Month: March 2011

Former prisoners voting is a deeply partisan issue. Massie analyzes the case against voting rights:

Ex-cons can't be permitted to vote because that's the slippery slope to letting serving inmates vote too. Colour me unpersuaded. This argument, however, leads one to wonder whether it is in fact possible for felons to "pay their debt to society"? And if they have not done so – as the denial of voting rights suggests they must not have done – then why are they being released in the first place? That, at any rate, would seem to be the logic of this matter. It's a grim and pitiless worldview. 

A Weimaraner waits for its turn in the parade ring on the first day of the annual Crufts dog show Gun Dogs section at the National Exhibition Centre on March 10, 2011 in Birmingham, England. During this year's four-day competition, nearly 22,000 dogs and their owners will vie for a variety of accolades, ultimately seeking the coveted 'Best In Show'. By Christopher Furlong/Getty Images.

Cassidy goes another round against the rest of the Internet:

In arguing that the concerns of cyclists should be balanced with those of motorists, I am merely suggesting that any further bike lanes be subjected to some sort of efficiency test beyond the rule of two wheels good, four wheels bad. Do the putative gains in convenience, safety, and fuel-economy from a particular bike lane outweigh the costs to motorists (and other parties, such as taxpayers and local businesses)?

Felix Salmon fires back:

At this point it’s clear that Cassidy has no idea what this kind of analysis — which actually does get done — is involved in these things. He gets the benefits largely right, although I think that he massively underestimates the value and importance of safety gains. If you significantly reduce pedestrian fatalities, as the Prospect Park West bike lane has done, that in and of itself is reason to build it. As for the costs, there’s really very little evidence that motorists and taxpayers and local businesses bear any costs at all.

"I like Donald Rumsfeld. I've always thought he was a hard-working, intelligent man. I respected his life in public service at the highest and most demanding levels. So it was with some surprise that I found myself flinging his book against a wall in hopes I would break its stupid little spine.  'Known and Unknown,' his memoir of his tumultuous time in government, is so bad it's news even a month after its debut. It takes a long time to read because there are a lot of words, most of them boring…" – Peggy Noonan.

A reader writes:

I have to disagree with you on this one, and not just because I think we have fundamentally different ideas over what free speech should be. Emdadur Choudhury was (and is) a public nuisance, and he was causing a public nuisance, as well as possibly inciting other people.  Thus he got fined about 50 quid, and 25 quid more for costs (i.e. wasting the court's time).  Seems an excellent compromise to me between your Westoboro lovin' SCOTUS and those in the Sun who would jail someone for speaking their mind. It's reasonable justice, and puts UK justice in a good light I would say.

Another writes:

Note the situation at University of California, Irvine, where college students are facing criminal charges for non-violent interruptions to a speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States. I heard about this story on NPR yesterday and was pretty troubled.  Unless they are making similar charges for other non-violent outbursts at public events, it does suggest that personal opinions or fears about the particular protesters are pushing the District Attorney to bring criminal charges.

Sub City New York from sarah klein on Vimeo.

It's a short film – a visual poem – about that moment in New York when you emerge from the subway and find yourself in a new and sometimes unexpected world.

(Hat tip: LikeCool)

A reader writes:

I am a behavioral ecologist. I actually study reproductive behavior in birds. I applaud the effort to gain understanding of human behavior by understanding animal behavior. But we really shouldn't stop too soon when following a thread in the natural world. I think the bird story stops a bit short.

Also underreported and underappreciated: that these promiscuous animals put quite a lot of effort into either preventing their partners from being promiscuous, or into hiding their own promiscuous behaviors from their partners.

Male birds may harrass their female partners if they catch the female spending too much time in another male's territory, or they may "mate guard" (remain glued to) their females during her fertile period.  Females in return may only seek these EPCs during very quick, pre-dawn forays into those neighbor's territories. Quick, and in total darkness? How sneaky is that?

So don't stop the comparison of animal sexual behavior to human sexual behavior too soon. Yes, we hanky-panky just like they do, but we are also living the lies, and dealing out the punishment, just like they do. That's why the terms "social" monogamy and "genetic" monogamy exist in science. For many individuals, it is advantageous to have multiple partners. But it is also advantageous to prevent their partners from having other partners.

The awful details:

A stumbling Framingham SWAT officer accidentally fired his rifle and shot a beloved grandpa to death as he lay face-down on the floor of his own home, authorities admitted yesterday, sparking incredulous outrage by the 68-year-old retiree’s family. 

Radley Balko notes that if a civilian accidentally shot a police officer during a raid they'd be facing felony charges, and draws this conclusion:

The argument here is not to start putting police in prison for making honest mistakes under incredibly difficult circumstances. The argument is to stop creating those circumstances when it isn’t absolutely necessary. Short of that, we’re once again left with this: An innocent, unarmed man was shot dead by a cop. But the cop isn’t responsible. The victim isn’t responsible. And the policies that created the situation aren’t responsible. Which means that in a few days, or a few weeks, or a few months, I’m going to be writing all of this again.

Juliet Lapidos rants against the hug:

Granted, with the right person, I enjoy a well-placed hug. The right persons include: blood relations, my boyfriend, and close friends. By "well-placed" I mean before or after a lengthy separation, as a form of congratulation (you're getting married!), as a means of consolation (you're getting divorced?), or to ward off hypothermia. That's about it (though I should specify that I waive the category requirements for my boyfriend).

So why is it that when I go over to your house for dinner, you wrap your arms around me, even though I saw you last Friday at the movies? And why do you come at me again after the meal is over, even though we hugged not three hours ago and I'll probably see you next week at that party? 

I like it, maybe because I grew up in England where a handshake was our equivalent of a french kiss (bonobos we weren't). It's close to mandatory for the homos in the US, where I picked up the habit, and I think bespeaks an emotional openness. The non-homo bro-hug (see above) is, er, evolving.