Et alia.
January 5, 2008 – 8:03 pmSo, I finally started watching the new Battlestar Galactica series. People have been trying to get me to watch it for a while now. Honestly, I am enjoying it.
I have mixed feelings about the new semester starting this Monday. On the one hand, school is starting again. On the other hand, it’s my last semester of my undergraduate career. Anyway, perhaps I’ll give and update of what’s on my mind.
I’ve been meaning to comment on the results of the Iowa caucuses. I can’t say it was terribly surprising that Huckabee won it, considering that 60-percent of caucus-goers identified as Evangelical. That Obama won would have been a surprise to me, if he didn’t win by such a small margin, that, on any other day, could have been different. So goes statistics.
As the caucus approached, I chose my two preferences and two preferences among the front runners. My two preferences are McCain (R) and Richardson (D). They’re the moderates. They’re the least divisive. Out of the front runners, I chose Romney (R) and Clinton (D). I should clarify why Romney was my preference among the Republicans. The ad that Huckabee aired by not airing criticized Romney’s governorship of Massachusetts for, among other things, not executing anybody. First, for somebody as conflicted about the death penalty as I am, no executions is almost a reason for me to vote for somebody. Second, as far as I know, Massachusetts doesn’t even have the death penalty. Facts are silly.
In other news, I’ve been reading Ray Jackendoff’s (yes, his name is very hilarious) monograph Foundations of Language. Most of the book is Chomskyan to the core. On the other hand, he has some very interesting things to say about the evolution of human language capacity. Chomsky himself has never shown any interest in an evolutionary antecedent to human language. In fact, he has at times rejected the idea, and only recently published on it, and then did it reluctantly. Maybe someday I’ll write about it. We’ll see.
One Response to “Et alia.”
We are not in Lodge convened, so I hope you will not mind my thoughts on what is thought a political topic. (I think it is a “moral” and not a political topic - but the majority seems to feel differently.)
No need to be conflicted about the death penalty, my friend. It is simple. Modern, evolved, civilized people do not kill. And modern, evolved, civilized societies do not put people to death. Not even when they have committed heinous crimes.
It isn’t a matter of “doing to them as they have done,” (the old “eye for an eye” - not in keeping with the evolution we claim!) That is simple revenge. And it isn’t about deterrence (uh, the facts are in, it isn’t!)
It is not about the criminal, it is about us. Simply, that is not how we do it if we have evolved and civilized. Let all the rest of it go - it is either a desire for revenge, or a desire to hide our desire for revenge under a cloak of deterrence (again, it isn’t.) And evolved males not only do housework - they don’t kill other people either.
Now please note I have not commented on any of the many alternatives. Before anyone reading this decides that I’m supporting some other alternative or another and sends some contumelious response, let me say that all I am saying is that modern, evolved, civilized people do not put people to death, even as representatives of the state, and you don’t have to feel conflicted about it. Nothing more.
By Lon on Jan 9, 2008