such as global warming, are rather obvious when the facts are known. There are, however, politicians (and even political parties) who thrive on sound bites, innuendoes, and even outright lies. The last thing we need are hoardes of reluctant slogan-drunk zombies stumbling mindlessly to the polls.
Proposal 2: Allow voting over the Internet.
My take: GREAT IDEA.
Note that no-one would be *required* to vote on the Internet, but it would be a terrific option. One positive effect is that it would likely draw the participation of large numbers of young people who care about politics but don't bother to go to the polls. I also think that people who own computers and know how to use them are more likely to be better educated.
I imagine Carl is going to pop up at any moment to say that Internet voting is too subject to tampering, so I'll proactively respond: POOPY-DOOP! Internet voting could be much more secure than our current systems. We do financial transactions and other private business online, after all. Suppose you had a 30-day voting window with voters sending their choices to servers in many states. Each of the servers could transfer all data offline regularly. If someone wanted to influence an election through hacking, where would he start? He'd have more influence by stealing a box of paper ballots from someone's garage.
Proposal 3:
Hmmm, wait, what was Proposal 3? There's mandatory voting, Internet voting, and.... Let's see, the third proposal was, er, um. Golly, I just can't remember. OOPS!
Proposal 1: Make voting mandatory.
My take: BAD IDEA.
Although I have my own ideas about things, I really don't care how people vote. I only ask that they be informed. The solutions to many of our issues, such as global warming, are rather obvious when the facts are known. There are, however, politicians (and even political parties) who thrive on sound bites, innuendoes, and even outright lies. The last thing we need are hoardes of reluctant slogan-drunk zombies stumbling mindlessly to the polls.
Proposal 2: Allow voting over the Internet.
My take: GREAT IDEA.
Note that no-one would be *required* to vote on the Internet, but it would be a terrific option. One positive effect is that it would likely draw the participation of large numbers of young people who care about politics but don't bother to go to the polls. I also think that people who own computers and know how to use them are more likely to be better educated.
I imagine Carl is going to pop up at any moment to say that Internet voting is too subject to tampering, so I'll proactively respond: POOPY-DOOP! Internet voting could be much more secure than our current systems. We do financial transactions and other private business online, after all. Suppose you had a 30-day voting window with voters sending their choices to servers in many states. Each of the servers could transfer all data offline regularly. If someone wanted to influence an election through hacking, where would he start? He'd have more influence by stealing a box of paper ballots from someone's garage.
Proposal 3:
Hmmm, wait, what was Proposal 3? There's mandatory voting, Internet voting, and.... Let's see, the third proposal was, er, um. Golly, I just can't remember. OOPS!
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
He Sez: Assholes.
I think She is overreacting. Was Steve Jobs an asshole/jerk? Certainly. Flaming, at times, as well as unethical. I never liked the man, and I like him even less now that he is dead and details of his life have been released. But I think he was a very interesting person and almost certainly a genius.
Jobs had limited technical skills, but he had an uncanny ability to imagine what people wanted, even before they knew it themselves. He assembled people with the ability to create what he'd imagined, and he built what is today the second richest company in the world. He fought Microsoft when they were the Evil Empire. He gave us the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iWhatever. He was an extremely creative person and a maestro of the magnificent.
As for doctors, I generally agree with She. Some are arrogant and some have god complexes, especially males. Medical schools today are including more training in forming good relationships with patients. But patients have to share some responsibility, because they often treat doctors as people who are somehow above us. Twila is a great example of an ideal patient, because she asks questions that need to be asked and she forces doctors to behave appropriately - that's why I always take her with me to a medical appointment.
Jobs had limited technical skills, but he had an uncanny ability to imagine what people wanted, even before they knew it themselves. He assembled people with the ability to create what he'd imagined, and he built what is today the second richest company in the world. He fought Microsoft when they were the Evil Empire. He gave us the iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iWhatever. He was an extremely creative person and a maestro of the magnificent.
As for doctors, I generally agree with She. Some are arrogant and some have god complexes, especially males. Medical schools today are including more training in forming good relationships with patients. But patients have to share some responsibility, because they often treat doctors as people who are somehow above us. Twila is a great example of an ideal patient, because she asks questions that need to be asked and she forces doctors to behave appropriately - that's why I always take her with me to a medical appointment.
Odd Days: The Man Massage (...speaking of underwear)
When I had my first massage many years ago, I didn't have to make any decisions. I walked in and was greeted by a strong-looking woman who led me to a room and told me to strip. My momentary discomfort at being naked in front of a stranger vanished quickly. I am, after all, a product of the 60s.
Over time, massage has moved into the mainstream, and with its legitimization have come choices. Many choices. For example, you can choose to leave all of your clothes on. Seriously. Another choice is: masseur or masseuse. In fact, if you unthinkingly request the first available massage appointment, you might well draw a man rather than a woman.
Somehow I tootled along, having the occasional massage and remaining oblivious to the possibility that I might one day unexpectedly meet a man in that tranquil room.
