Saturday, December 3, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Pakistan and testosterone.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)