Prison Nation

Well look at this: America has reached an awesome new milestone:

For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, according to a new report.

Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.

It's even worse for minorities, I've heard that there are more blacks in prison than in college, though don't have a good source for it.

The really sad thing is how many of those people are minor drug offenders, totally nonviolent people who did nothing to anyone but themselves, and now they're in prison for years and years. And then when you take into account how much crime happens because drug markets are black, I bet we could easily halve our prison population by ending prohibition, and I wouldn't be surprised if we could get it under 1/10 what it currently is through sensible policies.

Too bad all of that is political suicide. And now it's getting even worse, with prison becoming an industry of its own.

So do you like where this is heading? I know I do!

Increase in the religiously unaffiliated

A reader asked me to comment on the story about the decline in religious affiliation, and so I shall. I didn't really think too much of it, the most dramatic thing seems to be how often people switch denominations, which isn't entirely that surprising given how ridiculously similar they are, and how moving or marrying could easily cause people to switch.

And even the stats about the increasing numbers of "unaffiliated" aren't too impressive:

The majority of the unaffiliated -- 12 percent of the overall population -- describe their religion as "nothing in particular," and about half of those say faith is at least somewhat important to them. Atheists or agnostics account for 4 percent of the total population.

Four percent isn't that much, and honestly I doubt that's the true number. This was done by Pew, but I doubt they'd cook the numbers much. Maybe they underrepresented people who tend to be atheists, but I doubt that too. At any rate, four percent isn't a huge number, even if we are at 12% unaffiliated.

The one true great bit of news was this doozy:

One in four adults ages 18 to 29 claim no affiliation with a religious institution.

I don't think I've ever been prouder of my peers than this. One out of every four has no affiliation! That's a fantastic number, and I have to imagine that it's much higher than it would have been 50, 20, or even 10 years ago. After the NYTimes piece about Evangelicals fleeing, it certainly seems like we're seeing a good trend. Young people are realizing that truth, and succumbing to rationality. It's inspiring and leaves me a bit optimistic about our future. Hopefully we can keep getting atheism press, and even more hopefully good press, and people will start to wake up, shatter their delusions, and breathe the fresh air that is a world unencumbered by the old mythologies.

An atheist can dream, right?

Picking our battles #2

I had previously mentioned the crosses in Utah, and it looks like I was right. This suit sounds pretty frivolous to me, although arguing that a cross is a secular symbol is pretty dumb, saying they should be taken down is also dumb.

I wish I could say to the plaintiffs, "Look, they're not proselytizing, they're not even erected with government money. And unless you guys have been turned down for trying to erect something, there's no evidence of preferential treatment. Who cares?"

The problem is that I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any differences between this and previous cases, like the Mount Soledad cross or the 10 Commandments in the courthouse case. But I think that the closest one is the 10 Commandment statue in Austin, Van Orden v. Perry, where the Supreme Court found a statue of the 10 Commandments on the grounds of the capitol to be legal. The rationale was that it had both a religious and secular purpose.

By that logic I think these crosses would stand, but the Mt Soledad case would give the opposite opinion (though I don't think that ever reached the Supreme Court).

In any event, I still think that, as a largely-despised minority, atheists should pick our battles. If we fight every stupid incursion of religion into society, we'll look bad and set precedents that might actually work against us. Don't get me wrong, we need to fight the big battles, but a dozen crosses on Utah's highways are not a big deal. Frankly, the plaintiff's money would be much better spent somewhere else, either in a battle that's already ongoing (like Mt Soledad), or somewhere that the intrusion of religion into the public square is, you know, dangerous.

But that's just me, apparently these guys disagree. Good luck to them, but I seriously doubt they'll win. If they do it'll just get appealed, it seems like Utah would have pretty conservative judges unlikely to be sympathetic, and I doubt this Supreme Court (if it got that far) would find them unconstitutional.

And I still stand by my previous statements about the idiocy of getting offended over trivial or minor things, especially something like these crosses. It's just an insane overreaction, and I'll never understand it.

Unaccountable Police: What's really wrong with our country

I've noticed a disturbing trend lately. There are too many incidents of unaccountable and terrifying police action.

Those are four separate stories detailing several separate incidents in the past few days (though the first is a collection of older stories). The third is particularly elucidating, as it provides the perfect synopsis of what happens in these cases: Police officers did something stupid (repeatedly tasered a man in his own home), and get off without any punishment (cleared of all wrongdoing). This happens over and over again, Radley Balko collects these cases, and there are several per week.