Fortuitously, I was not blindsided. The first time a man came into the picture, I was booking massages for a (good) friend and me. The receptionist volunteered that two massage therapists were available, one male and one female. Since I was doing the booking, I said, "I'll take the woman and my (good) friend will take the man." Then I had to break the news to my (good) friend. She said, "Well, actually, I'd prefer the woman." And I said, "Oh darn, I've already booked you with the man. You don't mind, do you?"
More recently, I went to Ohio to take my sister to a massage therapist. I could tell she was in dire need and I was willing to make the trip provided I could get an appointment too. So I called the female owner of a high class Columbus massage place and asked for two slots. She knew my sister so she booked us at our preferred time.
When we arrived, the receptionist told us that the owner (female, remember?) will be giving one of us a massage and *Jason* would take care of the other. I gasped. Then I turned to my sister and with my eyes, I told her she should take the guy. She's lots younger and is supposed to do what I say, even if I only say it with my eyes. So she said, "Oh I'm sure you'll like Jason."
And then there he was! I gasped again, smiled tremulously, turned my back and whispered to the receptionist, "Don't your massage therapists have to be at least 18 to work on naked women?"
She assured me Jason was old enough, whereupon Jason led me to the tranquil room. The stress was building. I had a decision to make and I had to make it fast. Pretty soon he would be asking me if I wanted him to work on my glutes. I couldn't waver, I had to decide...underwear or no underwear. ACK!
Over time, massage has moved into the mainstream, and with its legitimization have come choices. Many choices. For example, you can choose to leave all of your clothes on. Seriously. Another choice is: masseur or masseuse. In fact, if you unthinkingly request the first available massage appointment, you might well draw a man rather than a woman.
Somehow I tootled along, having the occasional massage and remaining oblivious to the possibility that I might one day unexpectedly meet a man in that tranquil room.
Fortuitously, I was not blindsided. The first time a man came into the picture, I was booking massages for a (good) friend and me. The receptionist volunteered that two massage therapists were available, one male and one female. Since I was doing the booking, I said, "I'll take the woman and my (good) friend will take the man." Then I had to break the news to my (good) friend. She said, "Well, actually, I'd prefer the woman." And I said, "Oh darn, I've already booked you with the man. You don't mind, do you?"
More recently, I went to Ohio to take my sister to a massage therapist. I could tell she was in dire need and I was willing to make the trip provided I could get an appointment too. So I called the female owner of a high class Columbus massage place and asked for two slots. She knew my sister so she booked us at our preferred time.
When we arrived, the receptionist told us that the owner (female, remember?) will be giving one of us a massage and *Jason* would take care of the other. I gasped. Then I turned to my sister and with my eyes, I told her she should take the guy. She's lots younger and is supposed to do what I say, even if I only say it with my eyes. So she said, "Oh I'm sure you'll like Jason."
And then there he was! I gasped again, smiled tremulously, turned my back and whispered to the receptionist, "Don't your massage therapists have to be at least 18 to work on naked women?"
She assured me Jason was old enough, whereupon Jason led me to the tranquil room. The stress was building. I had a decision to make and I had to make it fast. Pretty soon he would be asking me if I wanted him to work on my glutes. I couldn't waver, I had to decide...underwear or no underwear. ACK!
Monday, November 7, 2011
SheSez: When is it ok to be an asshole?
Sorry for the language, but "jerk" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
I've been meditating on our (society's) penchant for cutting certain undeserving individuals a lot of slack. I'm not talking about the fact that we are so easily star-struck by the likes of...Lindsay Lohan? What disturbs me more is the canonizing of the mediocre misanthrope.
Take Steve Jobs, for example. Wozniak did the tech work, Jobs did the marketing. Wozniak tried to spread the wealth among peripheral participants. He gave his money away from the get-go. Jobs stole from his partners, taunted and lied to his employees, and apparently enjoyed wielding his power and influence in ways that would humiliate and defeat friend/relative/acquaintance/competitor/whomever. And yet everything good about Apple now seems to be associated with Jobs.
Even in his personal life, Jobs was a hypocrite of the highest order. And a jerk. What grates are the reverential murmurings in the media that describe the man as a genius, while brushing off his malevolent nature as the quirkiness of a great mind.
Bah humbug! Dare I say it? The world would have been just fine had Steve Jobs never walked the earth. I never wished him ill, but seriously, what did he actually contribute? He was a jerk.
Perhaps you could care less, but let's take an example that is closer to home. Your doctor. Do you revere him or her? Even if not, do you cut her/him lots of slack? Is it ok for your doctor to treat you like skunk poop? Or to keep you waiting for two hours?
A few years ago, I asked my father's neurologist a technical question about my father's stroke and the neurologist responded, "If I tell you the answer what makes you think you will understand it?"
If it had been I lying in that hospital bed instead of my father, I would have fired that doctor's ass. I refuse to be terrorized and disrespected by an entire profession, members of which (in my experience) can't tell a Form 1040 from credit card application.
In the unlikely event I die as a consequence of demanding respect from an arrogant doctor, then I'll die a happy woman. That's because Durfee will sue his ass!
