submandave

Break the Rules and You Get No Bone

2010-03-19T05:16:00.000-07:00

There should be grave personal consequences for those Democrats who go against the wishes of their constituency and vote for whatever bill it is that eventually leads to enactment of Obamacare. This is especially true for those who are deemed "Blue Dogs." This has been repeated communicated and, at this point, any Congressman who is determined to votes "Yea" in the face of these warnings is beyond redemption and further entreaties are wasted efforts. Having sufficiently brandished the stick, it is now the time for Republicans and conservatives to whip out their carrots in order to try and convince the undecided why it is a good idea to vote "Nay."

First, how much is defeating this effort worth? Personally, I believe it's worth quite a bit. With this in mind, I would encourage every Republican, Libertarian, or conservative represented by one of the current fence-sitters to communicate to their representative how voting against the bill personally benefits them. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that supporting their vote transcends party or philosophical boundaries. Let them know that their "Nay" in March directly translates to your "Yea" in November. Let them know that in 2010 you are a one-issue voter and regardless of how you may have voted in the past, should they help defeat this massive government grab, you'll be voting for a Democrat for House this year. Let them know that with the right vote now you will pledge give their opponent neither time nor money. What can Pelosi et. al. (who very possibly may be out of power next year, after all) offer them that is better than an easy reelection.

This vote happens once, but there will be another Congressional election in 2012. I don't care how much you want to claim that seat, it's worth it to grant the Democrat incumbent a two-year breather to kill this effort.

One more red nightmare

2009-12-11T08:52:00.000-08:00

While I agree with much of what the President said in Oslo, I am cautious about believing that I really know what he meant. As John Stewart has been prone to point out lately, if one removes the byline this could just as easily been a speech given by the President in 2004, a President, incidentally, that both Senator and candidate Obama frequently and vehemently repudiated. Like many Obama speeches, though, there were significant places that required the audience to "fill in the blank," and therein lies the details.

While going on at length about the sometimes necessity of fighting, he was rather vague about the actual principles upon which this necessity might hinge. Judging from his administration's unwillingness to even engage diplomatically on the side of freedom and democracy in either Honduras or Iran (and actually officially siding against it in the case of the former), it seems fair to conjecture that this is not a principle upon which this President would rather fight than switch. Amongst the specifics he does mention, though, we find "human rights" and "economic injustice."

While it is difficult for anyone to find fault with the first in general, this very universal acknowledgement and acceptance has, in the last couple of decades, meant the co-opting of this rather nebulous phrase by almost anyone or any group advocating for anything. Some, for example, believe the causes of government guaranteed universal housing, food and health care fall under the banner of "human rights." Based upon his domestic legislative priorities, one might feel comfortable assuming the President falls more into this camp than any other. Considering that the President has often expressed confidence in the UN, perhaps we should explore some of what they believe are human rights, as set forth in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights: (emphasis added, comments in italics)

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
(justification for "hate speech" laws?)
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
(I'm not sure how the government is supposed to sponsor everyone's dignity, but I'm sure someone will try and tell me)
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(so, the government needs to guarantee you a job?)
Article 23. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(there's an awful lot of nebulous "dignity" talk going around)
Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
(this human rights thing is sounding to me more and more like an employment contract between the government and its citizens)
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(note to freeloader wannabes: pay attention to the use of the adjective "adequate")
Article 26. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
(oh, well, guess we can forget this one...)

More disturbing for me, though, is his stated commitment to some idea of "economic injustice." While I might consider it unjust for a government to excessively tax its citizens or impose unreasonable restrictions on their freedom to engage in private, mutually beneficial economic agreements with other citizens, I somehow have a hunch this wasn't exactly what he was thinking about as he penned these words. In fact, if one were to Google "economic injustice," the entire first page concerns the advocacy of government-sponsored efforts to redistribute wealth to redress economic disparity between citizens. Characteristic of this sentiment is the 2005 essay by Jason Miller on a site called Metaphoria, which agonizes that "[s]tarting with Iraq, President Bush has dedicated himself to exporting economic injustice." Obviously it is far better to have oppressive despotism fueling uniform squalor (except for those favored by the ruling elite) than to have an environment of greater personal freedom that might allow some to achieve greater economic success than others. Again, judging from previous words and actions I can't help but believe that President Obama is espousing a support of this more conventional understanding of the phrase.

All of which leads to some interesting questions, if only one were to ask. If, as he said, the President believes "that a nation's hostility towards human rights and economic injustice cannot be allowed to thrive," and if we accept the concepts of "human rights" and "economic injustice" as outlined above, then how does that belief square against both the laws and capitalistic economic model of the very country he leads? Would one be justified in concluding that this has everything to do with his pledge to fundamentally remake the country? Or will we be encouraged by our "betters" to, once again, ignore the man behind the curtain and pay attention to the smoke and mirrors he presents instead?

I am Superman, and I Can Do Anything

2009-10-09T09:12:00.000-07:00

If I had access to a highly public forum, I'd suggest that all who find the Obama Peace Prize to be the height of ridiculous to up the ante. Use your influence to honor and award The One^TM for any and all accomplishments. I can just imagine the fun when Obama is suddenly inundated with:

blue ribbons for rhubarb pie at the county fair
prizes for local library art contests
recognition by community Rotarians
...

