My choice of phrase

Hyper-rationality probably wasn't a good choice of phrase on my part. I think that the phrase simple minded rationality better conveys the concept I'm trying to get across.

Deadly

I'm watching a news report about some runway airplane accident that totally destroyed a China Air flight with 165 passengers.

MSNBC refers to it as a deadly accident.

Nobody died.

Well, at least the newsreader is cute. That's what's important in journalism today.

Chicken and the egg

Dr. Helen does an Ask Dr. Helen column on Pajamas Media.

I'm not going to comment on the content of the column, but on the turn of a phrase that she uses. It's one I often see and it really irritates me.

As a right-leaning
libertarian, I believe that people should be able to enter into whatever
relationship they wish with other competent adults without state
intervention.

So she has a simple label she uses as a self-identification and that somehow determines what she thinks.

I just think it should be the other way around -- what you think should determine the label.

I don't know why this particular usage bothers me. It's pretty common. But it just seems wrong and it does bother me.

Schools run by the asylum escapees

It appears that those running the schools in Canada are no more sane than those idiots running the Bong Hits 4 Jesus school.

God forbid that these kids might ever actually learn something in school other than if they don't bow down to authority they'll be crushed.

Bong hits 4 Jesus

Personally I think the idea that the Bong hits 4 Jesus banner had anything to do with drugs is just absurd.

It had to do with flaunting authority, nothing more, nothing less. It's a satire about the official stance on both drugs and religion, poking fun at school officials.

That, of course, can't be tolerated.

The agitator has some comments about the silliness of anti-drug war advocates taking up the case as a cause.

This case always seemed to me like an odd one for the drug reform movement to rally around. This was not an essay calling for the legalization of medical marijuana. It was a lame stunt to get noticed.

The fear was that the Bong Hits case would give the Supreme Court the opportunity give its okay for public schools to censor student political speech in favor of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. While I'd have been more comfortable had the ruling come down the other way, it seems to me that there's much to take comfort in, here. Five justices have expressly announced that public school censorship of political speech related to the war on drugs won't stand. And it's likely that a sixth (Breyer) would join them.

I agree with him partly, but only partly. I think the SC has shown that they are perfectly willing the drink the Kool-aid in support of the drug war.

Update:
Ann Althouse has a more legal oriented discussion.

Update:
The Web of Language weighs in on linguistic interpretation of Bong Hits 4 Jesus with some refreshing insight.

In addition to dismissing the very real presence of Jesus on the banner, Roberts dismisses the very real possibility that the banner's words might be nothing more than a meaningless stunt of the kind that is actively encouraged by television shows where audience members wear ridiculous get-ups and carry outrageous signs while waving frantically in order to catch the camera's eye.


Despite Roberts' noble attempts to read the banner's meaning, what supports the nonsense interpretation is the fact that the banner's words don't seem to have either a literal or a figurative meaning. Any way you slice it, "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is patent nonsense, like linguist Noam Chomsky's classic phrase, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," words which look like English but don’t mean like English, words which illustrate that language has other roles besides that of communicating.

That's particularly true when the source of the language is a teenage boy. Teenage boys tend to not really care that much about using language to communicate other then it's use to demonstrate who cool they are. They don't worry about interpretation of the message, they just want to call attention to the messenger. Maybe someday we can get Supreme Court Justices who spent some time in the past as teenage boys.

Bush and credibility

“I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David, and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we’ll be attacked. And I firmly believe that.”

That was the Bush response to a question about credibility in the press conference this morning.

Read that closely. He's not talking about actually being credible, he's talking about maintaining an appearance of credibility. He makes it "clear in plain terms". That's not a prescription for honesty that's a rule-of-thumb for writing an effective speech. That's not credibility, that's effective manipulation of an audience.

In his world those are the same thing.

I hate politicians.

The blog, Whatever it is, I'm against it, has good coverage of the press conference, complete with Itube links.

What does compliance mean?

This is just an amazing newspaper article about the Harris County Jail in Texas (Houston).

Last year, after the jail failed to meet state certification standards for the third year in a row, the commission ordered officials to comply with the state-ordered guard-to-inmate ratio of 1-48.