I find this incredibly disturbing. While there are many things to worry about in this world, entirely too many, we really shouldn't have to worry that the people who are charged with protecting us are going to hurt us. That just strikes me as entirely off-kilter.

I'm not one of those people who thinks that all police officers are terrible criminals or anything, but there's not nearly enough accountability. If they kill a child with a toy gun, or taser an 82-year-old woman, or taser a man sleeping on his couch, or shoot a dog during a drug raid, or repeatedly raid the wrong house, then something should be done. Someone should be held accountable. Someone should be punished. If not, nothing will change, and innocent people will continue to get hurt.

The truly depressing thing about this is that I have absolutely no idea what we could do to fix it. Reading the first link above (a story about officers' postings on message boards and similar places), one gets the feeling that there's a culture of resentment for the civilians, almost as though those who they have been sworn to "serve and protect" are the enemy. How do you go about fixing something like that? How do you convince people who potentially put their lives on the line to put their heads on the chopping block if they make a mistake? I don't know, but it certainly appears to me that if we don't do just that, people will keep dying.

Again, I'm not saying that the police officers are to blame. Working a hard, dangerous, and often thankless job would not be easy. But the vast majority of officers aren't the ones tasering grandmothers or shooting children, and when a police officer does something that would get a civilian thrown in prison for 20 years, that officer should be thrown in prison for 20 years. End of story.

The bottom line is that we shouldn't have to be afraid of the people who are protecting us. And without accountability, that's just not possible.

Is pornography a catalyst of sexual violence?

In this short essay, Is pornography a catalyst of sexual violence?, Steven Chapman gives a concise summary of the reasons why the answer is, "no!" This is one of those topics that seems to come up frequently, my best guess is because pornography is just one of those things that many people don't want in their country, and as such they have to make up reasons why it's bad. It's quite similar to what's been done with drugs, where it's quite difficult to sort outrageous lies from the truth (you can safely bet that much of what you were told in DARE classes as a kid is just plain wrong).

Anyway, check out the essay if you're not familiar with why pornography doesn't encourage sexual assault. It's important to note that this is not the same as saying it decreases sexual assault).

North Carolina wants you hung over

This is pretty funny, and a good example of the mindset of fundamentalists. North Carolina has (along with 22 other states) banned alcohol vaporizers, which apparently allow you to get drunk and skip the hangover (which results, as I understand it, partially from impurities. But I thought dehydration played a part as well, so I don't know how this works).

Anyway, the rationale is priceless:

Imagine what would happen if users could fast track the mind-altering effects of alcohol and, at the same time, sidestep the hangover. That's exactly the appeal of AWOL. It is not complimentary of the great State of North Carolina that this new scourge for alcohol abuse is being marketed from within our own borders.

Yes, making a legal substance more enjoyable is a bad thing.

I wonder about the people who care so much about what other people do. I just don't understand what is wrong with them, why they think that they know what's best for everyone else. It's really damn condescending, as well as manifestly wrong. Hopefully we'll realize that one day, and move past our inane paternalistic impulses. I can hope, but I think it's a vain hope.

Huckabee on Evolution

I was reading The Economist's summary of last night's debate, and came across this gem:

Huckabee: If he were in contention for the nomination he would've been declared the debate's winner. He certainly had the best answers of the night, including a thoughtful response to a question on evolution.

I believe there is a God. I believe there's a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it and when did he do it and how long did he take, I don't honestly know. And I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.

That's not a thoughtful response, it's a cop-out and it's admitting his ignorance. He's saying that he's entirely ignorant of the fundamental principle of modern biology. How could we trust him to make thoughtful, informed decisions on biological matters? His opinions on everything from medical to ecological to scientific questions would all be invalid because of his ignorance.

Not understanding evolution undoubtedly makes someone a worse president, and the fact that his answer passes for "thoughtful" shows how unbelievably shallow the public understanding of science truly is.

