Enough with the morning ritual of reading the news, blogging, and puttering about the web. Sure, this ritual is critical for me as a writer, because I need to stay at least marginally “in touch” with the world, and I don’t watch television so I’m certainly OUT of touch in plenty of regards. BUT… the buffer is 8 inked, 1 colored. I have 7 strips to color, another 7 to pencil and ink, and a whole Schlockiverse worth of scripting to do.

Quit pestering me! I’m busy! This is YOUR fault you know!

–Howard “I learned that trick from a French defense attorney” Tayler

You know, with a name like “Angers,” you’d EXPECT the story to make you mad (assuming you speak English — hey, how are you reading this, anyway?)

Linked from my local paper.

Upshot: There’s this big pedophilia trial going on in Angers, France, with some 4 dozen victims and sixty-six defendants.

My Take: There are half a dozen different angles a blogger could take with this one. I’m interested in two:

1) This provides an interesting insight into how the French criminal justice system differs from the one here at home. Defendents do not plead innocence or guilt at the beginning of the trial. The press is allowed in, but is not allowed to use any of the victims’ or defendents’ names in their reporting. The sixty-six defendants are all on trial at once, in the same room. I’m not passing judgement on the French here — I’m just saying it’s interesting.

2) This quote: “Defense lawyers plan to argue that government social workers, who dealt with many of the suspects, turned a blind eye to signs of abuse.” Okay, tell me PLEASE how this is a valid defense. It seems to me that this argument is an attempt to lay the blame for the crime on the government for not catching the perpetrators sooner. Now I’m not going to claim that this loony abdication-of-personal-responsibility defense is a uniquely FRENCH thing. Far from it! I think they may have learned this tactic from slimy partnership drones here in the USA. I hope and pray, for the sake of the children in France, that this defense backfires conflagrously, immolating the entire defense team along with their clients.

The crime really is an horrific one, and it brings to mind Christ’s own suggested sentence: “it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Okay, we can argue the meaning of THAT passage in light of Christ’s other teachings until the cows come home and lie down with the lamb and the lion.)

–Howard

I got a new cell-phone, and disconnected the one that Sandra was using. We were still listed on a Novell “employee spouse” plan, and while there may have been a bit of a discount, it’s hardly ethical to continue to accept it. The only reason we took six months to switch is that we didn’t KNOW we were still on a Novell plan.

Anyway, new phone. I got a GREAT phone (Sony/Ericsson T616), but I think I need some additional hardware to download pictures from it. We got a cheap rate plan that lacks the email account necessary to email the pictures. I think the USB cable they sell for the phone ($15 at Tangshop.com) will let me download pictures and upload contacts and calendar information, but I’m just not sure.

Oh, and the phone number… no, I’m not going to tell you what it is. The phone is for when I travel to conventions, not for day-to-day talking. If you are one of the close friends and/or family who know Sandra’s OLD phone number, go ahead and call us at home to get this new cell number. The rest of you, well, you’ll just have live with the knowledge that You Don’t Need To Know.

–Howard

Link.

Upshot: A project for non-lethal force is getting criticized. The Pulsed Energy Projectile (PEP) system creates a microscopic burst of plasma on contact with skin, which results in incapacitating levels of pain without permanent injury. Critics claim this could be used for torture (it could, yes) and doubt that there is an ethical basis for continued study. Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, said: “Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown.”

My take: Okay, fine. It’s unethical to study how to hurt people without killing them. I guess we’ll just resort to doing things the old fashioned way, and KILLING THEM.

The project, which I read about over a year ago, is to create a weapon that can be deployed on a battlefield, and that will induce excruciating pain in anyone who insists on remaining in the line of fire. Need to clear a street? Sweep the street with this, and it’s clear. Obviously the technology could be abused or misused, just like rubber bullets, tear gas, and that foam stuff they’ve been playing with. Let’s face it, though… there are only three alternatives to providing soldiers with non-lethal force:

1. Provide them with lethal force, and let them go “weapons free.” The body count will be pretty high, and collateral damage unconscionably so.
2. Provide them with lethal force, and then saddle them with very restrictive “rules of engagement.” We do this today. Collateral damage is still high, and our soldiers still let themselves get killed by enemy units masquerading as non-combatants. Anybody who thinks this is the best way to do it, raise your hand (just don’t have a gun in it… rules of engagement being what they are, you’re now a hostile target.)
3. Don’t deploy soldiers at all. War is bad, killing is worse, and it’s all just a Big Lie anyway. Give Peace A Chance.

For obvious reasons, #3 isn’t being seriously considered by anybody in power today (and not just in the US). Some NOT in power shout about it a lot, but the moment they take office, they’ll resort to violence the moment the worm turns.

That leaves us with options #1 and #2. Neither of these are attractive. Barring a sociological solution to organized violence (and that’s what #3 really seeks), we need a technological solution we can live with. The PEP is one such solution. Let the research continue. Soldiers or regimes who choose to use the technology as a torture device will be dealt with the way we deal with torturers today — courts martial, and that nice prison in The Hague. Besides, the research has gone far enough already that industrialized nations seeking to exploit the research for their private torture chambers know enough to do it. The cat, as they say, is already out of the bag. Let’s go ahead and find out if it’s rabid by TESTING it, not by waiting to see who it bites.

–Howard