Professor Reynolds has a link to a BBC story on more incipient revolution in Iran. It’s an interesting story, but what caught my eye were these two sentences:

The reformists believe the next step will be the prosecution of numerous reformist deputies on economic corruption charges as part of a right-wing scheme they believe is aimed at bringing the parliament down.

and

While the right-wingers accuse the liberals themselves of trying to precipitate just such a development as part of a plot to overthrow the Islamic system and to save their own political lives.

Just what is it that “right wing” means in the context of an article about Iran? Does it mean that they want school vouchers? That they favor fewer restrictions on the right to bear arms? Do they want lower taxes? Are they opposed to growth in the mullah-run government? What?

And does it mean that the reformers are “left wingers”? Probably not–this is not a phrase often used in the press, other than in “right-wing” media, like Reason or the National Review. In the editorially-condoned jargon, “crazy extremists” are “right-wing,” while their opposite extremist counterparts are “mainstream.” Often, they’re even the editorial staff…

Some have pointed out that such concepts as “left” and “right” don’t translate well to the Middle East. I don’t think that they’re very meaningful even for domestic political discussions, and are generally a sign of political simple-mindedness. I think that statement holds even more true for this article. But of course, such terminology makes it more natural and easier to call “conservatives” in America the “American Taliban…”

Jeez, this places just bounces from one extreme to the other. A few months ago in Kandahar, they were executing gays by using them as foundation stones. Now the place is reverting to ancient Sparta.

Can’t they find some kind of happy medium?

In an article entitled “Harsh conditions await prisoners” in the BBC Online, in which they describe the situation at Guantanamo, I found this little nugget:

They will be allowed to pray according to their faith.

But members of a movement that tried to prevent women working may be disconcerted to find that some of their guards are women.

Also in today’s LA Times, in their lead editorial, (which unlike the Bill Press nonsense, is linkable), they are complaining about our new “professionalized” airline-security personnel being allowed to confiscate eyelash curlers and inspect wooden legs without the benefit of a high-school diploma.

Not too bad for the Times. They’ve only got two false premises in this editorial; usually they manage at least the trifecta.

False premise one: that a high school diploma has any value at all in assessing the ability of a person to read, write, compute or think, as opposed to simply having the sticktoitiveness to hang around the high school until the age of eighteen or so without formally dropping out. I don’t believe that has been the case for decades.

False premise two: that people who are intelligent and educated make better nail-file confiscators.

Nope. It’s a boring job. Anyone with a lick of imagination and intellectual curiosity will quickly go bonkers watching luggage entrails go by all day. Ideally, this is a job for pattern-recognition software that could flash out occasional warnings to people who are reasonably intelligent and can do further inspections, but until it’s developed, assuming that we need personnel to scrutinize our carry-ons and persons (I’d rather have them focus on checked baggage myself, since, unlike passengers and carry ons, the passengers and crew have no control over that once aboard), we need people who aren’t easily bored. That doesn’t necessarily translate to HS graduates.

I suspect that if they actually did a study, they would find close to zero correlation between what makes for a good airline screener and HS diplomas. But no fear of that–apparently the airline-security debate will remain a fact-free zone for now…

Also in today’s LA Times, in their lead editorial, (which unlike the Bill Press nonsense, is linkable), they are complaining about our new “professionalized” airline-security personnel being allowed to confiscate eyelash curlers and inspect wooden legs without the benefit of a high-school diploma.

Not too bad for the Times. They’ve only got two false premises in this editorial; usually they manage at least the trifecta.

False premise one: that a high school diploma has any value at all in assessing the ability of a person to read, write, compute or think, as opposed to simply having the sticktoitiveness to hang around the high school until the age of eighteen or so without formally dropping out. I don’t believe that has been the case for decades.

False premise two: that people who are intelligent and educated make better nail-file confiscators.

Nope. It’s a boring job. Anyone with a lick of imagination and intellectual curiosity will quickly go bonkers watching luggage entrails go by all day. Ideally, this is a job for pattern-recognition software that could flash out occasional warnings to people who are reasonably intelligent and can do further inspections, but until it’s developed, assuming that we need personnel to scrutinize our carry-ons and persons (I’d rather have them focus on checked baggage myself, since, unlike passengers and carry ons, the passengers and crew have no control over that once aboard), we need people who aren’t easily bored. That doesn’t necessarily translate to HS graduates.

I suspect that if they actually did a study, they would find close to zero correlation between what makes for a good airline screener and HS diplomas. But no fear of that–apparently the airline-security debate will remain a fact-free zone for now…

Also in today’s LA Times, in their lead editorial, (which unlike the Bill Press nonsense, is linkable), they are complaining about our new “professionalized” airline-security personnel being allowed to confiscate eyelash curlers and inspect wooden legs without the benefit of a high-school diploma.