For the record, I don't have anything in particular against theistic evolutionists (like Ken Miller). It would be nice if they would just man up and take a rational look at their religious beliefs, scrutinizing them as they would any other belief, but at least they accept evolution (and presumably the rest of science). Huckabee wasn't admitting that he's a theistic evolutionist, he was admitting that he knows nothing of evolution and doesn't care to learn about it. He was also admitting his aforementioned ignorance on a subject crucial to many modern issues, and said that he didn't think it would affect his performance. This goes beyond theistic evolution into something more dangerous and sinister: scientific decisions being made based on bad science (or no science). That lack of informed decision-making is exactly why we're in such bad positions in so many ways, from climate to Iraq, and that a presidential candidate can actually be applauded for a statement that he will perpetuate this situation testifies to the extent of the problem.

Seat belt laws, paternalism, and federalism

New Hampshire has declined to pass a seatbelt law, making it the only state in the Union lacking one. A senator who voted against the bill said:

The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else what to do. It preserves New Hampshire's way of not succumbing to the bribes of the federal government and New Hampshire's belief that every adult can make his or her own choices in life.

I love the sentiment, but I'm not sure I agree in this case. It's entirely possible that not wearing your seatbelt puts unfair pressure on other people, such as your medical bills when your dumb ass gets catapulted out of your car (not a common scenario, I know). If there was some kind of reasonable conclusion about that (and there very well may be, I'm just not aware of it) I'd be unequivocally for what they did.

But the better example of this is something like the drinking age or drug laws. I don't know anyone who thinks that the drinking age is sensible, but somehow it remains unchanged. And our drug laws are just insane, but now isn't the time for that story. I think we'd be much better served if these things were actually up to the states, instead of this crazy federalism run amok that we currently have.

And then we get into the even crazier paternalistic tendencies we're developing. We've outlawed internet gambling, for crying out loud. Our government thinks that you shouldn't be able to spend your own money playing a game online. It makes as much sense for them to outlaw World of Warcraft.

That's just one example though, for some reason we're being increasingly regulated, and decisions that the government has no damn part in are being made for us by them. I don't want to sound like one of those crazy anarchists who blame "THE GOVERNMENT" for everything, but I think we're moving in a bad direction when it comes to personal choice and personal responsibility. A person should be free to make their own choices regarding themselves, their life, and their body, but many legitimate choices are off limits for incomprehensible or impossibly flimsy reasons. I think the best example of this is drugs (both recreational and prescription), but there are tons more (namely any vice, we love regulating so much that I think regulating vice has become its own vice, I wouldn't be surprised if some people get off by restricting other people's ability to get off).

I've mentioned this before, that I'm not entirely sure if this is truly a crucial time in our history or if it just appears that way to me. After all, pretty much everything I believe in is being systematically ignored or trampled on. Time will tell, I suppose.

The "Me" generation? I don't buy it.

The self-esteem generation (18- to 25-year-olds) is now moving into the workforce, and they're driving Boomer managers nuts. Kids who were used to being told how "special" they are at every turn by parents and teachers and getting gold stars for their finger paintings are apparently having trouble adapting to the real world in which managers merely expect them to do their jobs. According to National Public Radio:

Companies are hiring consultants to help manage the "over praised" Me Generation. The result? Kudos for showing up to work on time! Awards for getting a report in! Forget Employee of the Month — how about Employee of the Day! Some managers are resistant, saying the only praise they ever got was a paycheck.

Who is responsible for producing this generation of emotionally needy young adults? The Baby Boomers have only themselves to blame.

Stories like that one have been popping up all over the place lately. As someone who is smack-dab in the middle of that generation, I just have to say, "I don't buy it."

For starters, none of that crap ever happened to me, at least that I can remember. I know for damn sure that in high school no one got undeserved praise, there were no "gold stars" for anything but excellence, and no one was shouting from the rafters, "You're so special!" It didn't happen. And I was in the apparently decrepit and useless public school system.

And no one I know is like that either. Perhaps I don't associate with the right people to see it, but no one I know is like this. I know a decent number of people in this age group fairly well (a given person's range of acquaintances is roughly 100-200 people), and I don't know of a single person who has had to be coddled in order to survive. You know what? Those people don't survive. Someone who needs praise in order to get motivated will fail out of Stanford (or any real college) in a few terms, and usually a couple of F's is all it takes to get someone's ass in gear (I've seen it happen). If not, maybe they'll wake up when they're kicked out on their ass.

I want to know how these same damn analysts can say that this generation is overcompetative, and at the same time weak. One day you'll hear how the boomers' ridiculously high expectations are crushing their children, the next how their coddling has ruined them. Well which is it? You can't have it both ways!

