Monthly archive for April2014

Oklahoma Inmate Dies After Execution Is Botched.  First, if it’s an execution and the inmate dies, is it really botched?  I mean, come on.  Mission accomplished.

I respectfully disagree with opponents of the death penalty.  They are entitled to their opinion as am I, a proponent of the death penalty.  I believe there are some crimes so serious at to merit the forfeiture of the perpetrator’s life.  In fact, I think that society has an obligation to  execute perpetrators of anti-social violent crimes, after due process of course.  I do not believe in slow, painful executions.  A hanging, firing squad or a bullet to the head would have been more humane treatment of the inmate in the above story than the idiotic lethal injection regimen most states been forced into by the courts.

OK, let’s have the debate:

Execution won’t bring the victim(s) back!  Keeping the perpetrator alive won’t bring ’em back either.

The death penalty is not a deterrent!  It’s not meant to be a deterrent – it’s a punishment.  Using that logic, we should just repeal all laws since they don’t seem to deter the criminals who violate them.

The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill!  The 5th Commandment Says Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder.  There’s a difference.  The Bible also says take an eye for an eye.

Alright, time’s up.

We should take no pleasure in the execution of a murderer – I do not.  It is not done for vengeance.  But it is neccessary.  There are evil people in the world and those that commit crimes such as the Oklahoma inmate deserve death.  If there is mercy to be meted out, it will be done at the hand of the Father.

Dinoasurs like me who have an affinity for muscular cars powered soley by our long deceased dinosaur cousins will have to get used to the fact that the sports cars of the future are going to be driven at least partially by electrons.  Of course, those electrons are still produced by our long deceased dinosaur cousins.  But I digress…

Now BMW has unveiled it’s new plug-in hybrid sports coupe for 2015, the i8.  Gone are the days when a BMW’s model number would tell you the specifics about the car – engine displacement, body style, etc. – apparently this one was named after an Interstate Highway?  No matter.  Autoblog gives us a complete and thorough road test of the $130,000 plus coupe which is powered by a 129 horsepower 96 Kw electric motor up front and a 231 horsepower turbocharged 1.5 liter 3 cylinder gasoline engine in the rear.  My guess is they took the venerable 3 liter six and lopped it in half.  A computer decides whether you get gas powered rear wheel drive or electric powered front wheel drive (or a combination of both) based on settings chosen by the driver and the heaviness of the driver’s right foot.  The tandem power plants deliver a combined 362 horsepower and 420 pounds feet of torque which will propel the i8 from 0-60 in a non-hybrid like 4.3 seconds.  This is due in large part to the coupe’s miniscule curb weight of 3,285 lbs. which translates into a horsepower to weight ratio of a shade more that 220 hp/ton.  Not bad.  And looks – wow!  Like a concept car.  I keep asking where are the flying cars that futurists of the sixties promised us – this one doesn’t fly, but looks like it could (or should).

Impressive design, impressive engineering and impressive performance.  I would expect no less from BMW.  However… as deep as it is in design, engineering and performance, it comes up short in convenience and practicality.  There are no cupholders for the occupants of the front seats (!) and with an engine in the front and the back, there is no trunk for your junk.  BMW has yet to release economy figures.  $130K + seems like a stretch unless you’re just trying to out status the neighbors.  I still think for the money I’d have an Audi R-8.  Screw the environment.

Cross posted at the blog: Men Out Of Work

Or what makes a human “human” and an animal “not human”?  Well, it’s not physical charactersitics because there are animals that share our physical characteristics.  Humans have a soul and animals do not?  There is no physical proof of the presence or absence of a soul in humans or animals for that matter.  These questions and rebuttals can proceed ad infinitum.  Eventually the question is begged: Do Animals Have Rights?

I don’t think this stuff up on my own.  Usually someone a lot smarter and more articulate than I am writes something that get me thinking.  And this time it’s no different.  Via Althouse I found this article:  http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-his-animal-law-classes-wise-told-me.html

Which in turn led me to this NYT article: “Should a Chimp Be Able To Sue It’s Owner?”