Not too bad for the Times. They’ve only got two false premises in this editorial; usually they manage at least the trifecta.

False premise one: that a high school diploma has any value at all in assessing the ability of a person to read, write, compute or think, as opposed to simply having the sticktoitiveness to hang around the high school until the age of eighteen or so without formally dropping out. I don’t believe that has been the case for decades.

False premise two: that people who are intelligent and educated make better nail-file confiscators.

Nope. It’s a boring job. Anyone with a lick of imagination and intellectual curiosity will quickly go bonkers watching luggage entrails go by all day. Ideally, this is a job for pattern-recognition software that could flash out occasional warnings to people who are reasonably intelligent and can do further inspections, but until it’s developed, assuming that we need personnel to scrutinize our carry-ons and persons (I’d rather have them focus on checked baggage myself, since, unlike passengers and carry ons, the passengers and crew have no control over that once aboard), we need people who aren’t easily bored. That doesn’t necessarily translate to HS graduates.

I suspect that if they actually did a study, they would find close to zero correlation between what makes for a good airline screener and HS diplomas. But no fear of that–apparently the airline-security debate will remain a fact-free zone for now…

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, there’s a guy named Don Detrich who’s mad as hell and isn’t going to take it any more. He’s started an organization called the Flight Watch Hijacking Resistance League. Hmmm, doesn’t make for a very pronounceable acronym…

They offer passenger training, and are lobbying for legislation (H.R.3150-Secure Transportation for America Act of 2001) to provide liability protection for passengers who assist in thwarting hijacking attempts. Apparently, the airlines have mixed feelings about this, but I’d like to see more of it. I think I’ll bookmark this site.

The Telegraph has an article on how impressed Kabul inhabitants are with the precision of the US bombing.

So accurate were the hits on the Antonov transport planes that only the aircrafts’ tails, wings and some of the cockpits were left. Their fuselages had disappeared. The official supervising the runway repair, Farid Ahmad, was impressed by the Americans’ work. He said it certainly outclassed the efforts of the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who destroyed much of the city and the airport 10 years ago.

“I have been through the Russians,” he said. “I have seen Hekmatyar in action and the Northern Alliance. This is just incredible. The Americans appear to have been 98 per cent accurate.

“Hekmatyar tried for six years to destroy the TV signal on Television Mountain. The Americans managed it straight away.”

It’s a little surreal reading some of the descriptions by people as though they’re scoring a game, but to the degree that judges of such things exist, given what they’ve been through in the past quarter century between the Soviets and the various civil wars, the residents of Kabul and Afghanistan at large have to be the best-qualified people on the planet to issue points.

The Telegraph has an article on how impressed Kabul inhabitants are with the precision of the US bombing.

So accurate were the hits on the Antonov transport planes that only the aircrafts’ tails, wings and some of the cockpits were left. Their fuselages had disappeared. The official supervising the runway repair, Farid Ahmad, was impressed by the Americans’ work. He said it certainly outclassed the efforts of the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who destroyed much of the city and the airport 10 years ago.

“I have been through the Russians,” he said. “I have seen Hekmatyar in action and the Northern Alliance. This is just incredible. The Americans appear to have been 98 per cent accurate.

“Hekmatyar tried for six years to destroy the TV signal on Television Mountain. The Americans managed it straight away.”

It’s a little surreal reading some of the descriptions by people as though they’re scoring a game, but to the degree that judges of such things exist, given what they’ve been through in the past quarter century between the Soviets and the various civil wars, the residents of Kabul and Afghanistan at large have to be the best-qualified people on the planet to issue points.

The Telegraph has an article on how impressed Kabul inhabitants are with the precision of the US bombing.

So accurate were the hits on the Antonov transport planes that only the aircrafts’ tails, wings and some of the cockpits were left. Their fuselages had disappeared. The official supervising the runway repair, Farid Ahmad, was impressed by the Americans’ work. He said it certainly outclassed the efforts of the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who destroyed much of the city and the airport 10 years ago.

“I have been through the Russians,” he said. “I have seen Hekmatyar in action and the Northern Alliance. This is just incredible. The Americans appear to have been 98 per cent accurate.

“Hekmatyar tried for six years to destroy the TV signal on Television Mountain. The Americans managed it straight away.”

It’s a little surreal reading some of the descriptions by people as though they’re scoring a game, but to the degree that judges of such things exist, given what they’ve been through in the past quarter century between the Soviets and the various civil wars, the residents of Kabul and Afghanistan at large have to be the best-qualified people on the planet to issue points.