This really doesn't seem like a tough regulation to comply with. If you can't hire enough guards, for whatever reason, you just start releasing people. Every jail, and Harris County is no exception, is full of people whose only crime is that they don't have the cash to make bail. The county has a tremendous level of control over both how many people get locked up and how many sheriff's deputies are assigned to the jail.

But are they expected to comply in order to be considered in compliance? No, of course not.

County officials appealed and, after they announced an aggressive hiring and overtime effort, the jail was ruled to be in compliance with state standards.

They just have to pretend that they intend to comply at some point in the future.

Read the whole article. That's not the only problem.

Maybe if we make English the official language we can pass a low that requires words to actually mean whatever they mean. Probably not though.

Commie atheist

Ed Brayton has a post that includes a quote from Ellery Schempp.

"I learned that if people were mad at us they would call us 'Communists.' If they were really, really mad, they would call us 'atheists.' When they called us 'commie atheists' they had exhausted their vocabulary - that was the worst they could think of!"

I liked it. It expressed a great truth.

Threatened with a gun

I have no idea if this police shooting is justified or not. I'm pretty sure that the official position will be that it was justified, but I'm equally sure that nobody is going to put much thought into that official position.

The newspaper article is short, doesn't really say much, but two parts stand out to me.

A Memphis police officer shot and wounded a suspect who pulled a weapon tonight, officials said.
About 7:15 p.m., a person flagged down two police officers in the College Park public housing area not far from Elmwood Cemetery, saying a man in a nearby park had threatened him with a gun, Memphis police spokesman Sgt. Vince Higgins said.

The officers responded and called to the gunman, who took off running. They pursued until the man turned, weapon in hand.

The cops says the guy "pulled a weapon". That implies an aggresive act on the part of the suspect. "Pulled a weapon".

But then he says the guy turned, "weapon in hand". That sounds like he'd been carrying the gun the whole time he'd been running.

There is a difference between pulling a weapon and having a weapon in your hand. It's a small difference, a subtle difference. But it's a difference.

Anyone who pulls a weapon is making a clear aggresive act. You should be concerned when someone pulls a weapon.

But someone having a weapon in his hand isn't making such a clear aggresive act. Maybe he's being aggresive, maybe he isn't. It's really not going to be that clear.

I don't know whether the cop was right to interpret the guy having a gun in his hand as threatening or not. Probably. But when intentional language is used (pull the weapon) that makes the danger of a situation sound more obvious than it actually was then I start to wonder if I should look in this horses mouth or not.

My thinking about this is colored by my tendency to never take anything a cop says at face value. I just don't trust them.

This is not a drill

We used to have combat drills when I was in the Navy. Shooting drills, abandon ship drills, collision drills, fire drills, etc. (we never had a repel boarders drill, although it turned out later we should have). Never, during a drill, where we told it was not a drill.

When we went to General Quarters (combat) for real we were told "This is not a drill". That phrase was part of the official broadcast announcement on the ship for when we went to emergency stations. "This is not a drill".

They didn't fool around with that phrase because you knew that when you heard that phrase you were supposed to kill somebody. That phrase struck fear in the hearts of brave men, because it actually meant something and we knew what it meant.

It seems that officials at a school in Tennessee have decided that it's not important to make sure that words retain a real meaning

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. -- Staff members of an elementary school staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables.

The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.

When you teach kids that it doesn't mean anything when you tell them "it's not a drill" then what do you do when it really isn't a drill? Are you going to have a way to communicate that? Do these teachers think it might be important to be able to communicate that?

I can't believe they had a drill and told people it was not a drill. I'm just stunned by the danger inherent in such a thing.

During the last night of the trip, staff members convinced the 69 students that there was a gunman on the loose. They were told to lie on the floor or hide underneath tables and stay quiet. A teacher, disguised in a hooded sweat shirt, even pulled on a locked door.
After the lights went out, about 20 kids started to cry, 11-year-old Shay Naylor said.
"I was like, 'Oh My God,' "she said. "At first I thought I was going to die. We flipped out."
Principal Catherine Stephens declined to say whether the staff members involved would face disciplinary action, but said the situation "involved poor judgment."

There's an emphasis on how frightened the drill made the children, and the cruelty of doing that. But the stupidity of the teachers runs much deeper than that. The most important thing in an emergency is that people actually know it's an emergency.

