I finally came up with a lucid-by-my-standards explanation of 'the mentally disordered legal system' thing. I typed it up, explorer crashed and it was lost. I retyped it, upgrading it to actually-almost-coherent in the process. Explorer crashed again, this time my attempts to salvage it took the rest of the pc down with it.
Now, the call of my lonely, lonely bed is too strong. I may rewrite it tomorrow, though even now it fades from my mind.
If i rewite it, it may by then be so devastatingly clear that even the POTUS could understand it. But no, it it folly to think that such clarity of writing is within the grasp of mortal man.
Sorry, I get verbose and whimsical when I'm tired. Did I mention my lonely, lonely bed?
Dave Bell: Hanging as a penalty for relatively minor crimes, such as theft, mostly preceded the Superpower status of Britain.
I may have been overly optimistic on my dating of Britain's superpower status. There is a fair amount of flexibility on the issue.
It wasn't my intention to claim authoritative knowledge on the start date of british superpowerhood.
I could claim that britain was first a superpower (although probably not the superpower, and certainly superpowerhood would have come and gone at least a couple of times since) in elizabethan times, after the spanish armarda was destroyed and with it the last major threat of military invasion 'til WWII, opening the way for the beginnings of british naval dominance. Or I could make a claim for the first time when britain had finished with wars of succession and civil wars that squandered it's energy and military strength. My knowledge of history is too weak to do more than bluff in sustained debate. I blame being educated under the Thatcher government. They didn't teach us any history other than the industrial revolution (economic might is power, road building beats railways in the long run. this is why I didn't like history at school).
But I'm still glad I raised the general point of; Powerful country=attitude of moral certainty=use of death penalty, country someday becomes less powerful=loss of moral certainty=abolishes death penalty. It was meant as an interesting possible parallel, rather than absolute corolation.
I must be confusing my psychological terms. I guess should have wikipediaed, but I thought I was sure of my vocab.
To clarify, when i said Sociopathic, i really meant 'the mental disorder that means a person can't incorporate emotions into their thinking. Is incapable of compassion. Makes decisions on a purely rational basis, ignoring things like dying-is-a-bad-thing. Empathy-impaired'
Parhaps I mean psychopathic. (I almost used that word, but thought it was too provocative and emotive)
I'm sure if I could explain better what I meant, someone here would know the exact word. If anyone has a clue what I'm talking about and can point me in the right direction, please do so. I'm googling for all I'm worth, but nothing I've found so far fits exactly.
Hmm, so much to say. I'm probably still going to go on a bit, but I'll try and set my self-editor to maximum.
Firstly, and possibly most importantly, I state for the record that I for one would rather have 'rancid moral idealism' than no moral idealism at all. Any day. As surely as if I was starving, I would choose rancid food over starvation. Just my personal choice.
Not that i think that the notion that killing someone is a thing best avoided was in any way rancid.
On the difference between attitudes to capital punishment in the UK and US:
NelC Wrote: I'd like to think that it's because there's enough institutional memory here in the UK to recall the 18th century when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.
A thought occurs to me. The 'Hanged for stealing a loaf of bread' era of British 'Justice' rather coincides with the period when Britain was the top-dog global superpower, economical and miltarily untouchable, head and shoulders above any other nation. As a result of this, the British citizens (at least those not of the underclass) of the time delevoped a superiority complex, an attitude of deep 'moral certainty' and moral absolutism which lead to that widespread use of capital punishment. I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out the comparison. But to be on the safe side I'll point out that neither being on the top of the ladder, nor the illusions that come with being on top, last for ever (or even very long in the 'great scheme of history').
Candle wrote: The last man to be hanged in Britain (James Hanratty) was hanged in my home town.
I'm currently sitting about a mile from the police station where the Guildford Four were beaten up (allegedly, supposedly, or insert prefered disclaimer of 'i have no personally observed evidence of this' here). These things do underscore the fallibility of justice systems, don't they.
On other elements of the discussion:
Here's where I stick my neck out and hope that I don't come across as trollish or insulting. I was really hoping that someone more articulate than I would make this point.
Some of what I've read here in support of capital punishment seems to involve trying to calmly and rationally decide who lives and dies. When a person can make a measured decision that the world is better if another person dies (i'm not talking about a split second decision in self defense, or anything like that) isn't the ability to make that decision sociopathic behavior?
And as a system is made up of people, isn't a system that deals out death as the end result of a logical debate a sociopathic system, and normalising sociopathic behavoir?
I'm especially concerned about this when proponents of the death penalty use phrases like "merely is a cry for human compassion."
Parhaps I'm wrong about what constitutes a sociopathic disorder, I'm happy to be corrected if anyone can explain.
On Chris Clarke's post:
I recall reading that post before, and running downstairs saying it was one of the most amazing things I'd ever read. It seems hard to believe it was only in this march (unless I'm misreading the date of the origonal post).
----
I'm sure I'm missing something, so many intriguing ideas to process in this thread.
Scott H:All of the most extreme punishments seem to have resulted from political jockeying for a tougher-than-thou stance on crime issues. In the U.S. that wins elections. Does that sort of tactic not play well in, for instance, the U.K.? If not, anyone care to speculate on root causes for the difference?