You Have Set the World on Fire

2008-10-30T15:05:00.000-07:00

What with an unscientific estimate of half of Sen. Obama's supporters thinking they've found the new messiah I'm getting more and more pessimistic about the upcoming election. Not the results as to who will win (I remain, for reasons unexplainable, borderline optimistic that Sen. McCain will once again previal against the odds and conventional wisdom), but the effects after regardless of whomever is declared the victor.

If you tired of ridiculous conspiracy theories and mindless hating after Bush beat Gore in 2000, then stand by for worse if McCain wins in 2008. After all, how could McCain possibly defeat the Chosen One except for cheating, racism of the electorate or a diabolical combination of the two. The millions of white supporters gained by Sen. Obama will be forgotten. The fact that he, despite a paucity of content, ran a formidible campaing and came within striking distance and was, throughout the process, treated as a serious and respected opponent by all but the most mindless and blatant racists will be forgotten. The "R" in the win column will be all the evidence required by the Rev. Wrights of this country to confirm every silly idea about the white devils they've ever dreamed up.

And if Jesus Jr. does pull through and come out on top? Inside six months there will be legions still wondering when their pony will be coming. And if there's one thing I've learned from living the past decade in a majority minority city it's that black Democrat politicians are masters at convincing their constituency that their failure to produce any real meaningful improvements in government or community isn't their fault, but still a problem with the racist history of America or institutionalized racism or any other problem letting them pass the buck on in order to keep getting reelected. Sorry if I seem cynical about this, but you can frequently tell in this town when election season is coming up by the volume of allegations of racism raised.

Sorry, no answers from me, just doom and gloom today.

Resources to Save the Poor from Their Lot

2008-10-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

In thinking of both Sen. Obama's proposed "tax cut" and the sub-prime mortgage crisis I keep hearing the chorus from Arrested Development's song "Give a Man a Fish." Rare is the man who has been raised from his social and economic conditions without having to do the lion's share of the work himself. The dirty secret that politicians are loathe to admit but I will say without prejudice is that in most cases there is a reason those in poverty stay in poverty and in today's America it rarely has to do with oppression or institutionalized anything-ism.

Poverty produces poverty for the simple reason that it doesn't know how not to. If you give every family in poverty $1000 today you'd end up with a bunch of poor folks watching some really nice LCD HDTV sets but very little actual improvement in their general standard of living. Likewise, extending shaky credit to unsteady borrowers at the government's bequest was, from any objective position, a bad idea. Yet there was the perpetual idea that putting someone in a nicer house with a little money in their pockets would result in a mystical metamorphosis that would alter their entire lives and that of their children without having to do the heavy lifting of changing their economic patterns. It was nice to give big, three bedroom fish to all those hungry folks, but what are they eating today?

I said before the I say this without prejudice, and by that I mean that there is nothing intrinsic in the poor that requires they stay poor or that being poor reduces their worth as people. But being poor is not a phenomenon, but often rather the logical result of a pattern of behavior. Ask any entry-level employer and they'll tell you one of their biggest problems is just getting people to show up for work and doing it on time. I see it at my daughters' school, where I volunteer to help with morning traffic. The tardy bell rings and still the parents are pulling in or walking up with their kids, usually with no sense of urgency at all. And this is at a good school in a middle-class neighborhood. It pains me no end to see the bad lesson these parents are demonstrating daily to their children. (I am sure others have looked on me with the same complaint, but as this essay is addressing poverty and contributing factors I'll give myself a pass at this time)

If you really want to reduce poverty, then help develop a good work ethic to allow a person to get, keep and excel in a job. After that, teach budgeting skills and the idea of delayed gratification in order to encourage savings. Use that savings and economic sense to secure a conventional mortgage and you've taught that fellow how to fish and not just given him a meal. You've provided him with tools that allow him to make a secure economic base for himself and his family.

This, then, is what I see as the heart of the anti-redistribution sentiment felt by many Americans. Help out your neighbor, educate the poor, but handout after handout just prompts the response of, to quote one of my least favorite songs ever, "what have you done for me lately?" Unless a person changes their patterns of behavior it is folly to believe that the results of giving them $1,000 or $10,000 would be too different from giving them $20.

Over there in Barrytown they do things very strange

2008-09-17T13:22:00.000-07:00

Accounts of the attempted "swiftboating" of McCain by former POW Phillip Butler has been noted by both sides of the political sphere, and generally regarded as unwarranted by most. Let me both offer both a caution and a little insight into the matter.

First, I want to caution others against unfairly disparaging Dr. Phillip Butler, as some commenters have done. He is a combat decorated Naval Aviator and former POW and deserves our respect for his service and sacrifice. Beyond that, though, while his opinion may be contrary to yours, I saw nothing in that video that was rude or disrespectful to Sen. McCain, and I feel that Dr. Butler, just on a level of human decency, at least deserves the same consideration.