They blew the tornado sirens the other night here in Cushing, Oklahoma. I got out of bed, got dressed, got a flashlight, turned on the TV, prepared to go to my backyard storm shelter if the situation warranted it. That's because I knew that when they blow that siren it's not a drill. It's not time to fool around. Those kids need to know that when their teachers tell them it's an emergency that it's not time to fool around. They no longer have any way to know that.

That kind of behavior by the school staff actually puts the children at future risk.

Update:
Instapundit pointed to my post. I'm impressed.

I made a comment on a post by Ann Alhouse.

After being assured it's not a drill, the rational response by the students would be to find a weapon and kill whoever was pushing against the door.

As pointed out above, the irrational teachers never thought of that possible response, they just assumed hiding under the furniture is the response that would be taken by everyone.

I commented on this earlier this morning. The real problem is that drills like this one tend to make students less safe, not more safe.

Tenet on 60 minutes

He's lying. Very simple, very obvious

He said nobody was tortured. He says we did "enhanced interrogations" and that when he gave the okay to do that it kept him awake nights. Huh? He also says he won't discuss whether the enhanced interrogations includes anything specific such as water boarding.

That's all such an obvious lie it's laughable. Of course we tortured people. Changing words doesn't change the deeds.

The other early lie was whether anyone died in interrogations. First he said, No. When quizzed further he qualified, "Not in the program you a and I are talking about right now". Which, of course means that somebody did die in enhanced interrogations, just not on the Thursday interregations.

They all lied to us then, they're all lying to us now.

Impeach all those sonsofbitches.

Keystone Cops

An FBI agent was killed by another FBI agent while trying to arrest 3 men who were armed but did not fire at the FBI and so far there's not even a claim that anyone pointed a gun at the cops. The claim is that it was an accidental discharge. One witness claims to have heard a pop, pop, pop. So I guess it was three accidents.

There are a couple of things about the use of language in the story that strike me.

One is that the FBI uses the term "dynamic arrest situation"

Preliminarily, information suggests the agent may have been fatally wounded as a result of the accidental discharge of another agent's weapon during a dynamic arrest situation," the FBI said in a statement Thursday night.

I'm not sure what that means. When cops use the term "dynamic entry" they mean busting into an occupied dwelling with guns drawn and either no announcement or just yelling "police, police" as they knock down the door. Another way to describe it might be "planned, uncontrolled violence". But dynamic entry sounds better.

The other quote of interest is

Bush, 52, and his team were tracking a group of men believed to be responsible for at least four bank robberies, the FBI said. In two of them, the suspects had fired assault weapons while inside the bank, the agency said.

Fired assault weapons while inside the bank?

How much you want to bet that they fired the weapons into the air, that they've never shot at anyone?

Of course these guys should have been arrested, but it's really not safe for anyone, cops, bad guys, or bystanders, to create these kinds of "dynamic arrest situations". This dynamic nonsense makes the cops feel powerful and all, and it makes good press when it works. But it's just not necessary and causes big problems when it doesn't work.

Words just don't mean anything anymore

Particularly in politics and journalism, words seem to more and more be used for effect, not to convey meaning. I think it's becoming a real problem, it promotes acting out from emotion rather than rational decision making. It's manipulative, dishonest. I've had a few posts that touch on this before.

The Huffington Post has an observation along these lines about the inappropriate use of the term terrorism by Tony Blair. When we just use words for effect we basically are just spouting nonsense.

Medical Physician

On a TV ad for some kind of useless health supplement someone introduces himself as a medical physician. As opposed to a circus performer physician I guess.

It's not always what it seems

You see a lot of hype on tv, in the newspaper, even in recent spam, about the risks of identity theft.

The whole thing is just way overblown though. These days they call credit card theft or unauthorized use of a credit card identity theft. The difference between the risks levels of a stolen credit card and a stolen identity are huge though. They aren't the same thing at all.

All you have to do to protect yourself from risks of credit card theft is to keep track of your credit cards and when one is missing to report it. You're covered. Most of the risk is carried by the credit card issuer.

Identity theft is when someone uses your identity to apply for new credit, credit you don't even know about until it goes into default. That's a problem and can be a nightmare to clear up.

But the two things are just very different, news shows and stories that conflate the two are doing the public a huge disservice.

Hostages?