In the UK 'Tougher-than-thou' stances are frequently used by politicians, although the compartmentalised structure of british politics means that grandstanding on this topic is mostly from the Home Secretary and his/her Shadow and sometimes the PM and Leader of the Opposition rather than something every candidate jumps into the debate on.
"tough on crime" is something that plays well with the british electorate, or at least certain sections of it. It certainly plays well with the majority of newspaper editors. It's very much a part of 'dog-whistle politics'.
But studies show that crime (and punishment) is never as high up the the list of issues on which british voters decide how to vote as health or education. It's kind of a regular bronze medalist.
Specifically on the death penalty, polls have often shown that large numbers (sometimes amounting to a majority) of the british public are in favour of it. (I'm not convinvced that these polls are accurate, it's an easy issue on which to squew the results with the phrasing of the question or preceding questions or statements which then aren't published.)
But a broad, strong consensus amoung british politicians is very against the death penalty. Once every few years an ambitous MP desperate for media attention might suggest that, maybe, it could be looked at that, the death penalty might be brought back for child molesters who kill their victims (for example). Politicians who make such comments are then dismissed as cynical attention-seekers.
Having worked in politics, i believe this consenus is due to those in political office, knowing how stressful (and sometimes corrupting) it is to make decisions that effect people's lives, understanding that it is wrong to have the power to decide that someone should die.
Ayse Sercan wrote: people will shop at a place like Wal-Mart in order to save money on the things they buy. How much on average? $1000 a year, according to CNN, and they have every reasonable cause to believe that everything they buy there was made under inhumane conditions. So people are willing to sacrifice the knowledge that the goods they buy were made under humane conditions for $1000 a year.
I think there's a flaw in this statement. It assumes a choice.
I shop at Tesco/Sainsbury's and pretty eclusively buy from the white label, own brand, value/basics lines. (I don't have access to a Wal-mart, but I should think this is the closest UK equivalent, at least pricewise)
I do this becuase it's all I can afford. Nobody I know who has anything that could reasonably be defined as choices buys these products. Yet these value/basics ranges cover a huge proportion of types of products. Surely this must be because a lot of people have no choice but to buy the cheapest thing available?
After all, isn't 'buying the cheapest thing available' what the amounts of minimum wages, just-plain-low wages, welfare benefits, state pensions, student loans, etc, calculated on?
This is relevent the Garment Industry and the minimum wage, since we're talking about it. (But it isn't relevent to the Marianas, so feel free skip it if you want to stay on topic)
I used to work in the garment industry (two years ago), for a UK wholesaler of blank t-shirts, sweatshirts, polo shirts (I should say they weren't bought by polo players, but schools and companies looking for a cheap uniform. According to the import catalogues americans call polo shirts 'sports shirts'), stuff like that, mainly Hanes and Fruit of the Loom. We sold them to screenprinters, embrioderers and a few independent retailers across britain.
I was their Marketing Manager.
I got paid national Minimum Wage (then less than £5 per hour).
This was despite living in the county with the pretty much the highest cost of living in Britain.
My bosses kept complaining about my poor motivation.
John M. Ford wrote: And don't get me started on Vileveeta, which is now being sold for its melting qualities, which it shares with paraffin wax
I'm now wondering if it's possible to substitute the Aqueous Cream I use on my psoriasis. This emollient is largely paraffin-based (Liquid paraffin and White Soft paraffin).
After all, it is a spread. I spread it on my skin.
Oh, I didn't get to see the animated monkey. All I see is a dutch bus driver promoting Shell's (the oil company) attempts to promote itself as a provider of environmental friendly fuels.
Maybe that looks like an animated monkey in a different light?
Hmm, I think it's a bit of a wasted oppertunity to talk about scientists with strong religious beliefs and not mention Faraday.
"When you see an elaborately carved mahogany endtable with one bashed leg sitting in a dumpster, and immediately think, No problem, I can take a copy of the other side, flip it, and paste it over the damaged leg, you are a Mac head"
Hmm, when I read this I immediately thought, 'If I flip it, that will mean the shading and shadowing will be in the wrong direction. This might be correctable through painstaking and lengthy airbrushing, but that might lead to an artificial look (as well as being the aforementioned painstaking and lengthy). It might not be a realistic option as the carving is elaborate. There might be other solutions, but my prefered option would be to photograph the table again, from as similar a position as possible, with as similar lighting conditions as possible, but with the table rotated 90 degrees (or what ever is appropriate for the number of legs) and crop from that. Any fine adjustment for scaling and perspective should be possible with free transform. And advantage with mahogany is there would be relatively little visable grain to cause problems with orientation and patching. I wonder if Teresa meant there was a small area of damage that could be covered with a small area of the undamaged leg, that might be doable without recourse to airbrushing or additional photography, depending on the nature of the carving.'
What kind of head does that make me?
(Plus, all my photoshopping is done on PC, not Mac.)