It is fair, however, to examine both the messenger and those who would give him greater voice. On the latter, it has already been noted how the ad sponsor, Democracy for America, was not only founded by DNC chairman Howard Dean and currently run by his brother, Jim Dean, but quite clearly identifies itself as a "grassroots powerhouse working to change our country and the Democratic Party from the bottom-up" that is dedicated to "support[ing] progressive issues and candidates up and down the ballot." Now there's nothing wrong with this group putting out any ad it chooses, but it is less than honest for some, like Talking Point Memo, to call them an "independent group" or to compare this ad made and sponsored by what may in fairness be viewed as an adjunct to the Democrat party to those previously done by SBVT, a group that included many from both parties.

As to Dr. Butler, it is fair to note that, in contrast to the SBVT, he is but a single voice. But should that make his message less important? If it is an important message, perhaps not, but I contend that it may not be. In fact, Sen. McCain's experiences as a POW and his "infamous reputation for being a hot head" are only two of many reasons Dr. Butler expressed in his article "Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain" published at military.com on March 27, 2008. Among the other reasons cited are the standard laundry list of Democrat talking points:

"support[ing] Bush's war in Iraq"
"[his] views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration"
"his voting record is far to the right"
"I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court"
"he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers"

One may also fairly question if Dr. Butler's current position as a "peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace" should also be taken into consideration. I think knowing his professional and presumably heartfelt association with a group that is currently soliciting participation in the Million Doors for Peace, a "cross-organizational group of people including MoveOn, CodePink, TrueMajority, United for Peace and Justice, and many others." (As a side note, I see that so far 56 members of VFP have signed up. Assuming the other four groups cited have been equally successful that comes to about 3500 doors per person, a hefty day's work, indeed!) So, when Dr. Butler says he doesn't want Sen. McCain as President, is he expressing an opinion solely on behalf of a concerned fellow POW or just continuing the Democrat message he had already embraced since Sen. McCain cinched the GOP nomination? A position that, based upon the policy issues he had already contended with in his March 27, 2008 article, really depends neither upon either the Senator's status as a former POW nor Dr. Butler's personal experience with the Senator.

I do not begrudge Dr. Butler his opinions nor his right to express them, but I do find it insulting, offensive and, unfortunately, completely expected for a Democrat supporting and supported organization to attempt to hide not only their affiliation but their spokesman's partisan affiliations and ostensibly present him as just an average Joe. As the Blogfather would say, it's just another case of dog bites man.

It's not so much a living hell ...

2008-07-31T15:03:00.000-07:00

... It''s just a dying fiction.

Congress is all too ready to apologize for something it had nothing to do with, but I'd much rather hear it apologize for all the pork it's extorted out of us for so long and its willfully ignoring the country's energy issues until the problem loomed larger than Gojira and threatened their fleecing ability. Fie on them and a pox for all, I say.

Beyond that, we've got the anointed one Sen. Obama waxing less then poetic on what a horrible place the US has been in the past (hereafter referred to as BBO or Before Barack Obama). Yes, we need to "acknowledge" what a bad country we've been, since, apparently in the Senator's assessment, the Civil Rights act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, all the other various and sundry attempted legal remedies, the land that was granted to my grandfather in compensation for that taken from his ancestors after it having been promised in treaty, the way modern High School history books emphasize Uncle Tom's Cabin more than Chancellorsville and all the other examples one can come up with off the top of their head certainly doesn't count for anything. Because when it comes to pandering, one can never have enough.

But if we really want to get ethnic and minority on this topic I have to say that I claim greater moral authority to speak on this than the Senator. Since his mother is white (not a descendant of US slaves) and his father is Kenyan (not a descendant of US slaves) I fail to understand his frequent use of first person plural in discussing past racial injustices. Hell, his ancestors most likely either sold the slaves to traders in Africa or bought them once they reached this shore. I, on the other hand, as a card carrying citizen of the Muskogee Nation have direct ancestors that experienced the closest thing to a national policy of genocide ever visited upon any people living in this land. As such, I claim the moral high ground and declare that past transgressions are to be delegated to history, to be studied and acknowledged as historical fact in the context of both the contemporary world and what the nation has done to rectify these issues. They will no longer be available to be employed as scapegoats to excuse bad behavior or levers to extort pity or payment.

Now, quit yer bitchin' and get back to work.

Talk, it's only talk ...

2008-07-28T11:47:00.000-07:00

... Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy

So many are looking at the digital spike the LA Times has driven into the Edwards affair allegation and questioning why supposedly poor sourcing has left them so cautious when a similar problem with the McCain allegation earlier did not. Silly rabbit, trick like these are not for kids, but for sophisticated trained professional journalists. Fortunately for my three or four readers, I managed to swipe a glance at the official journalist manual of standards and found the applicable loophole.

You see, right now the National Enquirer is reporting that Edwards has not only had an affair with the lady in question, but has even sired a child. However, no independent objective quality evidence to support this allegation has delivered to their offices. Therefore, the allegation is poorly sourced and should not be reported or commented upon. In the McCain affair, however, the New York Times and others never actually alleged that any affair took place. You see, the story in that case was that such allegations had been made and these allegations were made by more than one person and directly reported to the news paper. Therefore, the news that allegations had been made was absolutely true, had multiple sources and was directly known to the reporter (since it was directly to the reporter that these allegations had been made).

