Sniffing Out Marijuana No Longer Wanted

policedogs580

Some drug-sniffing dogs need to be upgraded, according to an interesting little piece in BusinessWeek.

Dogs have been trained to detect marijuana, which creates “probable cause” for police searches. But now, several states have legalized possessing small amounts of marijuana (normally an ounce). The problem: dogs don’t differentiate between legal and illegal amounts.

Dogs give the same response, regardless of the drug they detect. “We can’t train our dogs to bark if it’s cocaine, roll over if it’s marijuana, scratch if it’s methamphetamine,” said a Colorado policeman.

Imagine this scenario. A dog indicates that a car contains drugs, and a search reveals huge amounts of cocaine and other drugs. BUT, there’s also an ounce of marijuana. In court, lawyers argue that the dog actually detected the marijuana–which was purely legal–and therefore it was an illegal search. Anything ELSE found during the search should be ruled as inadmissible.

As a result, some police departments in Washington State are sending their dogs to “pot desensitization training,” and not training new dogs to detect marijuana.

Share Button
Leave a comment

Don’t Point Out Nothing

Today, class, let’s talk about currency numbers.

For instance: “The registration cost is $250.00.” Lose the decimals, or I’ll lose them for you. Just write, “The registration cost is $250.” Besides, it kinda makes the number look like 250,000. Especially avoid this on the web, where periods tend to get lost on low-resolution screens.

Certainly never write, “He won $1,000,000.00!”

How many times have churches sent me a news article with something like this: “We collected $800.00 for missions.” I’ve edited out hundreds of nothings.

If there’s nothing there–no cents–then there’s no reason to point it out. That’s why you write, “The length was 24.2 inches,” and not “The length was 24.2000000 inches.” The extra zeros communicate, literally, nothing.

That’s all for today, class. You may go.

Share Button
Leave a comment

Presidential Diversity

darryl

I am nearly two weeks late in changing my Office (from the TV show) calendar to September. This month’s person is Darryl. The calendar gives this quote from him. “I used to say I wanted to live long enough to see a black president. I didn’t realize how easy that would be. So now I want to live long enough to see a really, really gay president. Or a supermodel president. I want to see all the different kinds of presidents.”

Share Button
1 Comment

Artificial Emphasis and Exclamation Points

exclamationToday, class, I’d like to discuss exclamation points. You probably use way too many of them. As an editor, I’ve spent untold hours excising unjustified exclamation points.

Your words must be emphatic enough, by themselves, to merit an exclamation point. Don’t write a bland sentence and then, wanting to emphasize your point, stick an exclamation point on the end.

For example: “I’ll see you tomorrow morning!”

That sentence carries no inherent emphasis. Not like this sentence: “I can’t wait to see you tomorrow!”

And don’t think that, by adding multiple exclamation points, a dull sentence will be propelled into the realm of the emphatic. “Your order has shipped!!!!!!!!”

Another example: “I hope you come to our service this Sunday! We have some great things planned! Be sure to bring some friends!”

Three exclamations, none of them merited. This, sadly, is true of much hype-heavy advertising copy. On the other hand, it’s okay here: “The service this week is gonna be awesome! Honest!”

The fact is, when you choose your words well, the emphasis shows WITHOUT using an exclamation point. If the words are not emphatic, adding an exclamation point is just playing dress-up. It’s painting flames on the side of a Ford Focus.

Stop it!!!

Class dismissed.

Share Button
Leave a comment

The Day the Laughter Died

For many decades to come, every comedian will remember exactly where he was, and what he was doing, when he heard about the loss of BOTH Anthony Wiener and Elliott Spitzer.

Share Button
Leave a comment

Hold the Apostrophe on Those Name’s

menu-580

no-dogs-allowed

Okay, children, in today’s lesson we’ll talk about plural names. In general: no apostrophes. Ever.

I am a Dennie. Pam and I are the Dennies. We are not the Dennie’s.

If your last name is Jones (already ending in an “s”), you are the Joneses, not the Jones’ or Jones’s. An “es” may also be required to pluralize names ending in z, x, ch, and sh (the Alvarezes, Marxes, and Nashes, for example).

If a name ends in “y,” such as Kennedy, don’t you dare pluralize it as “Kennedies.” As a proper noun, just add an “s” and make it Kennedys. Again: NOT Kennedy’s. More than one blackberry may be blackberries, but if you own more than one Blackberry phone, they are Blackberrys (and not Blackberry’s).