This reminds me of a beautiful summer's day, when i was standing in the middle of a field on a hill overlooking Guildford, and had the revelation that i was playing way too much MUD II. I saw a butterfly, and my hands spasmed in front of me, instintively typing out 'ki bf wi ls [enter]'.
I have to say, my favourite quote from the Wikipedia talk page wasn't "Nearly daily, I am having to change text...".
My favourite is from the full text of the email that's linked to from that page. PublishAmerica's grand parting shot is "Among its more famous authors the company counts celebrity actor Jamie Farr."
All due respect to Jamie Farr, but when I consider that PublishAmerica starts it's with "...six years after its inception, celebrated its 16,000th author under contract...", well, I'm just facinated by the thought of who the other "more famous authors" might be.
I'll let Jamie Farr himself have the last word (from his IMDB entry). "The benefits from stardom as Klinger outweigh any setbacks. It's a double-edged sword. What makes you famous is what interferes with getting other roles. But there are things that never would have happened without M*A*S*H. There certainly would be no Jamie Farr Kroger Golf Classic."
I'm not sure about living in a museum, but I think my local Castle, Guildford Castle, would be an excellent place to haunt, especially if that could include it's public gardens (highlights include a great statue of Alice through the looking glass, and a picturesque bowls green right by the impressive War Memorial (bringing us almost back to the original thread).
Though if I had to live in museum, I'd be tempted by the British Museum for sheer variety and scale. Impressive building too.
Or maybe the Natural History Museum. If I was feeling lonely I could always have a chat with the brontosuarus (or what ever it is).
I just made an interesting discovery. Sir Christopher Meyer's book, DC Confidential, is being serialised in the online (as well as print) versions of The Guardian.
This means that several substantial extracts are available at: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/page/0,12956,1636156,00.html (no subscription seems to be necessary) This page is list of extracts published to date, along with a leader, an interview, and a couple of related articles by Guardian journalists.
The extracts from the book by the man who was British Ambassador during much of the planning for the Iraq war contain some things worth knowing, such as:
"I found myself repeatedly answering the question: did something said by Jack Straw or Geoff Hoon represent the prime minister's views? Sometimes it did not. Indeed, throughout this period, the Foreign Office impinged little on my life. Between 9/11 and the day I retired at the end of February 2003, on the eve of war, I had not a single substantive policy discussion on the secure phone with the FO."
"When this document was drafted none of those conditions was anywhere near to being met. Nor, at the time the leaked cabinet note was drafted, had we left the starting gate in pursuit of the UN or building an international coalition."
"This was a lousy backdrop to taking part in any military action against Iraq."
"Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, said to me later that we were the only ally that mattered."
"Just before Blair arrived at Camp David, I received a phone call from one of the most experienced and prominent foreign policy practitioners of the Clinton administration. The familiar voice warned me that Cheney, Bush's sometimes intimidating vice-president, would be present throughout Blair's discussions with the president. "How the hell do you know?" I asked. "Don't ask, don't tell," was the enigmatic reply. "But Blair had better watch out.""
And also some things I'd rather not know:
"Blair put on a pair of ball-crushingly tight dark-blue corduroys. I was later told that his wardrobe for the weekend had been the result of intensive debate within No 10." A very bad mental image, but a very good metaphor.
A good time for opposition all round, it seems.
The 90-day extention to holding without charge just got rejected in the Uk parliament.
This was a measure personally championed by Tony Blair (the word is that his Home Secretary Charles Clark was making offers of compromise, but 'Tough on Terror' Tony stopped him).
Under the amendment adopted by the House of Commons, the police can only hold someone arrested for terrorism offenses for 28 days (a doubling of the current 14).
This is the first time the Government has been defeated in the House of Commons since Tony Blair took office in '97.
I'm sure most people reading this are fairly familiar with the principles under which the UK Parliament operates, but I'll say that (as you know, Bob) in the British constitution there is only one criterion for who gets to be Prime Minister. He (or She) who can get MPs to vote for their bills gets to live at Number 10 Downing Street.
Speaking of profiling: Parhaps not the most profound of commentary, but I was amused.
Dru Wrote: The whole secret courts/evidence fiasco is part of why we fought for independence.
I hope i'm not parading my ignorance here, but could someone explain this to me? I've never heard of secret courts ever being part of the british judicial process. (although there may have been Government inquiries which might have been headed by a judge, but are not actually part of the judicial process.)
Are you sure that's supposed to be Steed? Somehow he looks more like Mr Ben to me.
Re: Ugliest Dog pic.
Awww, don't you just wish you could pick him up, and cuddle him, and let him know how loved he is?
Isn't he sweet ?
My deep hatred of Little Drummer Boy stems partly from a row i had with my music teacher, aged 12.
She insisted we sing the final "pum" of each line as long as possible "par-rum pa-pa pummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" holding the "mmmmmmmmmmmm"untill the last possible moment.
I repeatedly pointed out as forcefully as i could that the song was supposed to be emulating the sound of a drum, but she wouldn't listen. Have you ever heard a drum that went "pummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"?
not that i'm still bitter sixeen years later, of course
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 18 |
| 2004 | 1 |
Total: 20 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Aboulic:
Show all comments by Aboulic.