Once you think about it the difference is so obvious. No wonder conservatives are viewed as lacking in nuance.

California sunlight ... the song remains the same

2008-07-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

Mickey Kaus, in discussing the stealth scandal of John Edwards and the rumored fruit of his loins, brings up points that Jon Fine made in Business Week. Mainly that the MSM determination to mimic the wise monkeys of Toshogu may be predicated on a desire to protect the Democrat's prefered choice for Attorney-General and that if the story wrer true that it reveals him to have orchestrated an "elaborate cover-up" with the complicity of the MSM.

Hmmmmmm, an A-G being deeply involved in a major cover up with the help and knowledge of powerful agents? Now, where have I heard that one before?

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

2008-06-11T07:01:00.000-07:00

The Blogfather notes that political blogs are a bit waning in popularity. I don't find that unexpected in the least, what with the (presumed) end of a long and tediously covered primary season and party conventions just beyond the horizon there's hardly anything to say about the 2½ candidates that hasn't already been said, and probably with greater insight and eloquence. I hardly ever watch news on TV and rarely CNN (largely because we don't subscribe to cable or satellite services), but when I was in the BOQ at Dam Neck this past weekend I was sure they should have changed the graphics to read "BNN", as it had obviously morphed into the 24/7 Barrack News Network. Yech! And now I'm supposed to read more political navel gazing? In the spirit of the trend, I will put aside any blistering insight on any candidate and turn, instead, to something of utmost importance: where the last Harry Potter Book will be split for the films.

When I finished reading The Deathly Hallows I was immediately struck by two thoughts: damn, that was bloody, and; they can never film this as written. Simply put, while the other books were replete with sub-plots, side stories and exposition, DH was classic linear story telling with hardly any fat. Like many, I was relieved to hear the of the decision to split the book into two films. But the question is where to split? If you haven't read the book but intend to or don't intend to but still want to be surprised by the film you can stop reading now.

When the news of the split was fist announced I remember reading someone suggesting the split be done after Ron leaves Harry and Hermione. I reread the book a while back specifically looking for a split point and have to say that I think the proposed point would be a very poor choice indeed. To split there means leaving the first film with a cliff hanger of sorts (will Ron come back?) but what sort of start does it mean for the second film? We return to the story, only to have to watch who knows how much depressing sitting in the woods missing Ron. Not much to recommend.

Wherever the split happens the story needs some very specific things to make it work. First, the split must somewhat balance the large action scenes of the book. Second, the split must follow some sort of mini-climax action piece that allows the first film to have something of a complete arc. Third, the split must allow the second film to have a dynamic opening that immediately recaptures the audience's attention. And fourth, if possible the split should produce two thematically consistent parts. With this in mind, I think I've found the best place: at Bill and Fleur's after Dobby's funeral.

First, the greater amount of action happens later in the book, especially after the return to Hogwarts. As everyone has noted, the films can only survive a limited amount of hiding and moping in the woods, events that comprise a great part of the physical first half of the book. Placing the split at Bill and Fleur's puts the flight from Privet Drive, the wedding, Ministry, Lovegoods', Godrick's Hollow and the Malfoy escape in the first film and Gringott's, Hogsmead, Hogsworts (battle 1), Forbidden Forest and Hogsworts (battle 2) in the second. Second, the first film will end with the climax of the escape from the Malfoys' and the denouement of Dobby's funeral. This lets the final film open with the daring break in at Gringott's (third point). Finally, this divides the two films between basically Harry et. al. blindly stumbling about and getting chased and Harry taking action and doing the chasing. Dobby's death was very formative in Harry realizing the real impact his actions (or inaction) could have on those he knew and loved. This spit point provides a complete story of Harry's change into a man of decision in the first part and the effect of his decisions in the second.

Politicians throwing stones

2008-05-29T15:25:00.000-07:00

In thinking of the Democrat primary fiasco and the MI/FL fracas, I think I've hit upon an ingenious compromise solution that is not only unreasonably fair but has the added benefit of casting even more monkey wrenches into the gummed up gears of the nominating process. It's a bit tricky, but I'll try and explain it as clearly as my poor skills allow:

While one may want to have the voices of the people of MI and FL heard, it can not be denied that there are Democrat primary voters who did not cast a ballot either because they expected their vote to not count or because their candidate was not on the ballot. So the major question, from a fairness point, is how to count the votes that were cast without penalizing those who would have voted if the conditions had been different? My solution is to count all the votes, even those not cast.

Let's say, for example, that 1.7 million voted in FL out of 3.4 million registered Democrats (a 50% rate). I propose that 50% of FL's delegates be apportioned according to the votes cast while the remaining 50% of delegates are seated to represent the will of those who did not vote.

Like I said, this is incredibly fair to all registered Democrats and the fun comes into play when the candidates try to court even more undeclared and unpledged delegates.

