Stealth Bananas!!!

This adapts to more than just criminal investigations:

A pre-emptive 911 call: Criminals sometimes call police very early to cover their bases. For instance, a man with a missing spouse might call police within a couple hours to say something is wrong. “The first question the detective is asking is why they’re assuming something is wrong because not getting ahold of someone right away is pretty normal,” Dittrich said.

The emotions don’t fit: even if what a suspect is saying on the call appears to be true, their tone is a big tip-off to police, Dittrich said. For instance, a calm demeanor while reporting a home invasion could indicate something is amiss because “most people are hysterical in that kind of situation.”

Not answering “yes” or “no”: an innocent person will usually answer questions with a direct yes or no. Not so for criminals, says Dittrich. When asked “are you involved in this murder?” they are likely to give a long answer like “I swear on my mother’s grave and all my children I didn’t.” This is a way of stalling: even though they tell themselves to lie, they can’t quite follow through.

Too many details: A criminal usually carefully plans their story in advance, anticipating that they’ll eventually speaks with detectives. A 911 call with too many details about the suspect, such as what they did that day or whether they’re happy with their significant other, is a red flag because it shows the person put thought into his or her story.

Lying about small stuff: Even the most innocuous statements can reveal inconsistencies, Dittrich said. A suspect talk of watching a television show in his or her alibi statement, but the show didn’t air that night. Lies about small stuff usually culminate in bigger evidence against the accused.

Referring to a missing person in past-tense: Most people hold out hope that their missing loved one will be found alive. Referring to a person in past tense, saying “I really loved her” or “he and I were happily married,” is incriminating, Dittrich said.

Saying “huh?” : When police ask a direct question, such as “Did you steal those items?” a guilty suspect will often pretend not to hear in order to stall and come up with a story, Dittrich said. Instead of answering a very direct question they say “huh?” or “what do you mean?” Dittrich said.

Helpfully offering another explanation: a suspect will often try and mislead detectives by putting another suspicious person on the investigation’s radar, Dittrich said. If a person denies a kidnapping but mentions a creepy man in a van, it’s important to see if there’s any other evidence of such a person existing. If there’s not, chances are the suspect made up a story to deflect the blame.

…the left and right aren’t symmetric. People of all persuasions lie; but the right has a whole institutional structure of lying that has no counterpart on the left.

EVER heard the one about climate scientists being a bunch of rent-seekers just out to chase taxpayers money, or the one where climate change scientists are just part of an elite left-wing conspiracy out to trample on the heretics?

How about your nearest conservative columnist telling you that “green is the new red” or how climate science and environmentalism has become a new religion? Where do these rhetorical tricks and debating points actually come from? How does the echo chamber work?…

…But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it….
…That the WSJ would publish an amateurish collection of falsehoods and half truths is no surprise. The entire global Murdoch enterprise is designed to advance the pollutocrat do-nothing agenda…

The internet is killing Santa, lol . .… Or, at least, taking away all his magic …. ..  That poor old Xtian symbol / bribe . .. ..  ;)

…Campaign 2012 will make Campaign 2000 look like a model of truthfulness. And all indications are that the press won’t know what to do — or, worse, that they will know what to do, which is act as stenographers and refuse to tell readers and listeners when candidates lie. Because to do otherwise when the parties aren’t equally at fault — and they won’t be — would be “biased”….
In a 2006 Eagle Forum questionnaire, Palin indicated that she supported funding abstinence-until-marriage education programs instead of teaching sex-education programs. “Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” Palin wrote in the conservative group’s questionnaire. Those two sentences open all kinds of ethical doors for reporters. Where even a national politician’s premarital sex habits of nearly a quarter-century ago are normally off-limits to media outlets, they move into the realm of fair game once that politician starts pushing abstinence education.

Fascinating. The comment thread is rich with nuanced, thoughtful conversation on the subject, too. Not that I entirely agree with the author, but the subject of why we treat the irrational, counter-factual arguments of some sectors of society as serious & worthy of address is definitely salient . .. .. :)

Military=Murder

Yeah. So, for the record, I’m coming out of the closet about my deeply held belief that military equals murder, as the military has existed for humans on planet Earth up to this point in time. (Maybe it’s possible to have ‘ethical armies’, but that’s a whole other convo.) Particularly with regards to the US, our military is about legalized murder — state-sanctioned, legally & socially approved homicide. Generally on massive scales. & to me, it’s murder, premeditated intentional homicide with loads of malice.

One of my basic premises is that war is destructive & not productive, that diversion of resources to war-making is a diversion away from myriad other far more productive uses of resources, & that the end result of war is the destruction of productivity, productive capacity, & resources. Not the most popular opinion, but there it is . .. .. .