Both of these articles look at the question more from the perspective of “in the eyes of the law, what makes a human different from an animal?”  For one thing a human can communicate with his/her attorney or the court.  If the client can’t then someone is given power of attorney and the right to speak for the one who can’t.    Well that could be done for an animal as well, right?  Hmmm…  One thing seems for certain – humans are unique among the other animals of the earth and I don’t make that statement simply from the arrogance of being the Apex Predator.  And since we are unique, there is something that makes us so.  But exactly what is it?  Up for debate – ad infinitum.

And it will only get more complicated…

What about Robot Animals?

Well, can teens carry on a face to face conversation anymore.  They’re people, aren’t they?  I know I’ve noticed, probably so have you at times, in a coffeshop or pizzeria the table where there is sitting a group of young people, teens or a little older.  And they are all staring at their phones instead of interacting with each other.  It’s almost a cliche, it’s so common.  Young people are heavily dependent on (obsessed with?) their devices for communication.  And they’re good at it.  But can they bring it old school?  Analoggy style?  Actual face-to-face conversation with a real person who is right there with you In Real Life?  Skype  and other face chatting doesn’t count.

I’m not the only one who’s wondering.  In The Atlantic Paul Barnwell writes: My Students Don’t Know How To Have A Conversation.  Subtitled  “Students’ reliance on screens  for communication is detracting-and distracting-from their engagement in real-time talk.”,  the article is a teacher’s tale of challenging his high school students to put down their phones and effectively converse and communicate ideas with each other.  It was not an easy task.  Barnwell leads off the article with this statement:

Recently I stood in front of my class, observing an all-too-familiar scene. Most of my students were covertly—or so they thought—pecking away at their smartphones under their desks, checking their Facebook feeds and texts.

He proceeds to tell his High School Junior English class that he will be giving them assignments designed to help them practice, or in some cases learn a basic skill they would need in real life: holding a conversation.  The article then details some of the types of assignments given and results achieved as well as some of the shortfalls regarding our approach to teaching and communicating “in the 21st century”.  It would be worth the few minutes of your time to click over and read the whole thing.  Barnwell  is obviously a committed educator who is thinking of how he might serve his students after they move on from his classroon into their adult lives.  There is much emphasis in education today on technology:  many schools supply each student with a laptop and encourage electronic communication, submitting assignments via e-mail and the like.  This emphasis on technology is an overemphasis in my opinion.  While Barnwell doesn’t explicity share this estimation, he does seem to concede the possibility:

It might sound like a funny question, but we need to ask ourselves: Is there any 21st-century skill more important than being able to sustain confident, coherent conversation?

I for one do not find it a funny question, and I think the answer is clearly “No there is not a more important 21st century skill than being able to sustain confident, coherent conversation”.  The ability to receive, process, formulate and express concepts verbally is the very foundation of communication and learning.  If one had no skills other than those, it would still be possible to learn any other skills needed.  And without the skill to communicate verbally, the neccessary exchange of information for all other learning cannot succeed.  So before a child (teen? young adult? any person?) needs internet access or a smartphone or a laptop they first need to learn to use the computer between their ears.

… a continuing series.  Today we explore the disinclination of people to do things they don’t want to do regardless of the level of persuasion placed on them by other people who think they know what’s best for everyone.

Draw Your Own Conclusion

Two things have jumped out at me from the news in the last few days.  The first one is that two states, New York and Massachussettts have recently passed legislation requiring that owners of certain rifles register them with the state and that the laws have been largely ignored.  State officials were taken by surprise and are not sure what the next step will be.  The second is that after the deadline has passed requiring people to enroll in a healthcare plan under The Affordable Care Act, many are still not doing it.  And their reasons for not purchasing healthcare insurance are the same reasons they didn’t do it before the law was passed.  And so passage of the law had no effect on their reasoning for inaction.