Ooooooh, I just love the thought of watching that train wreck!

It's been a long long long time

2008-05-29T15:13:00.000-07:00

The infrequebt blogging will continue until everyone goes away. I mean, really, I haven't written anything in almost five months and yet my ramblings are aparently still darkening Google's pages and drawing readers like flies to a goat carcass.

Ok, now that the customary "it's been a while" post is done, I'll get to what I really wanted to say.

Iowa Caucus: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2008-01-04T12:36:00.000-08:00

So much for the Iowa Circus (excuse me, Caucus). My quick take of the selection (not election) there yields a few points.

The Good - Sen. Obama's Win
I probably can't see myself voting for Sen. Obama in the general election unless his opponent is not one of the Republican front runners, but I can't help but enjoy his win over both Sen. Edwards and Sen. Clinton. In the first place, I find him, in his own naive way, to be more honest and genuine than either of those two snake oil salesmen. But more importantly, as Tyrone Steeles noted, it is a sharp poke in the eye to the Black Democrat Establishment and the collective wisdom that "White America" won't vote for a black candidate. I have long contended that the poor showing of previous black presidential candidates had much more to do with their being perceived as excessively parochial with regard to black constituency than with their race. For example, I would no more expect a handicapped white candidate to do well if they spent half their time talking about how they're going to help the handicapped and proposing all manner of new government programs exclusively to aid them. Hopefully Sen. Obama's win will help to impress this point, not so much on the Black Establishment, but on all the black candidates who may feel empowered to drink from outside that well. Anything that contributes to true diversity in candidates is good in my book.

The Bad - Gov. Huckabee's Win
I probably can't see myself voting for Gov. Huckabee in the general election unless his opponent is much worse in terms of national security. Stephen Green put it quite clearly, "What is wrong with you people?" A vote for Huckabee is a vote for much of the same nanny statism one could expect from the Democrats with the added bonus of helping to support the "Republicans are goobers from Jesusland" stereotype. The campaign message "vote for me because I'm a real Christian, just like you" is no less repulsive to me than "vote for me because I'm Black/Hispanic/White/Gay, just like you." Besides serving as a very prominent rally point for secular liberals, it also tends to alienate conservatives who believe in the importance of morals and values in society but are uneasy with government trying to force "Christian" morals and values on the country. Protecting life should be viewed as a good and moral thing, regardless of an individual's religion, but we don't need to bring back Blue Laws at the same time.

The Ugly - Sen. Obama's and Gov. Huckabee's Wins
Overall, I probably can't see myself voting for either Sen. Obama or Gov. Huckabee in the general election. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline summed it up by saying, "The common demoninator [sic] here, other than a patent lack of qualifications for the presidency, is likeability [sic]." It is almost depressing to imagine so many Americans so willing either to buy platitudes that carry only slightly more semblance to reality than the average child's letter to Santa or to ignore Grand Canyon sized gaping policy faults in order to support a good fellow Christian. I take my solace in knowing that this was, after all, a selection and not an election and in recognizing, as Mayor Guilliani's team has, that the real payday in terms of delegates is still a few weeks away.

Beauchamp; On Choosing the Lesser of Multiple Evils

2007-10-25T12:05:00.000-07:00

With Drudge's big scoop (Drudge link gone, but here's a good round-up) the blogoverse has once again acquired a taste for French cuisine, or at the very least chewing on a fellow with a French surname. Michael Yon, who passed on the first course, takes a nibble this time with his characteristic grace, wit and consideration. For some, though, the calls for forgiveness and a second chance ring hollow without the catharsis of an open confession, a penance required not even by that benchmark of stricture, the Catholic Church. For me, though, the absence of public flagellation is entirely understandable once you consider the often unspoken of player in this drama, his wife.

I do not know the man, and so I will ignore all the bad conjecture that passed for commentary during the first go around and assume he married his wife for many of the same reasons I married mine, chief among these being love. Assuming this, there is no question that having lied to his command, his wife's employer and, possibly, his wife, Pvt. Beauchamp was left with the conundrum of what course he could take to cause the least least damage to both himself and his wife in the future. By being honest with the Army and standing by his 'toon mates he is trying to do right by them and himself. By keeping mum and not throwing her or her employer under the bus he is trying to do right by the woman he loves. It's really no more of a mystery than that.

That his stories were fabrications is as well recognized as the fact that Dan Rather's TANG documents were fake, but that will not keep some from steadfastly persisting in a belief of both. A public confession will no more change their minds than Mary Mapes could have been dissuaded from publishing that embarrassment of a book she wrote. Denial is both cheap and easy. I neither need Beauchamp to prostrate himself upon the alter of truth nor do I need to know how many times my neighbor coveted my ass. I am perfectly content to let both be between the sinner and their personal confessor.

One More Chorus of the Torture Blues

2007-10-05T08:28:00.000-07:00

I am always amused by how, without exception, all discussions on GWOT, interrogation and torture devolve into a "this is torture - no, this is torture" schoolyard argument. I am also amused how often that argument is entirely devoid, even on blogs with a legal basis, such as Ann Althouse's, of relevent legal reference. I offer my non-lawlerly reading of 18 USC 2340 once again for consideration in clearly demonstrating that none of the acts authorized could possibly be legally considered "torture."