Personally, as someone who actually is in this generation group, they're both crap. There's pressure on us, but there's always been pressure on kids. And the people I know are all hard-working, motivated, talented people, just like everyone else. Sometimes they break down, just like everyone else. Maybe my generation really is different from the previous ones, but I'm not seeing it, and if it really is as bad as everyone says, I think that I would.

Personally, I think that if these kids need special management that's not worth the time or effort, then their employers should fire them. Is it really that hard to say, "You're too much of a freakin' baby, so we're letting you go. Grow up and maybe you'll be able to get a job." I can't think of any way for them to grow up faster.

Obscene toys

Here's a pretty insane story about a Lingerie shop being raided for selling sex toys. Apparently it can be illegal, (which is absurd), and the law is so convoluted that it sounds like simply calling something a "sex toy" makes it illegal (which is even more absurd). But the winner was this quote by the Lubbock Assistant DA:

"What’s considered obscene in LA is different than Lubbock and different than Des Moines. The community ultimately decides what is obscene" says Grace.

He says obscenity laws have been on the books as long as they`ve had books as a way of protecting the community from what he calls the secondary effects of obscenity which are child pornography, money laundering and prostitution.

How on earth could someone say that obscenity will lead to child pornography? That's just crazy! But it's the kind of crazy you come to expect from the South.

I hope that the woman who works at the lingerie shop isn't labeled a sex offender for selling some stupid "obscene" toys, but given that she's in a state more concerned with what people do in the bedroom than, oh I don't know, the welfare of their constituents, she probably will be.

Hooray police state!

Every time I read a story like this I get more depressed about the state of this nation, and more convinced that we're headed down a very, very bad path.

Not that it is particularly bad, but even a cursory review finds that we are drifting inexorably into a police state, a nanny-state, and that's somewhere we don't want to go. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope we're not going to end up being a nation afraid of those who protect us, where the people have no power over their "protectors", but that appears to be where we're going.

I love hypocrisy!

Check out some neocon drug-war hypocrisy here.

Violent Legos?

This is just great. It's an article about how bad LEGO is for "introducing" guns to their previously non-violent lineup, including a picture of a storm trooper with a rifle.

The problem is that LEGO sets have always had guns! I had tons of Legos when I was a kid, and one of the oldest sets (pirates) came with toy muskets and flintlock pistols. The "Space" themes have always had guns of some sort, although usually more far-out that rifle-like. The "underwater" set had spear-guns. The "castle" set (the oldest one I can remember) had swords, spears, pikes, and poleaxes. The "wild west" sets had revolvers, rifles, and even dynamite.

In short, I have absolutely no idea what these people are talking about. Legos haven't become "violent" because they've added some new, more modern, guns. When I played with them the entire idea was to have fights! If you weren't building giant bases and war-ships and armies, well then you weren't playing with them. And I entirely fail to see how a toy that can become whatever a person wants can be bad in any context (I say person because Legos are not simply a children's toy).

Lego fans and members of The Brickish Association, which bills itself as forum for adult fans of Lego, say there has been a clear shift in policy.

One senior figure in the association said the company had used semi-realistic guns in the past, for pirate sets and those for cowboys, but nothing like those seen in its Star Wars and Batman products.

"Lego's take on creating weaponry has changed over the years," he said.

"My understanding is that the philosophy of the founding fathers of the company was to be non-violent and not to include realistic guns.

"But as they have got more realistic sets and sets that are licensed with big films, there has been an acceptance of guns.

"I very much hope Lego is not being dragged along by a trend for more violent toys and games.

"The philosophy of the company is very family friendly, non-violent, play."

Huw Millington, who runs the Brickset website, said: "There has been a change in emphasis with more realistic-looking guns. It may be that the tie-up with Hollywood is to blame.

"Some people say the brand has gone downhill since it signed licensing deals with big films, but personally I don't agree."

I would love for these guys to explain to me how exactly making guns slightly more realistic makes the toys more violent. Does it really make a difference if it's the gun pictured in the article or a long black stick? As someone who rather recently used the long black sticks as missile launchers, I can tell you that it does not. The entire point of Legos is to engage your imagination, and the pieces will turn into weapons, whether they're realistic-looking or not.

And how exactly is a toy gun not "family friendly"? Last time I checked, little boys love guns. Who didn't have some kind of cowboy or police toy set growing up? Who didn't play "cops 'n' robbers" or some similar game? Who didn't have a fort in the backyard stockpiled with stick weaponry? Who didn't have squirt-gun wars? Why is it that all of a sudden anything that involves any kind of violence is bad?