The US recently convicted one of the detainees we are holding a gitmo. After 5 years of isolation and intensive interrogation (and having the US Military judge refuse to allow his lawyers in the courtroom) he confessed.

The Iranians have held 16 British military prisoner for a few days. One of them confessed.

The official story is that she was probably coerced and her confession doesn't mean it's true that they were in Iranian waters. Tony Blair knows better than her where they actually were.

But, why are they being called hostages? They are prisoners. Even if Tony Blair is right and they were actually in Iraq waters that just means they are innocent of the charges. That doesn't mean they weren't legally arrested and have status as prisoners.

Hostages? Give me a break.

No Bong Hits for Jesus

Austin Defense Blog has a short post on the Supreme Court "Bong hits for Jesus" case that gives a link to the transcript of oral arguments.

Follow the link and read the arguments. It makes me want to cry, the lack of logic and lack of any sense of proportion is chilling.

The language on the banner is so clearly a joke, making fun of school policy about both drugs and religion, I just can't imagine anyone having taken it seriously. But it has become very serious.

The lesson that is intended for the students involved? Don't make jokes about authoritarian nutcases.

Dateline hype

Some agent got Chris Hanson to write a book -- everybody gets to cash in. He was on the Daly Show to promote it.

Early in the interview he said that about half the bad guys have gone through the court system and the other half are still pending. Of those who've gone through the court system, all have either plead guilty or were convicted he said.

Then later in the interview he mentions one was found not guilty.

124 out of 125 is a high conviction rate (although I'm guessing those were the easy convictions, the 125 left might not be so easy). But why misrepresent it. Why say "all" when that's simply not true.

I just don't trust Dateline.

Rocks and guns

Some nutcase outside a truck stop picks up a rock and gets shot by a Border Patrol Agent. Why?

Border Patrol spokesman Jesus Rodriguez said agents have the right to defend themselves.

“He had already picked up a rock and was preparing to throw it,” Rodriguez said. “As you know, a rock can be just as deadly as any other kind of weapon.

These renegade nuts with the Border Patrol will get away with this, but this explanation is wrong on so many levels it's just obvious as it can be that the public safety is not served by these clowns running around with a gun and badge.

First of all, we don't know and he doesn't know whether anybody intended to throw a rock. A rock had not been thrown. He does know that. He may have believed a rock was going to be thrown. But, then say that.

Secondly, and this is the part that makes it clear you can't interpret anything these guys say at face value. A rock can be just as deadly as any other kind of weapon?

No. I don't think so.

It's certainly possible to kill someone with a rock. But it's very, very unlikely. There is no rational expectation that someone will be killed by a thrown rock. None at all. There is a remote possibility, but that's not rationally considered deadly.

Throwing a rock at someone is not a deadly act in the same sense as shooting a gun at them. Not even close. People who behave this way and think this was simply should not be allowed to run around with guns, much less with both gun and badge.

Here's a funny part of the story.

The agents had called for a deputy for help, and he was at the truck stop when the shooting happened. But Estrada said he was going back to his car to retrieve a flashlight when the shots were fired and did not witness the incident.

The deputy wasn't going for a shotgun. He thought he needed a little light on the situation.

I think we all need more light on how some of these cops behave when faced with just minor stress.

Update:
I corrected some misspellings.

Is the United States Army a UN occupation force?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sure didn't think so. If I'm wrong could somebody let me know?

Some nutcase Army "Expert" in Iraq seems to think so, but not strongly enough to stand up and say so in public.

The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces.

Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the display was prompted by the military's concern for "force protection," which, they said, was guaranteed under the United Nations resolution that authorizes American soldiers to be in Iraq.

The sonsofbitches are just flat out lying again. The above is simply not true. I don't know why the AP writes these kinds of stories. They know it's just another big lie, why even give pretense to the possibility that the Army is telling them the truth?

This is just unacceptble behavior, and just like they did 4 years ago the US press establishment is just rolling over and going along with the crap they know full well is a lie.

When the Army will lie to us about UN support of our invasion of Iraq you can be damn sure they're lieing to us about everything else.

This is so frustrating. I wonder what the point of being an American is when your government has no respect for you and no respect for the truth and the Army is just run by a bunch of career cowards who are scared the truth might cost them a promotion.