– On the radio I heard a story about a new mayor changing the rules concerning life imprisonment. He believes “life means life” and is in the process of eliminating parole opportunities for inmates with life sentences. The problem I have with this is not the mayor’s redefining of what a life sentence means (as mayor, he has been granted certain powers, including the power to modify policies according to his personal opinions). What upsets me is that this change in policy will be applicable to people currently serving life sentences, who had been given life sentences prior to this mayor being in office. I’m sure that a significant number of these inmates would not currently be serving life sentences if at the time of their sentencing a life sentence meant life without parole.

– I read an article a few days prior to the last presidential election in which a liberal sports fan was quoted as saying that the fact a certain football team won a certain game meant that Kerry would win the election, and the football fan was so sure about this that he felt he had been saved a trip to the polls. Apparently, the results of the game had correctly predicted election results for something like the last 4 elections, not including the most recent, obviously. The prediction is based on this (or switch home team for away), if the home team wins the game, the incumbent wins the election. Superstition is fine entertainment, but this liberal needs to think about what he’s saying. When he claims that the results of the game predicted Kerry would win and thus saved him a trip to the polls, this implies that he would have voted if the other team had won. But voting if the other team had won wouldn’t be consistent with what he did in this case. A behavior consistent with what he did would be to not vote in the Bush win prediction case either, because if he feels that a win for one team means Kerry will be in office regardless of anything he does (vote or not) than he ought to feel that a win for the other team will mean Bush stays in office regardless of anything he does. Believing so strongly in superstition saves him a trip to the polls in both cases. If he thinks otherwise, he is inconsistent and/or insane.

– An anthropologist was being interviewed for his views on men/women equality in the workplace. He noted that women are becoming more prominent in high offices and was concerned that if the trend continues, it will be men who become the work force minority. I doubt there is anything to worry about. Yes, women are making great progress in these matters but I think the rate of progress lessens as women get closer to matching men 50/50. this is analogous to a particle being accelerated in a particle accelerator. The particle increases in speed from 0-100mph without needing nearly as much energy as an increase from 10,000-10,100mph would require, even though the difference in speed is the same in both cases. In the work force case, the closer women approach the ideal 50/50 split with men in prominence in office, the slower the progress, until, in a perfect theoretical prediction, progress for both men and women = zero when each group is represented equally, or 1:1.

– I had an academic book a couple semesters ago which was compiled of magazine and journal articles having to do with drugs. One article was about muscle mass enhancers and the writer had interviewed a high school football player about the boy’s use of body building drinks. The kid said he felt safe taking these drugs because the fact the drugs were being sold in stores meant they weren’t dangerous. The kid later says “at least they aren’t steroids.” Unfortunately, the writer didn’t attack the kid about this. When the kid makes the steroid remark, it’s safe to assume he believes steroids are harmful and dangerous to the body. But steroids are sold in stores, which means not everything available in stores is safe. I don’t think the kid made this simple little connection. It’s as much the fault of the writer for not pointing it out.

– It’s very strange to me how so much importance can be attributed to politicians with regard to what could be done if they die. Currently, the u.s. is thinking about what it could do to Cuba once Fidel Castro dies. The news articles are written in a way that suggests that the fact Castro, or whichever politician, is alive is really the only obstacle preventing the execution of plans. This is too simplified, I think. There are certainly officials working with whichever dying politician who, while their names may not yet be known world wide, would lead similarly and make decisions identical to the famous politician.