And, of course, there's the obvious solution: DON'T BUY YOUR KIDS THE SETS WITH GUNS IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GUNS. I could turn this into a tirade against idiotic parents who want other people to take responsibility for their children, but that's a subject for another day.

Who polices the police?

Via Radley Balko comes the shocking news that a Connecticut police officer who put a gun to a woman's head and pulled the trigger has been reinstated.

According to court documents, the woman contacted Windsor Locks police April 1, 2004, and told them that on March 27 Adams held an unloaded Desert Eagle semiautomatic pistol to her head and pulled the trigger.

The woman told police she met Adams in mid-2003 and they had a nine-month affair. According to the arrest warrant, the woman said that on March 26, 2004, a friend accidentally called Adams' wife, whose number was stored in the woman's cellphone. The woman then received a return call from Adams' wife and hung up, according to the warrant. Adams then called the woman himself a few moments later in a rage, the warrant said.

Adams made that call while he was on patrol duty, police said.

According to the warrant, Adams and the woman made arrangements to meet at his home in Windsor Locks on March 27, 2004, where the incident allegedly occurred. Adams was subsequently arrested and charged.

And now this guy is being rehired. While he's on trial for disorderly conduct, second-degree harassment and coercion. He put a gun to a woman's head, and he's being rehired.

Does anyone else think that's insane? This guy obviously has some stability problems if he pulls a stunt like that, and he's being given the powers of a police officer?

We need police reform. Badly. Just click on the first link in this post, and there are a half-dozen other incidents like this. They happen so often that they don't get even get reported. SWAT teams regularly break into the wrong houses, police regularly abuse their power. It seems that many have forgotten "Protect and Serve".

I know that not all officers are bad people, and that most of them aren't. But the current state of affairs breeds corruption, just like it did during Prohibition Mark I.

And look what just showed up in my feed reader, Code Inspectors" Target Wrong House, Cop Shoots Dog, Hits Mom, Daughter. Apparently police officers are pretending to be "code inspectors", and this guy shot a dog he thought was a fleeing perp and fragments hit a mother and daughter. He was at the wrong address.

How many people have to die like Katheryn Johnston before we demand reform?

(And yes, I have used this title before, but I still want to know who polices the police.)

Rhode Island Controversy

My home state, Rhode Island, seldom makes the news. But it has done so twice in the past five years or so over the same thing: a scholarship for white males. The first time this happened it was by the College Republicans at Roger Williams University (some five minutes from my house), this time it's the same group at the University of Rhode Island (this time they tacked on "heterosexual" to white male). It was even for the same amount, $100, not even enough to buy my Electromagnetics book.

Pretty much the same thing happened this time as last time, except this got slightly less national press and the university didn't handle it as well. Oh, and no one won it this time. Here's the backlash:

The student senate was not amused, and in February the Student Organizations Advisory and Review Committee demanded that the College Republicans: A) not award the $100 scholarship, B) apologize in writing for having violated the anti-discrimination section of the senate’s bylaws, and C) seek permission from the senate before mounting any programs in the next 12 months. The group cheerfully agreed to A – why not? – and declined to comply with B and C.

In response the Advisory and Review Committee exercised the nuclear option and voted to derecognize the group, in spite of the fact that Robert Carothers, the university’s president, had declared on April 6 that it was unconstitutional to require the College Republicans to “make public statements which are not their own.” (The relevant First Amendment category is “compelled speech.”)

The funny thing about this, and what most sane people usually recognize right away, is that white males are automatically denied many scholarships. Don't believe me? Go to any scholarship search service, and large numbers of them are directly for minorities. Even when I told Fastweb that I'm a white male, I still got tons of minority- or women-only scholarships. All that the college republicans are doing is pointing this out, and showing that when someone discriminates the other way people get angry.

I'll never understand why this matters to those people. This is like when College Republican groups have bake sales and charge more to minorities (reverse affirmative action), they want the backlash, they want it because it shows how intolerant the supposedly tolerant people are.

Honestly, tolerance isn't accepting people with different skin color or sexual orientation; it's accepting people with different ideas. Every decent human being understands that all people are the same when skin or sex is concerned. It doesn't take any kind of feat to accept them; it's much more difficult to accept people with whom you vehemently disagree. (Yes, I'm aware that there is still discrimination against some people in the world. I mean acceptance at an individual level, not at a societal level. We're not even close to acceptance at the societal level for many peoples.)

