Why a Texas Dad Who Killed His Daughter’s Alleged Rapist Won’t Face
( TIME )

TIME.com readers were right: the Texas dad who beat to death a man who
was allegedly raping his 5-year-old daughter doesn’t deserve to stand

On Tuesday, a grand jury refused to indict the father, whose name is
being kept under wraps to protect the identity of his little girl (her
age was being reported as 4 last week). He killed Jesus Mora Flores, a
family acquaintance, at a barbecue held at the family’s ranch earlier
this month after finding him molesting his daughter behind a barn. The
father pulled Flores, 47, off his screaming daughter, then beat him.
When he realized the extent of the man’s injuries, he phoned 911 in a
panic. “He’s going to die!” the father yelled at the dispatcher.
“He’s going to f--ing die!”

Indeed, in such a horrific and unimaginable moment, it’s easy to
believe that many parents would have reacted similarly. I couldn’t see
myself having any semblance of self-control. But I wonder about the
conclusion that the father was “authorized to use deadly force to
protect his daughter.” One blow probably would have been sufficient to
separate the alleged predator from the girl. But the dad pummeled
Flores to death. That degree of force was likely unnecessary -- but
neither investigators, the grand jury nor the general public could
muster up much sympathy for Flores. Perhaps it’s because serving as
our children’s protector is hardwired.

Most readers confirmed Finkelhor’s assessment. Among the most popular
comments: “This is an extension of the right to self-defense. The
child cannot defend herself. Most fathers would rather go to jail
rather than not act to defend their child. Charges should be dropped.”


posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 米国 | このブログの読者になる |



Are We Too Comfortable with Cannibalism?
( TIME )

In the past week, there were three separate reports of incidents of
cannibalism, prompting the CDC to officially deny -- tongue in cheek --
that there’s a virus behind it. Last week in Miami, a young man named
Rudy Eugene feasted on the face of a homeless man in broad daylight
until he was shot by cops; in Baltimore, a college student killed an
older family friend and roommate and cooked and ate his organs. And in
San Antonio, a mother apparently ate her three week old child.

The eating of human flesh is a primeval horror that makes a rare
appearance in the Greek tragedies and in the Bible, specifically in
relation to the siege of Jerusalem. There is something about this level
of savagery that we find riveting. As technology advances beyond our
ability to keep track of it, moving humanity into sophisticated realms
of communication, travel, and medical care, our imaginations are ever
more attuned to the possibility of a world reduced to such a state of
prehistoric extremis that we would all bare our fangs.

The ladies and gentleman of Victorian England refused to accept this
report. They simply could not imagine a situation in which their fellow
English could so thoroughly abandon the rules of civilized society.
Franklin’s widow disregarded the story, as did Charles Dickens, no
shrinking violet when it came to witnessing man’s bestiality. He wrote
a newspaper article insisting that no British citizen would resort to
such “horrible means” to stay alive.

While there has been much interest in the recent string of incidents,
there has also been surprisingly little skepticism. Unlike the British
ladies and gentleman of Victoria’s England, we 21st Century moderns,
blessed with health and longevity and technology that people could only
dream about a generation ago, can easily imagine total lawlessness and
the primeval horror that goes with it, in inverse proportion to our
distance from it. Not only can we imagine it, but we have turned it
into a form of entertainment, as “zombie apocalypse” trends on Google
with each new report and the CDC gets in on the joke. The cannibals
among us remind us that we are more savage than we think.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 米国 | このブログの読者になる |



Stop Calling Your Smart Phone a Phone
( TIME )

Talk is cheap -- and now unlimited. Verizon is hedging its future on
the consumption of data because, let’s face it, who uses their phone
as just a phone these days?

Verizon’s new Share Everything plan allows customers to pay for a
certain amount of data and distribute that data among their devices.
(You can register up to 10 devices to a single account.) Customers must
both purchase a data package and pay for each registered device. As a
result, the plan can be pretty steep -- $40 per month for your iPhone,
plus $10 for your iPad, plus $10 for that Kindle your parents got you
for Christmas, plus the cost of data. However, Verizon says, there’s
an upside: the plan also offers unlimited calling and texting. But does
anyone really need an endless fount of minutes?

