rdle with the idea, Megan’s post links an earlier post by Ben Sheriff, who appears to have constructed the first google bomb at the instigation of Charles Johnson, and has since been on a one man google bombing mission. None of this is important as long as the bombs keep dropping, so here’s mine.
Marc Herold Afghan casualties
Herold Afghan casualties study
Afghanistan civilian casualties
Herold collateral damage
Marc Herold Afghanistan study
Afghan casualty figures
Marc Herold Afghan casualty figures
Herold Afghan WTC casualties
Herold study Afghan casualties
Herold Afghan casualties study
Afghan civilian casualties
Afghan collateral damage
Herold collateral damage
Marc Herold Afghanistan study
Update: It’s entirely understandable that the history of the event ended with Megan. BlogSpot was being very flaky about the time all this occurred and I got a 404 the first couple times I tried the link to Ben Sheriff.
Sgt. Stryker is starting a spin off blog for all ‘the personal shit.’
I’d taken something of this same tack when I set up A Boy and His Blog for all the serious quasi-professional stuff. I’ll still make use of the little humanitarian when I have photos available and can post some of the interesting stuff I do, but I haven’t been over to the ‘Boy’ myself in quite awhile. I should drop the link in my favorites here until there’s something there worth reading.
I’d given thought to creating more blogs to sort the serious from the zany, but I decided that folks who read only the serious stuff would think me one grim sucker while folks who read only the zany would think .. well, probably what you all think anyway. Ah well, I decided to leave well enough alone for now. I can’t decide myself sometimes if I’m being serious and there’s times when I must laugh to keep from crying.
Just as I suspected. Glenn Reynolds is off to California and there’s just as much activity on his blog as usual. Did anyone attending that speech yesterday take note of which side the good Professor is parted his hair? The peepul have a right to know..
Halleluiah! Blogger recognizes my cookies!
Oops, no it didn’t and still doesn’t. My server had taken a ‘time out’ so the silly computer fixed me up with a previously saved ‘temporary internet file.’ Sure fooled me for a couple minutes, though.
I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now .. The Byrds
But Professor, doesn’t a mother killing her own children pretty much define “Insane”?
Rather than a subconscious view of ‘child as chattel,’ there may be a deeper, indeed instinctive reason why fraternal and maternal filicide are viewed differently. Ms. Lithwick touches on it when she says “.. the law treats individuals who burn down other people's houses as criminals and institutionalizes those who burn down their own.”
From a sociobiological perspective, maternal filicide is certainly not a rational behavior in terms of genetic survival and, except in very unusual circumstances, we would consider it highly aberrant behavior for females of any species.
On the other hand, for the male, killing children he knows or suspects are not his offspring can be rationalized as a pro-genetic survival trait—reducing competition for one’s own offspring—thus rational rather than aberrant behavior. In fact, we do see fraternal filicide throughout the animal kingdom, including the remainder of the hominoids, but only very rarely do we see maternal filicide.
It’s pretty much beside the point, but the statistics in the Slate article are as sloppy as any I’ve seen. First, what is the sample size? Given the media hysteria over the Yates case, I suspect it’s exceedingly low. What is the nature of the sample? Do these ‘murder’ statistics include the horribly sad ‘shaking the baby’ deaths that come more from ignorance than malice? None of these numbers mean a thing without this information.
Given this, only a newbie blogger would be forgiven for the link provided in the Slate article: “A 1969 study by Dr. Phillip Resnick, the "father" of maternal filicide .. found that while mothers convicted of murdering their children 