Ann, however, is not questioning the legality of such acts, but rather the propriety. It seems to me that the question of propriety hinges upon some very clear questions:

How inately "bad" are these techniques?
What is the intent of the using these techniques?
What degree of discrimination is used in chosing to apply these techniques?

On the first point, except for simulated drowning (i.e. water-boarding), these techniques have routinely been used in initiations, training and many other fairly common occurances. In other words, I do not generally consider them on the good-bad scale of being inately too far on the "bad" side. I would consider water-boarding a bit further toward the "bad" end, but also recognize that while it is uncomfortable and stressful its effects are also temporary in both.

On the second point, if any of these techniques are used specifically to cause discomfort or pain, then the usage is "bad" and should be subjected to censure. Like any other segment of society, the military does include some sadistic bastards (see "Abu Ghraib" for an example), but I think we generally do a good job of finding and punishing them (again, see "Abu Ghraib" for an example). The fact the a few may misuse these techniques is no more a reason to disallow them than the fact that a few may misuse their weapons is a reason to disarm the soldiery.

Key to the question of intent is utility. While the "torture never works" argument is both succint and sanctimonious, it is also unproven and requires the acceptance of unstated assumptions in order to truly be valid. If one truly believes that "torture never works," then one must also believe that those interrogation professionals throughout the ages, including those who are guiding this policy, are either complete idiots in ignoring the collective experience of their profession or merely sadistic bastards who don't care that it is ineffective. This seems to be quite a stretch to me. Likewise, the commonly offered conjecture that you never know the validity of information obtained under torture implies that the interrogator is using a single source with no follow-on verification. In reality, it is very easy to verify if, for example, the information on where an IED is burried is accurate or not. Simply call EOD and have them investigate. To those questioning the validity of information obtained under durress, please consider the following question. If you were a bad guy and knew where an IED/weapons cache/hostage was and felt compelled under simulated drowning to give up information, wouldn't you expect that giving wrong information would result in more of the same? Wouldn't that, by itself, serve as motivation to tell the truth?

Finally, on the third point I agree that using these techniques as a matter of course on any and all individuals detained would be "bad," but the policies themselves and, as far as I can tell, demonstrated practices show this is not the way they are applied. For example, of the former Gitmo detainees that have been repatriated, how many have subsequently offered testimony of such coersive techniques? In fact, a Google of "guantanamo detainee repatriated torture" actually shows page after page of pleas to not repatriate detainees where real torture is practiced.

In summary, if the question is "is it not abhorrent?" then I'd have to say that yes, it is not abhorrent. Perhaps it is a character flaw, but I simply don't find harsh and sometimes severe treatment against specifically selected enemy combatants to obtain important actionable intelligence abhorrent. It is without question regrettable and, depending upon the specifics, it may be bad, but I like my words to have meaning and to ascribe the label "abhorent" in this case robs that useful word of its bite and strength.

Reporting from the Mathematically Challenged

2007-06-12T15:01:00.000-07:00

One piece of big news over the weekend was the release of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations (TBI) report on Hate Crime 2006. The report in the Nashville Tennesseean was typical, citing the good news that overall crimes went down 16% but also noting sharp rises is some categories, especially those with a religious or sexual orientation basis. They have an extensive quote from Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project:

[H]e believed that hate crimes targeting homosexuals may have been more frequent last year in part because of a constitutional amendment on the November election ballot defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Many Christian groups rallied around the amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

"I think that created more hate discourse," particularly in fundamentalist congregations and small towns, Sanders said.

All fine and dandy, except the actual statistics don't support this analysis.

Many have looked at the 21 reported cases of sexual-orientation bias in 2005 and compared it against the 60 cases in 2006 and cried the sky is falling. However, if you look at individual categories (racial bias, ethnicity bias, religious bias) everything went up from last year. But how can that be if overall hate crimes are down 16%? Well, in 2005 there we 258 "non-specific" hate crimes, over 60% of the total. The reporters, on a whole, fail to either understand or mention that with this margin of uncertainty in the 2005 numbers it's statistically impossible to discern any trends or perform any conclusive analysis. Granted, the report linked above mentions the better quality reporting of category in an off-hand way (a comment that was completely absent from the print version that ran Sunday) but then they seem to ignore what it means and just march down their narrative heedless of the fact they obliquely brushed against. But all is not lost!

I did find a report by Jake Jost of WBIR in Knoxville, TN. Jake not only recognizes the significance of the poor categorization in 2005, he clearly explains it to his readers:

Despite the drop in the total number of hate crimes reported, several categories appear to have increased in numbers. However, 2006 showed a precipitous drop in the number of crimes reported with unknown bias motivation. Essentially, more hate crimes are now being reported to specific categories.

TBI reports the change is the result of better training for law enforcement agencies to report bias-motivated incidents. As a result of this year's improvement in reporting accuracy, it is difficult to assess whether individual categories have increased or decreased from previous years.