By pulling these stunts the College Republicans showcase one of the many hypocrisies of our culture. If the liberals who disagree with their positions want to deal with them in a liberal way, then debate their ideas, don't shut them down. I find that far too often that's the reaction to things that liberals don't like to hear (especially on college campuses), and it's more disgusting than some Republican positions.

What do I think about the scholarship itself? They make a good point that there are many scholarships that outright bar white males from applying. But there are two things to keep in mind: First, there are thousands of scholarships available, most of which are open to anyone; Second, it's private money and people are free to do what they want with it. If I wanted to give a bunch of money to college students, I'd pretty much go for those who need it regardless of outer characteristics, but some people feel the need to correct for past and present inequalities based on superficial characteristics. Just as they are free to offer scholarships to one group, so should the College Republicans be free to offer their puny scholarship. As a form of protest against the state of scholarships, I think it's weak. But as a demonstration of how intolerant college liberals are, it's beautiful.

Pay Gap?

If you're concerned about gender equality, check out this piece from Reason. It's about the pay gap between men and women.

For those who just want the punchline, here it is:

June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview.

That's a fact you won't hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.

Personally, I think this is good news. I guess that some people would rather still have an excuse to legislate equality, but sometimes the moral zeitgeist just works better.

The First Ammendment strikes back

The full text of the essay that got a student arrested (as I talked about here) is below (with expletives erased).

Blood sex and Booze. Drugs Drugs Drugs are fun. Stab, Stab, Stab, S…t…a…b…, poke. "So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone…, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did." Umm, yeah, what to wright about…… I'm leaving to join the Marines and I really don't give a [expletive] about my academics, so why does the only class that's complete [expletive], happen to be the only required class…enough said. The model citizen would stay around to vote in new board member to change the 4 years of English policy, but no one really stays around to vote for that kind of local crap, so whoever gets there name on the Ballet with a pretty face gets to do what the [expletive] ever they want with local ordinance. A person is smart, but people are dumb selfish animals. We can't make rules for ourselves so we vote others to do it for us, but we can't even do that right, I meen seriously, Bush for President? And our other option was John Kerry who claimed to parktake in Vietnam Special Forces missions that haven't been declassified…. [expletive]. So Power Flower Super Mario. Pudge, hook, rot, dismember "Fresh Meat." Most new/young teachers are laid back, and cooperative with students as feedback and input into the curriculum and atmosphere. My current English teacher is a control freak intent on setting a gap between herself and her students like a 63 year old white male fortune 500 company CEO, and a illegal immigrant. If CG was a private catholic school, I could understand, but wtf is her problem. And baking brownies and rice crispies does not make up for it, way to try and justify yourself as a good teacher while underhandidly looking for complements on your cooking. No quarrel on you qualifications as a writer, but as a teacher, don't be surprised on inspiring the first cg shooting.

Wow. I can really see why this boy is an imminent threat to his peers. He doesn't like English! He doesn't like his English teacher! He has dreams! Holy shit, lock the bastard up!

Go here for some notes by the author. He has passed the psych exam needed to join the military (Marines), and notes that, "If I'm qualified to defend the country, I believe I'm qualified to attend school."

This was absolutely an overreaction by the school. Hands down, no doubt. They screwed up. They should have talked to him first, and found out what was up with him. Moreover, any teacher who has had a student for that long should have some idea if they were a screwed-up kid who was actually dangerous, and this kid comes off as completely normal. Granted, you can never truly know who's going to do something crazy and stupid, but if you suspect someone might the correct route is not to have them arrested (at least without specific threats).

I hope he takes that school to the cleaners, maybe then educators will finally come to grips with the first amendment.

The terrorists you never hear about

A bomb was found in a Texas abortion clinic's parking lot. There's no information on who did it, but I'm pretty sure it was one of the many anti-abortion terrorist groups. These people, like the anti-animal testing terrorists, are people who use terror to get their way. But we never hear about them. They're right here. They're in our country. They're terrorists. But they're not Islamic fundamentalists, so no one cares. It gets a three paragraph story. Imagine if an Islamic terrorist had been been foiled? It would be all over the news for weeks. But no one will hear about this.

It's just infuriating how out of whack our priorities are.