I know it takes a great deal of restraint to NOT pluralize with an apostrophe, but it’s the right thing to do.

Class dismissed.

Share Button
Leave a comment

Tears in Rain

bladerunner

One of my alltime favorite movie scenes comes at the end of “Blade Runner,” when replicant Roy Batty, played by Rutger Hauer, makes this speech just before dying:

“I’ve… seen things you people wouldn’t believe… [laughs] Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those… moments… will be lost in time, like [coughs] tears… in… rain. Time… to die.”

The night before filming, Hauer rewrote the scripted speech and added the “tears in rain” part. Here’s what it was before he took a knife to it:

“I’ve known adventures, seen places you people will never see, I’ve been Offworld and back… frontiers! I’ve stood on the back deck of a blinker bound for the Plutition Camps with sweat in my eyes watching the stars fight on the shoulder of Orion…I’ve felt wind in my hair, riding test boats off the black galaxies and seen an attack fleet burn like a match and disappear. I’ve seen it, felt it…!”

Hauer described this as “opera talk” and “hi-tech speech.” While I actually kind of like the original speech, it’s unquestionable that Hauer’s more concise version–coupled with his amazing interpretation of it–is far better.

Share Button
Leave a comment

Sox. Anyone Have Trouble with that Spelling?

socks4sox2As an editor, can I truly respect a sport that doesn’t know how to spell “socks”? I give you Red Sox and White Sox. Yet, where is the outrage among the language Nazis?

At the time the Red Sox and the White Sox baseball teams were named, many Americans, including the editor of the Chicago Tribune, were pushing for simplified spelling of American English. It was apparently common at the time to see socks spelled s-o-x.

Share Button
Leave a comment

Business-Casual Communion

DSC_0124 DSC_0136 DSC_0132

Folks with a “high church” bent do communion better than we United Brethren, who take a “business casual” approach to communion. This was apparent last Sunday, when Anchor and five other Protestant churches in our 46808 zip code held a joint service in a local park (as we’ve been doing for several years).

The Presbyterian and United Methodist pastors led communion. I appreciated the solemnity they gave to the experience, the traditional motions, the way the loaves were broken in front of everybody. For me, it gives the experience more gravitas. Yes, they wore bluejeans and sneakers, but they still pulled off making it a holy moment.

But maybe partly, it’s just a matter of experiencing something different. If some of those Presbyterians and United Methodists participated in communion at a United Brethren church, perhaps they would find our business-casual approach to be refreshing. Perhaps.

And I must remember that the original Last Supper was just a meal. Jesus didn’t turn on worship music, lower his voice to a more authoritative level, and break into a special service. They were eating, and he said they should think of him whenever they ate. That’s a bit simplistic perhaps, but we United Brethren tend to be simplistic.

Share Button
Leave a comment

Ignorance Entrenched

stubborn-muleAn utterly fascinating and insightful article in the Pacific Standard about how people respond to political arguments. Clear ramifications for Facebook and probably theology.

People tend to interpret information in ways that confirm their existing beliefs, and when confronted with arguments to the contrary, they may dig in even deeper. Why? It’s all about self-image. If they accept information showing that one of their cherished views is wrong–information showing that global warming is man-caused, that abortion is wrong, that Obama’s birth certificate is valid, that affirmative action is detrimental, that torture is immoral, that gun crime is decreasing–then how many other things are they wrong about?

To preserve their sense of self-worth, people evaluate information to avoid having to admit that a view is wrong. Only very secure people can accept a view contrary to what they have previously espoused, without damaging their self-worth.

One study found that when people are presented with information which contradicts their ideology, those who most strongly identify with the ideology actually intensify their incorrect beliefs. For example, when shown that the Bush tax cuts didn’t increase government revenue, conservatives who held that view became more entrenched in believing that the tax cuts DID increase revenue. That’s one example.

I’m thinking about how this plays out on Facebook. When I present what I think is a killer argument about a certain political view, it just makes people who hold that view cling more stubbornly to that view. Unless they have a strong enough self-image to objectively evaluate the new information. Such people are refreshing to be around, yet sadly rare.

I’m guessing the same thing happens with people regarding theological views and other church-related views. You lay out clearly why the King James Version is outdated and inaccurate, and I’ll cling even more strongly to the KJV as the only valid version.

Then I must ask myself: So, Steve, how’s your sense of self-worth? Are you willing to change your views based on the weight of evidence or argument?

Share Button
Leave a comment

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.

Categories

Facebook

Linked In

Twitter

Monthly Archives