To top it off, Jake provides a link to the source report on the TBI's web page right beside his article. Now this is what news reporting should look like!

The Evolution of Civil Society

2007-05-25T12:39:00.000-07:00

A Marine awaiting transport provided an interesting update to the Blogfather's post on the gauche-sphere's take on reported improvements in Anbar. In it he cites an LAT piece by Robert Kaplan that hits upon an idea that I have had concerning many of today's geopolitical problems:

Those who proclaim today that the only real solution to the Arab dilemma is political freedom are correct. The problem is that they are describing a process that could encompass several bloody decades. After all, it took centuries for stable democracy as we know it to evolve in Europe. In this Darwinian shaking-out process, the new forms of political legitimacy may more closely resemble militarized social welfare organizations such as Hezbollah and the Al Mahdi army than the ramshackle contrivances of the European model that we saw in the post-colonial era.

I believe one of the lasting and most regrettable legacies of the colonial era is the existence of non-modern societies that now have access to modern weaponry. This problem is most apparent in Africa, where the combination of pre-colonial tribalism with state-of-the-art automatic arms regularly produces totalitarian rulers, abhorrent violence and genocide. It seems that many of these societies were, during colonialism and subjugation, suspended and at the abandonment of their erstwhile rulers the natural patterns reasserted themselves. This is not condescending or ethnocentric. I do not believe there is anything endemic about the people that make them tend toward autocratic rule, but I do think that these societies largely have not had the same opportunities for growth and development that Europe experienced in the Middle Ages. At that time their density was low enough to preclude extensive interaction between tribal units, the friction from which societal lessons are learned.

Our focus in nation building, or as I think is a more appropriate term, nation bridging is in helping the natural societal evolution from predatory conquest to peaceful cooperation. A key part of this is making the "pie" big enough that the individual groups perceive the piece they can have through working with other groups as larger than the piece they can achieve through violent means. Herein we see a deeper reason for the extensive development efforts in Iraq. Like many have pointed out before, the idea that any nation can step into a foreign society and recreate themselves and their institutions is naive and misguided. But it exactly this which I don't believe was ever a goal of the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. As Bush has said many times, and I agree, given the choice humans and human society will choose peace and freedom. It is our mission to help Iraq bridge the decades and centuries of societal evolution in as short a time as possible to allow them to be able to make that choice.

Let's Have One More Chorus ...

2007-05-24T14:50:00.000-07:00

of the "not my bag" blues.

Blogfather notes yet another article bemoaning how the U.S. military continues to discharge gay Arab linguists for no reason at all. Except, of course, the minor issue that they are legally required to do so. The folks discharged this time bemoan how they were so discrete:

"I was always discreet; I never considered it would be an issue," said Benjamin, when asked why he joined the military knowing the policy existed. "I thought if I don't say anything, they're not going to ask me. But it was more aggressive than I thought."

So what was the "aggressive" technique used to persecute the gays this time? Well, seems they got busted sending "discrete" naughty e-mails to their friends over SIPRNET (the secure network used by DoD to communicate classified information). Guess he never realized that use of the secure network could be monitored. And lest anyone tell you otherwise, this wasn't a gay witch hunt, as several others were pinched misusing the bandwidth as well.

He said he was particularly frustrated that he was among about 70 people investigated at a base in the state of Georgia for using the computer to send personal notes, and others who are not gay still are in the Army, even though they were caught sending sexual and profane messages.

This is easilly explained by the fact that there is no law requiring the discharge of people who tell dirty jokes.

Once again, the only reason any person is discharged from the military for being gay is because there is a federal law prohibiting gays from serving. For a change the congress-criter quoted, Rep. Marty Meehan (D), actually is sponsoring legislation to change the law instead of just pointing fingers at the military, but the article on a whole still tries to keep the familiar villian front and center. Despite teh fact that handlebar mustaches are against regulations.

Translating Mediaese

2007-05-23T11:26:00.000-07:00

Reading between the lines of a news article is not a new practice. It was raised to a high art during the Soviet era when the old joke concerning the two official newspapers, Pravda ("The Truth") and Izvestia ("The News") was that "there's no izvestia (news) in Pravda and no pravda (truth) in Izvestia". While I don't think western media has universally devolved to quite that paragon of unreliability, it has been a well worn tenet of the new media that often one is best armed not with grains but with an entire block of salt.

A recent article, Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran, concerned an all-too-frequent event, the leak of classified national security information to a news media source. While it contained the obligatory disclaimer that their "sources ... spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject," it seems more honest to say that they spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the illegality of their actions. I am no longer surprised but continue to be disappointed that the assumed responsibility of adversarialism taken on by the media leads then to unquestionalbly side with criminals in all cases involving national security. It would be an interesting mental exercise to imagine a media source that was equally accomodting to rapists, fences, muggers and murderers.