Moral?  Some people cannot be coerced into taking an action they do not wish to take regardless of whether it is actually (arguably) in their best interest to take that action.  People will do what they want to do and they won’t do what they don’t want to do.  But what I find discomforting about all this is that there appears to be a belief among our political class that they can circumvent human nature (or laws of physics, or economics) with the stroke of a pen.  And even more discomforting is that they feel no guilt over their actions since they believe are “helping” you.

Surreal is one of those words that has crept into common use – over use (and incorrect use) in my opinion.  Surreal is defined as having to do with surrealism, or as an adjective is used to define something having a disorienting or hallucinatory quality.

Like this

I believe the way it is used today is an evolution of the word “unreal” which was introduced to the popular jargon in the 60’s and 70’s.  Along with phrases like “far out” and “right on”, unreal is a generic idiom for something like “wow”.  Or when a person sees something unusual or unexpected they might exclaim “unreal!” or describe an unusual thing or an event as “unreal”.  That evolved into “surreal”, I think becusue it surreal sounds better and people think it makes them sound smart.  But it doesn’t – so stop saying it!  Unless you look outthe window of your giant mushroom house and the sky is purple, full of orange clouds, it’s raining fish and your dog (with a lion’s head) is flying around the yard snatching them out of mid-air.  Then you are free to enjoin: “that is so surreal!”

Smiles: Give One, Get One

People often go through their daily paces avoiding eye contact.  I include myself.  I am a person, too.  But…very often I will look at people I approach.  I see that they are looking elsewhere, but if they look to me and make eye contact, I flash a quick smile.  Almost always, I get a smile back and when I do I get a little warm feeeling.  Does the other person also get a little warm feeling?  Anyway, no matter.  The deal is to get a smile, give a smile.  Give One, Get One – Go Go.

They’re good for you, too

There are two trends happening in society today the public perceptions of which seem at odds to me.  One is the appearance and increasing use of electronic cigarrettes, or e-cigs, which is portrayed in the media as bad and in need of regulation if not outright ban, and the other is the increasing de-criminalization and indeed in some cases legalization of marijuana which is  generally portrayed positively or  as a simple matter of personal freedom.

I must say that I do not understand the crusade against electronic cigarettes.  Anti smoking zealots have argued that the adverse health effects of smoking, not just for the smoker but for anyone in the vicinity via second-hand smoke (and currently for the entire environment because discarded cigarette butts are poisonous!) justified their vendetta against a legal product.  And the public at large has generally bought into this because no one likes the smell of cigarette smoke.  However…the advent of electronic cigarettes adresses every one of these issues – healthier for the smoker, no second hand smoke and no butts on the sidewalk.  Your dog is safe!  The anti smokers should be hailing this as a win-win:  Smokers get to smoke and no threats to non-smokers!  But that is not the case.  Smoking of electronic cigarettes, or “vaping” must be prohibited just like regular smoking because it looks like regular smoking.  And don’t forget the children.  Children might see someone vaping and try it themselves and then move on to the hard stuff – real cigarettes!  Another argument is that e-cigs contain nicotine, just like real cigarettes.  But there is no nicotine in the vapor for second hand effect, only the user is exposed.  Besides – other antismoking aids such as nicotine gum and patches also contain nicotine.  And both of these are arguably less safe for children as they could be extremely harmful if accidentally ingested by a child.   And finally, there is the uncertainty and over abundance of caution factor:  E-cigs might be bad and that’s a risk we can’t take.  

