![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 11th, 2007 11:42 amThis morning came to light blessedly cloudy and cool. We have a pretty good chance of rain over the next few days. The drought may ruin our chances for wildlowers and I would like to see the lake fill back up some. Give us a few biblical style torrential storms to fill the lake and make all things green.
My legs are sore, but only at the calves and the outside. I'm thinking that must be from swimming in frigid water. I'm going to make it my goal to swim more this year, at the lake or the apartment pool or Barton Springs. I have a brand new swimsuit this year, and I've resolved not to care that I'm not a size zero. The biggest advantage to Hippie Hollow is that I can achieve an even tan.
To Have, Hold and Cherish, Until Bedtime briefly discusses the trend towards seperate bedspaces for married couples. I've always thought this was an interesting topic, and I'm curious to figure out the history of it. Maybe I'm nuts, but I often assumed shared bedrooms were the result of class structure and economics.
The Sunday magazine also has Neuroscience Law: Putting the Brain on the Stand. It's about how science handles questions of dminished capacity and responsibility in the criminal courts. Deeply interesting stuff. I'm fascinated by the social aspects of neuroscience, and the ethical implications of such discoveries. one of the most interesting paragraphs in the article:
Others agree with Greene and Cohen that the legal system should be radically refocused on deterrence rather than on retribution. Since the celebrated M’Naughten case in 1843, involving a paranoid British assassin, English and American courts have recognized an insanity defense only for those who are unable to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. (This is consistent with the idea that only rational people can be held criminally responsible for their actions.) According to some neuroscientists, that rule makes no sense in light of recent brain-imaging studies.
“You can have a horrendously damaged brain where someone knows the difference between right and wrong but nonetheless can’t control their behavior,” says Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist at Stanford. “At that point, you’re dealing with a broken machine, and concepts like punishment and evil and sin become utterly irrelevant. Does that mean the person should be dumped back on the street? Absolutely not. You have a car with the brakes not working, and it shouldn’t be allowed to be near anyone it can hurt.”
This is the oldest I've ever been, and perhaps the most together. The happiest I've been in a long while.
My legs are sore, but only at the calves and the outside. I'm thinking that must be from swimming in frigid water. I'm going to make it my goal to swim more this year, at the lake or the apartment pool or Barton Springs. I have a brand new swimsuit this year, and I've resolved not to care that I'm not a size zero. The biggest advantage to Hippie Hollow is that I can achieve an even tan.
To Have, Hold and Cherish, Until Bedtime briefly discusses the trend towards seperate bedspaces for married couples. I've always thought this was an interesting topic, and I'm curious to figure out the history of it. Maybe I'm nuts, but I often assumed shared bedrooms were the result of class structure and economics.
The Sunday magazine also has Neuroscience Law: Putting the Brain on the Stand. It's about how science handles questions of dminished capacity and responsibility in the criminal courts. Deeply interesting stuff. I'm fascinated by the social aspects of neuroscience, and the ethical implications of such discoveries. one of the most interesting paragraphs in the article:
Others agree with Greene and Cohen that the legal system should be radically refocused on deterrence rather than on retribution. Since the celebrated M’Naughten case in 1843, involving a paranoid British assassin, English and American courts have recognized an insanity defense only for those who are unable to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. (This is consistent with the idea that only rational people can be held criminally responsible for their actions.) According to some neuroscientists, that rule makes no sense in light of recent brain-imaging studies.
“You can have a horrendously damaged brain where someone knows the difference between right and wrong but nonetheless can’t control their behavior,” says Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist at Stanford. “At that point, you’re dealing with a broken machine, and concepts like punishment and evil and sin become utterly irrelevant. Does that mean the person should be dumped back on the street? Absolutely not. You have a car with the brakes not working, and it shouldn’t be allowed to be near anyone it can hurt.”
This is the oldest I've ever been, and perhaps the most together. The happiest I've been in a long while.