I’ve kept my mouth shut war after military action after invasion, covert & overt. &, yeah, reading Blum’s ‘Killing Hope’, in addition to being massively painful, did radicalize me as to our decidedly murderous actions over & over again. (& typically for the most squalid of mercantilist & imperialist ‘reasons’.) But before that I never really did buy into the big lie that there is such a thing as a ‘good war’ or a ‘justified war’. Nope, I refuse to sign onto any of the offered justifications, rationalizations, excuses, or explanations. War is murder, participating in war is participation (however indirectly) in murder. War is one of the ultimate expressions of abuse culture, & it’s fetishized appurtenances are the rituals of the abusive in minimizing individual participants’ discomfort with all that abuse & murder.

Given this perspective it rarely surprises me to see that militaries are full of abuse culture manifestations, for the record . .….  ;)

Ah. & the whole supporting-our-soldiers meme gives me all kinds of gut-queasy stuff. (A), it’s telling that we increasingly must coerce the impressionable young into going into the military, it’s an increasingly unpopular choice in the modern profusion of life-choices. (As compares with, say, classical western antiquity, where every able-bodied post-pubertal male rather enthusiastically marched off to war after war after war, from village after hamlet after town. It was the exception _not_ to get in on all the spoils of war up until fairly recently for the majority of human cultures that have existed.) I’m very curious what a completely un-coerced military might look like, how large it might be.

& (b), outside of the coercion factor I tend to expect those who choose military careers (& policing careers) to believe more unquestioningly in authority & the utility of force & violence & similar concepts. Mostly I radically disagree with much of the discourse on the usefulness of non-consensual violence & its various premises.

Okay, so now we’re all on the same page about my opinion on this topic. :D

Yup, what Krugman says. We’re supposed to take seriously the pronouncements of the private agencies that gave top ratings to all those turns-out-were-toxic collateralized debt obligations? Puh-leeze .  ….

…who cares what Norquist says and why does he still have any credibility left? Just a few years ago he was a central player in the Jack Abramoff scandal, using his connections to launder nearly $1 million from Abramoff’s Indian tribe clients to conservative activist Ralph Reed and Christian anti-gambling groups who were fighting a proposed state lottery in Alabama, according to an extensive report by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee….

Mmmmmmm, Driftglass holding David Fracking Brooks’ feet to the fire is delicious, this column in particular . ….

Cut the deficit? END THE WARS!!!

It’s articles like this that re-confirm what a good choice I made in avoiding ‘fake food’ — artificial sweeteners, faux-fats, & etc:

"…the  research shows that not only will eating foods containing fat substitutes lead to greater calorie consumption and eventually more weight gain, but that these fat substitutes also “reset”  a number of key body mechanisms involved in weight control. So, even when you stop eating them, the weight gain effects can continue…."

"…Since fat substitutes are not digested by the body…the original idea thought was that by replacing the high-calorie natural fats with a form of fat that is not digested,  calorie consumption - and excess weight - will drop…."

"…The rats that ate the high fat diet and both types of potato chips (low fat and regular) consumed more food, gained more weight, and developed more fatty tissue than the rats that ate only the high calorie chips.
 
"Even more astounding: The fat rats had problems losing the excess weight even after the potato chips were removed from their diet…."

"…This is not the first time that fat substitutes have come under fire as causing weight gain. In the past, studies showed that foods containing fat substitutes were often "bulked up" with so much sugar and other fattening ingredients, that taking the actual fat out made little difference in terms of losing weight…."

"…Now researchers say there may be a bit more scientific reason behind that  unexpected effect. Indeed, data suggests  that foods with a sweet or “greasy” taste trigger various physiological responses, not only making us salivate (which turns on our appetite) but also impacting the secretions of various hormones and other metabolic reactions.
 
"The current research suggests that eating foods high in fat substitutes may interfere with these natural  physiological activities, in a sense, "tricking” the body into believing a boatload of calories are coming in, but instead dumping down  the low calorie fat substitute.
 
"It is this  "trickery" say  researchers that can  interfere with a  variety of physiological  reactions, at least  some which influence our calorie use potential - and some may even interfere with other metabolic links to weight gain such as blood sugar control….."

"…other studies…have reported similar findings concerning the use of saccharin and other artificial sweeteners, which appear to not just promote weight gain and but also increase body fat…."

"… In other studies - including one conducted by Proctor and Gamble on olestra,  it was learned that this particular fat substitute - even at the very lowest levels of use - also has the ability to pull important nutrients from the body, causing a dramatic depletion of all fat soluble vitamins - including vitamins D and E - in as little as two weeks time.

"In another study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition as far back as 1995 showed that consuming as few as 6 potato chips a day containing a fat substitute like olestra could cause a 20% decrease in beta carotene and 38% decrease in lycopene…"