H8rs gonna H8

Now for the weed thing.  First, I am not a weed prude.  In my lifetime I have probably lost more weed in my couch cushions than any thirty something hipster today will ever smoke.  But I don’t smoke it any more and have no desire to.  Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  A very expensive t-shirt at that considering the money spent and time squandered on the habit.  But if you want to smoke it, knock yourself out.  Kind of like my attitude toward cigarettes real and electronic.  But there is a potential danger to marijuana smokers posed simply by the act of smoking a substance.  Marijuana contains no nicotine that I am aware of, but the absorption of nicotine is not the only danger of smoking, inhaling smoke of any kind is traumatic to the lungs and cardio-vascular system in general.  This is never mentioned in reporting on this subject.  Folks who are against liberalization of marijuana laws argue that it is a gateway drug that will lead users onto harder drugs.  Anectdotally I have seen this to be true, though not universally.  Such fears are rebutted with assertions that there is no evidence to support that stance.  So the risk that smoking pot might be harmful for some people is a risk we can  afford to take and abundance of caution is not justified in this case.  But consider this – in Colorado, the first state to legalize recreational pot use, the nascent pot industry is looking for ways to expand the customer base and to entice non users to try marijuana.  Granted, they seem to be sensitive about marketing to a youth audience but I don’t think that you can argue that marketing of cigarettes (or liquor for that matter) specifically aimed at adult audiences will influence children and that similar marijuana marketing will not.

“It’s not just for stoners anymore”

I guess I wonder why Vaping isn’t hailed as a breakthrough for public health and that marijuana legalization isn’t viewed with a little more caution or skepticism.  Perhaps I’m crazy – or is everyone else?  Or I’m straight and everyone else is stoned?  Whatever.  Personally, my attitude is live and let live.  You want to smoke?  Spark one up.  You want to vape?  Have at it.

I have written a post or two about some of my favorite (rock) guitarists.  Now here is a guitarist I am familiar with who is most closely identified with 1970’s country music.  His guitar prowess is often overshadowed by his association with the comedy series “Hee-Haw” which he starred in.  Here he plays spanish style in a clip from the 1970’s TV comedy “The Odd Couple”, an episode of which he apparently appeared in.

That’s just crazy.  And definitely not country

Physical attributes aside, are men becoming obsolete?  First, a tip of the hat to the article that got me thinking about this:  “Why Are We So Conflicted About Manhood In The Modern Age?”  which I found at the blog The Art of Manliness.  It’s a good blog and not what you’d think given the name.

So, anyway back to my thoughts.  I don’t think I’m alone in my belief that early in the history of mankind (personkind?) gender roles developed because the division of labor was essential to the very survival of the social unit, be it family or tribe (the neccessity of the social unit is another story entirely).  Men being physically larger and stronger took on the now familair male roles of hunter, warrior and protector while women, the bearers of offspring took on the female roles of caretaker and nurturer. As history has progressed and civilization taken hold the lines between gender roles have blurred.  Now we find ourselves at a point in history where resources have never been more plentiful and the environment has never been safer for individuals.  Whereas is the past people grouped together for survival or protection, an individual can today survive and indeed thrive on their own without the support of a family or tribe.  So what of the gender roles?  Modern societies still have need for the traditonal female gender roles as not much has changed regarding child bearing, rearing and the need for a nurturing environment.  But the need for tradional male gender roles has faded.  Sustenance is easily acquired, no skill in hunting is required.  Such protection as is now needed is provided by a slim percentage of the population that is increasingly female.  Technology makes many of the tasks required for “survival” as easily performed by women as men.  Further, the actions associated with female gender roles seem to be actions that one might be naturally inclined to take, while the male actions involve a level of physical exertion or danger and so might require a certain amount of inner discipline to undertake.  And if it’s not essential, why bother?

Taken a step further, male behavioral traits today are often looked upon with disdain and indeed young boys are discouraged of boyish behavior in school.  Normal “boy” behavior is now called hyperactivity or ADHD and many boys grow up today without a male role model and so never learn to properly emulate male behavior.  As the human race continues to evolve, will the male of the species be relegated to “drone” status, required only for physical tasks that machines can’t perform or fertilization of the queen(s)?  When all is said and done does society today have any need for male behavior, or are men expected now  to just be women with penises?

I’m still working on the answers to those questions.  But one thing I do know – men and women are different.  Physically and mentally.  In their motivations and their responses.  And so there will always be some human behaviors that will be considered male (and female).  The questions will remain – the answers will change as we do.