I've been meditating on our (society's) penchant for cutting certain undeserving individuals a lot of slack. I'm not talking about the fact that we are so easily star-struck by the likes of...Lindsay Lohan? What disturbs me more is the canonizing of the mediocre misanthrope.
Take Steve Jobs, for example. Wozniak did the tech work, Jobs did the marketing. Wozniak tried to spread the wealth among peripheral participants. He gave his money away from the get-go. Jobs stole from his partners, taunted and lied to his employees, and apparently enjoyed wielding his power and influence in ways that would humiliate and defeat friend/relative/acquaintance/competitor/whomever. And yet everything good about Apple now seems to be associated with Jobs.
Even in his personal life, Jobs was a hypocrite of the highest order. And a jerk. What grates are the reverential murmurings in the media that describe the man as a genius, while brushing off his malevolent nature as the quirkiness of a great mind.
Bah humbug! Dare I say it? The world would have been just fine had Steve Jobs never walked the earth. I never wished him ill, but seriously, what did he actually contribute? He was a jerk.
Perhaps you could care less, but let's take an example that is closer to home. Your doctor. Do you revere him or her? Even if not, do you cut her/him lots of slack? Is it ok for your doctor to treat you like skunk poop? Or to keep you waiting for two hours?
A few years ago, I asked my father's neurologist a technical question about my father's stroke and the neurologist responded, "If I tell you the answer what makes you think you will understand it?"
If it had been I lying in that hospital bed instead of my father, I would have fired that doctor's ass. I refuse to be terrorized and disrespected by an entire profession, members of which (in my experience) can't tell a Form 1040 from credit card application.
In the unlikely event I die as a consequence of demanding respect from an arrogant doctor, then I'll die a happy woman. That's because Durfee will sue his ass!
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Odd Days: My Underwear
I don't know what it is with me and underwear, but we seem to have an uneasy relationship. This relationship is on my mind because I just returned from a short trip. Trips always make me think about my underwear.
Why? Well, once I prepared for a trip and, as usual, meticulously packed everything I might need several days in advance. I almost always start early so I won't forget anything, but on this particular occasion I forgot to pack any underwear at all. It was a disturbing discovery.
Then there was the time I visited my father and apparently left a pair of black lacy underwear under my sister's bed (where I had been sleeping). The underwear was returned to me in an unmarked package containing only the underwear and a note: "Thanks for the good time!" I think he was hoping Durf would open it.
More recently, I have been trying to travel light. So rather than carry a laundry bag, sometimes I stick my dirty underwear in the pocket of my jeans -- to be removed for laundering purposes when I return. But on occasion I decide to wear my jeans a second time, having forgotten what was in the pockets. When I subsequently empty the contents to see what's in there, I am frequently not alone. Makes for an awkward moment.
Ah, I've just unburdened myself of a dirty little secret.
Why? Well, once I prepared for a trip and, as usual, meticulously packed everything I might need several days in advance. I almost always start early so I won't forget anything, but on this particular occasion I forgot to pack any underwear at all. It was a disturbing discovery.
Then there was the time I visited my father and apparently left a pair of black lacy underwear under my sister's bed (where I had been sleeping). The underwear was returned to me in an unmarked package containing only the underwear and a note: "Thanks for the good time!" I think he was hoping Durf would open it.
More recently, I have been trying to travel light. So rather than carry a laundry bag, sometimes I stick my dirty underwear in the pocket of my jeans -- to be removed for laundering purposes when I return. But on occasion I decide to wear my jeans a second time, having forgotten what was in the pockets. When I subsequently empty the contents to see what's in there, I am frequently not alone. Makes for an awkward moment.
Ah, I've just unburdened myself of a dirty little secret.
He Sez: FAIL.
My blogging about secrets got off track very quickly. I was taken aback to learn that liberal attitudes about keeping promises are so prevalent, and I reacted with indignation instead of logically and, perhaps, more kindly. It was a blogging FAIL, and I only barely addressed Twila's original question about keeping a secret received from a person who subsequently died.
Twila's original premise listed perceived disadvantages, all of which outweigh any of the advantages she listed, IMO. It might seem reasonable and even important to release a secret in the scenario she described, but even she admits to the possibility that the consequences could be grave.
Twila mentioned that copyrights expire, and I think that's a good way to handle secrets. Feel free to reveal any secret 120 years after you hear it.
Twila's original premise listed perceived disadvantages, all of which outweigh any of the advantages she listed, IMO. It might seem reasonable and even important to release a secret in the scenario she described, but even she admits to the possibility that the consequences could be grave.
Twila mentioned that copyrights expire, and I think that's a good way to handle secrets. Feel free to reveal any secret 120 years after you hear it.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
He Sez: Secrets, Part 2.
This conversation has, I guess, ended, with the consensus being that the only way you can be sure something will not become public is to never reveal it. Most people seem to think that it's up to them whether to reveal something someone told them in confidence. Others even think that if someone tells you something and asks you not to tell anyone, it really means that they do want you to tell someone. I am surprised, shocked, and disappointed.
Convenient morality.
You can be sure that I will never tell any of *you* a secret.
Convenient morality.
You can be sure that I will never tell any of *you* a secret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)