As critics dissect the new scheme, one thing is clear: Verizon is
capitalizing on the fact that we are no longer making phone calls. The
money, Verizon has realized, is in the data -- the videos we download,
the websites we peruse, the e-mails we send. According to Nielsen, the
amount of data consumed per month by the average smart-phone user grew
89% in 2011. And it’s still growing.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson predicted last week that cell-phone
companies would enter the market with data-only plans in the next two
years. Stephenson was probably thinking of an obvious solution to his
company’s own problems: AT&T has recently been recording a decline in
the average number of minutes used on phone calls per month. Right now,
phone companies still earn most of their money from calling and texting
plans. So as the popularity of calling and texting falls off in favor
of e-mail and BBMing, cell-phone companies are going to have to find
ways to make up for their loss in profit. Charging more for data use is
the obvious solution.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 技術・IT | このブログの読者になる |



China’s Space Launch: ‘Wow’ or ‘Meh’?
( TIME )

There are a lot of reasons to be both very impressed and very
unimpressed by China’s announcement that it successfully launched a
three-person crew into space today -- a crew that included Liu Yang,
33, the country’s first female astronaut. Before 2003, China had never
conducted any manned launch at all. That year they put one astronaut in
orbit; in 2005 they lofted a two-man crew; in 2008 it was three men --
plus a spacewalk. Last year they launched Tiangong-1, an unmanned space
station, that the new crew will attempt to dock with this week. So just
like that: the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab programs in four deft
vaults. The Great Leap Forward was never like this.

But what about those Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab programs?
China’s been in the manned space game for nine years now and has
managed four successful launches. The U.S. flew six Mercury missions
from 1961 to 1963; ten Geminis in the 20 months from March 1965 to
November 1966; and eleven Apollos from 1968 to 1972. In the nine months
from Oct. 1968 to July 1969 alone, we popped off the first five Apollos
-- including three visits to the moon and the first landing. The fact
that China lofted a female astronaut so early in its space program is a
very good thing -- but that achievement comes a whopping 49 years after
the U.S.S.R’s Valentina Tereshkova first made space travel a Title IX

Don’t lose sight either of the fact that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were
inventing the systems and the flight techniques pretty much on the fly.
It’s a familiar joke that before Yuri Gagarin became the first human
being in space in 1961, people didn’t know whether or not a human
being’s eyeballs would explode in zero-g. But the fact is, people
didn’t know whether or not a human being’s eyeballs would explode in
zero-g. The spacecraft, the spacesuits, the ability to rendezvous,
dock, walk in space, reenter safely -- every bit of it was new.

China is standing on the shoulders of those long-ago giants -- as is
the U.S. private sector as it tries to crack open the space travel
industry itself. You have every reason to be proud if you’re able to
summit Mt. Everest, but don’t kid yourself: you ain’t Sir Edmund

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 国際 | このブログの読者になる |



Japan PM: Nuke Reactors Must be Restarted
( TIME )

Japan’s leader appealed to the nation Friday to accept that two
nuclear reactors that remained shuttered after the Fukushima disaster
must be restarted to protect the economy and people’s livelihoods.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said the government has taken ample
safety measures to ensure the two reactors in western Japan would not
leak radiation if an earthquake or tsunami as severe as last year’s
should strike them.

Noda said a 15 percent power deficit is expected in the western region,
a level he called “severe.” Without nuclear energy, utilities would
have to rely more heavily on expensive fossil fuel, which would
increase electricity bills and financial strain on small businesses.

Local consent is not legally required for restarting the reactors,
though government ministers have promised to gain understanding from
the prefecture.

Noda’s speech Friday possibly removes the last obstacle before a
resumption of the Ohi reactors. The Fukui governor made Noda’s public
appeal conditional to his consent for the startup. With the governor’s
consent, Noda is expected to make a final go ahead as early as next
week, so the restart could take place within days.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 日本 | このブログの読者になる |