A bit of background: Since 2001 there have been several military prisons throughout the world where hundreds of suspected terrorists are held.
OK, so terrorists are bad, they kill people, they should go to jail. Most of us can agree to that.
Of course, being an American, I was brought up to believe that there is a certain system of justice involved. Terrorism is a crime, so catch the criminal, try him and send him to jail. We have this "Constitution" thing that talks about all that.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way things are working right now. Suspects have been rounded up and thrown into chain-link cages and kept there for years without even being officially charged with anything, let alone being tried as criminals.
Yeah, I think that's kind of repulsive. There are lots of reports, essays, documentaries and the like that discuss how the people in charge of this are behaving badly and violating the US justice system and basic human rights, etc. I'm not going into detail, you can find it all over the Internet.
Let me, just once, make my stance on this clear, and move on to my point: There are bad guys out there. I would like to see the bad guys caught and locked up. I would also like to see all this done properly and legally, with some sense of ethics and honor on the part of my own government. I don't want to feel like we're the bad guys. Do it right, get it?
So, on to Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba (you know, Cuba, where US citizens aren't allowed to go?) There are around 500 prisoners there, many have been held for five years without being charged of anything specific, or granted the right to a trial or legal representation or anything that your basic child-molesting serial killer would get.
There have been lawyers from prominent firms in the US volunteering their time to represent the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay prisons who have actually been given the right to trial. This is not because they support terrorism, this is because they support the American Ideal that everyone who is charged in the US justice system should be given a fair trial.
We have rules, we have standards, we do things a certain way. And, dear Reader, if any of you are inclined at this point to say "Well, they wouldn't do the same for us." let me point out that we are supposed to be the good guys, which means doing the right thing even if others don't.
Last week, Charles D. Stimson, who will hereafter be referred to as "Stimpy" had a bit to say about this. Stimpy is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs. He publicly attacked these lawyers who have volunteered their time and knowledge.
He named the firms to which these attorneys belong, and suggested that corporate clients stop dealing with them. He claims that their work is somehow undermining America and damaging their business interests. After naming about a dozen of the top law firms in the country McCarthy...er, I mean, Stimpy was quoted as saying:
"I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.'s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.'s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."
Do you notice how Stimpy used the term "alleged terrorist" there, in reference to all those individuals who have not yet been proven guilty, or in many cases even formally charged? Yeah, me neither.
Sorry for ranting today, but I find this whole thing, and Stimson's comments in particularly, nauseating. Most of all, I'm ashamed for my country.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Do I really need high-tech running shoes?
As part of my new years resolution, I've started running again at least five days a week. Just 2-4 miles at an easy pace. This is good, and I'm enjoying it.
While I'm already beginning to see the benefits of running regularly, even after just a week or so, I'd started having questions about whether my $100 and something dollar New Balance stability shoes are really any help.
I'm a big guy, and over the years that I've been running I have been very conscious of the possibility of injury. I've been pretty lucky so far. The worst injury I've ever had, I have to admit, I got while running, but that had less to do with the shoes and more to do with the Chevy that hit me.
Once upon a time, when I was semi-serious about racing, I used to mix the occasional barefoot session at a rubberized track into my weekly running schedule. It was always fun and, although I went a little slower, it never actually hurt in any way.
Skip forward ten years, and now there's a lot of buzz about shoes like the Nike Free, which allows the foot to move like it would without the benefit of a running shoe. On the other hand, we have shoes so advanced that they have computers built in to adjust the cushioning as you go.
I did a little research and found arguments on both sides. Some argue that it is impossible to run without artificial assistance, and that to do so risks serious injury and biomechanical inefficiency. The other argues that the human foot is a complicated machine which functions best when allowed to move naturally.
Now, although I'm neither a biologist or an engineer, I can see a certain logic emerge from this. The concept of the high-tech running shoe, the very idea on which a billion dollar industry is based, is that human feet are evolved for something other than walking and running. Interesting.
Now running barefoot is fine and dandy on a well groomed lawn or rubberized track, but I've lived in neighborhoods where I actually had to step over used needles on the sidewalk during my morning run, so I figured I'm not entirely ready to abandon the idea of shoes.
As an experiment, yesterday I put on a pair of black Chuck Taylors and headed out for my usual route, a nice packed-dirt path with a block of my house.
Nothing hurt, I wasn't sore, no pain, after the first five minutes I didn't even feel and major jarring or jostling. I found a nice, smooth pace and didn't try to overdo it. In spite of having no EVA foam, elevated heel, torsion bar, motion control, air pockets or any sort of claim to major technological advancement, my Chucks didn't seem to hurt me at all. In fact I felt better than I did the day before.
And I got them for $19.99
Hmmmm
While I'm already beginning to see the benefits of running regularly, even after just a week or so, I'd started having questions about whether my $100 and something dollar New Balance stability shoes are really any help.
I'm a big guy, and over the years that I've been running I have been very conscious of the possibility of injury. I've been pretty lucky so far. The worst injury I've ever had, I have to admit, I got while running, but that had less to do with the shoes and more to do with the Chevy that hit me.
Once upon a time, when I was semi-serious about racing, I used to mix the occasional barefoot session at a rubberized track into my weekly running schedule. It was always fun and, although I went a little slower, it never actually hurt in any way.
Skip forward ten years, and now there's a lot of buzz about shoes like the Nike Free, which allows the foot to move like it would without the benefit of a running shoe. On the other hand, we have shoes so advanced that they have computers built in to adjust the cushioning as you go.
I did a little research and found arguments on both sides. Some argue that it is impossible to run without artificial assistance, and that to do so risks serious injury and biomechanical inefficiency. The other argues that the human foot is a complicated machine which functions best when allowed to move naturally.
Now, although I'm neither a biologist or an engineer, I can see a certain logic emerge from this. The concept of the high-tech running shoe, the very idea on which a billion dollar industry is based, is that human feet are evolved for something other than walking and running. Interesting.
Now running barefoot is fine and dandy on a well groomed lawn or rubberized track, but I've lived in neighborhoods where I actually had to step over used needles on the sidewalk during my morning run, so I figured I'm not entirely ready to abandon the idea of shoes.
As an experiment, yesterday I put on a pair of black Chuck Taylors and headed out for my usual route, a nice packed-dirt path with a block of my house.
Nothing hurt, I wasn't sore, no pain, after the first five minutes I didn't even feel and major jarring or jostling. I found a nice, smooth pace and didn't try to overdo it. In spite of having no EVA foam, elevated heel, torsion bar, motion control, air pockets or any sort of claim to major technological advancement, my Chucks didn't seem to hurt me at all. In fact I felt better than I did the day before.
And I got them for $19.99
Hmmmm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