On SWAT Teams

One of the things that really makes me angry is the overuse of SWAT teams. They will routinely serve minor drug warrants and break up poker games, and you hear terrible stories of them killing family pets for no reason, shoving gun barrels down children's throats, and frequently killing someone on accident. No-knock warrants scare innocent people, and when those people have a gun and think that they're being robbed, police and citizens die.

I think that we need a major overhaul of when SWAT use is acceptable, which should only be high-risk situations (they did a bang-up job in Virginia last week). We also need to reduce the number of no-knock warrants and night raids, so that when the police get bad information or make a mistake (neither of which are too problematic if the follow sane protocol) people don't die.

Radley Balko over at Reason Hit&Run has given me some hope that things might change. The well-publicized case of Kathryn Johnston, who was killed during a botched raid on her home, may bring about actual change. As always, Reason's staff does a better job with the story than I ever could, so check it out.

The first ammendment surrenders

A Chicago high-school student wrote an essay, following his teacher's instructions to be creative, turned it in, and was arrested for disorderly conduct.

Disorderly conduct, which carries a penalty of 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine, is filed for pranks such as pulling a fire alarm or dialing 911. But it can also apply when someone's writings can disturb an individual, [Cary Police Chief] Delelio said.

"The teacher was alarmed and disturbed by the content," he said.

But a civil rights advocate said the teacher's reaction to an essay shouldn't make it a crime.

"One of the elements is that some sort of disorder or disruption is created," said Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "When something is done in private—when a paper is handed in to a teacher—there isn't a disruption."

Experts say the charge against Lee is troubling because it was over an essay that even police say contained no direct threats against anyone at the school. However, Virginia Tech's actions toward Cho came under heavy scrutiny after the killings because of the "disturbing" plays and essays teachers say he had written for classes.

Simmie Baer, an attorney with the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, called the Cary incident an example of zero-tolerance policies gone awry. Children, she said, are not as sophisticated as adults and often show emotion through writing or pictures, which is what teachers should want because it is a safe outlet.

This is absurd. I could see the school taking some kind of disciplinary action against him (which may or may not be justifiable), but arresting him? If creative writing doesn't fall under the first amendment, then what does?

I hope the kid gets a good lawyer and sues the crap out of that school and that police department. I hope that every idiot involved with this decision is fired and never works again. I hope that every administrator learns that you can't inhibit free speech when it's not threatening anyone. But that won't happen.

The kid will probably get off, but the idiots who put him through this won't learn their lesson or get their comeuppance. There's no justice in the world.

[Edit: Several people have asked, so I thought I'd mention that I have no idea what the essay specifically said. All I know is that it was violent (or scary) enough to make the administrators think that arresting him was a good idea, and that it contained no specific threats against any individual. But I do know that instead of discussing the matter with the student they sent policemen to his house to arrest him, which is ridiculous and irresponsible.]

[Edit 2: A reader gave me a link to an updated story that includes some of the actual essay. Here are some parts:

[First assistant state's attorney] Carroll said the complaint against Lee quotes his essay as saying: "Blood, sex and booze. Drugs, drugs, drugs are fun. Stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, s ... t ... a ... b ..., puke. So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did."

According to Carroll, another passage said, "as a teacher, don't be surprised on inspiring the first CG shooting."

Lee said he was "just following the assignment." Asked if the Virginia Tech massacre had anything to do with the content of his essay, Lee said: "I had no influences outside the class."

Lee's essay, written in class Monday, also refers to lyrics from a song by the band Green Day and violent images from a Super Mario Bros. video game, according to Jamie Emling, a close friend of Lee's who is in the same creative-writing class.

Emling is scheduled to begin Marine boot camp with Lee in October. He said he has talked to his friend several times since the arrest, Emling said.

"He wrote about the dream of killing with P90s, which is a sci-fi gun from the show 'Stargate,'" Emling said. "It's a really cool gun. Top-loaded. And it's in 'GoldenEye,' the Nintendo 64 James Bond game."

The new article also quotes the teacher as saying "Don't censor yourselves." Sounds like she meant "Don't censor yourselves unless what you have to say is somewhat violent."

Now that we have this I think that I'm even less sympathetic with the school. Why didn't they just go talk to him? He probably doesn't even have access to weapons and he clearly wrote "I had a dream..." I don't know about other people, but I've had dreams that involve shooting before, better arrest me before I go on a shooting rampage! Ridiculous.]