On the same page, supposedly in the interest of context, ABC conviently links to a photo gallery of "another Iran operation", namely the Iran-Contra Affair. In this gallary they included such key players as Dick Cheney, "ranking minority member on the joint congressional committee investigating" and John Bolton, "assistant attorney general at the Justice Department [who] thereby participated in meetings ... on how to handle the growing crisis." Inexplecibly there were no other "committee members" or "meeting participants" profiled, but I guess it's just a matter of how one defines "key". If it were me, however, I would think a background story on the Iranian Islamic Revolution that helped create the current crisis might be more useful context, but then again Dick Cheney, John Bolton and other Republicans probably didn't have as much to do with that issue.

Back at PD

2007-05-23T10:24:00.000-07:00

Been coppying the broadcast silently for a while, but finally came up to QSL. Traffic to follow.

The Only Good Hero is a Dead Hero

2006-11-13T08:20:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one to notice a distinct pattern here? (all emphasis added)

Sgt. Smith's actions saved 100 lives that day, those of his men and the lightly armed medics, journalists and wounded personnel at the forward aid station and command center. His firepower was crucial to their survival.

Two years later, on April 4, 2005, President Bush, awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to Army Sgt. First Class Paul Ray Smith and presented it to the Smith family in a ceremony at the White House to an audience of generals, diplomats, members of Sgt. Smith's platoon and former Medal of Honor recipients.
- Ventura County Star, 11/12/2006
Yesterday, on the eve of Veterans Day, President Bush announced that Cpl. Jason Dunham would become the first Marine to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War for sacrificing his life in Iraq for his fellow Marines. Dunham, assigned to Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines Regiment, died more than two years ago after covering a grenade with his helmet.
- Honolulu Star Bulletin, 11/11/2006
Two other Marines have reportedly been nominated for the Medal of Honor for heroism in Iraq. Both would be posthumous awards.

Sgt. Rafael Peralta, 25, with 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, died Nov. 15, 2004, during the second battle of Fallujah. His unit had been fighting insurgents in a house when he was mortally wounded. He then cradled a grenade to save other Marines in the room.

The other name mentioned is Lance Cpl. Christopher Adlesperger, 20, with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, who died Dec. 9, 2004. One month earlier, Adlesperger, after taking fire from a house during the Fallujah battle, climbed to the top of the house, fired grenades through the roof, shot and killed insurgents as they ran out of the house, and led the charge back into the house to make sure it was secure, according to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times.
- Army Times, 11/10/2006

I also recall a Navy Times article that mentioned a possible Medal of Honor nomination for Navy SEAL LT Michael Patrick Murphy for service in Afghanistan. There has not been a Medal of Honor awarded to a living recipient during the action cited since Vietnam. I have no intention of taking due honor and respect away from these brave and glorious men, but I cannot be convinced that there are no equally deserving acts of heroism performed by men (or women) who engaged the enemy, did substantial damage and still lived to tell the tale.

I think we are in danger of allowing this great honor to be recast solely as a victim's medal, which would be a tragedy. We have come to a point where in polite, correct, society violence itself is villianized instead of the motivation and purpose. We have come to believe, as a society, that "violence never solves anything," and therefore to openly and strongly praise anyone based upon their expert application of violence seems an anathema. It's okay if the recipient is dead, because then their actions seem more selfless, more necessary. Besides, they're not there to serve as living reminders that violence, in fact, is sometimes the only way to solve certain things. But it is exactly this fact of which that we, as a society, need to be reminded from time to time.

BTW, CBS carried the news of Cpl. Dunham's honor buried in an "other developments" paragraph under an article with the headline Suicide Bomber Kills 35 In Baghdad. Big surprise, eh?

Damn! Better break out the wallet

2006-11-13T08:19:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is over and the Democrats rule the Congressional roost, what do I expect to see over the next couple of years?

Higher Taxes. This is not mere rhetorical "the libs are gonna rob you and give it to the crack whores" scare mongering, but a fact. The Bush tax cuts that are not only credited by many with propelling the country through the post-9/11 recession and fueling the current strong economy but is personally credited by me with keeping more money in my pocket will undoubtedly be left to die on the vine. When the new (old) rates come back the Republicans need to be loud about why the average working American's take-home pay suddenly shrank.
More Intense Violence in Iraq. While it took "moderate" Democrats to win in many tight contests, the general message of the party has been carried most strongly by the Kerrys, Kennedys and Pelosis, namely that going into Iraq was a mistake and we need to retreat. As such, our enemies who have been trying to make us abandon the fight for three years will perceive a light at the end of the tunnel and will try to push us even harder.
No Rapid Withdrawal From Iraq. Even though, the final decision will remain with the CinC, and I hold little confidence that Pelosi et. al. will move the President far from his goal of supporting and enabling democracy in Iraq. Sure, they may get some changes in rhetoric and tactics and will loudly trumpet them as victories, but the President will not change his mind and, despite the yearnings of the more fervently leftists, the Congress will not take meaningful and substantial action on the record to force him to change.
Bush's Pen Will Get Some Exercise. Finally (too late some might say), the glass will be broken and the veto pen will be charged with ink. If the Democrat Congress passes a silly "don't spy on the terrorists" bill, expect a statement of the obvious and veto.
The Far Left Will Get Sillier. After the first veto of something the left really wants expect the shrill cries of "fascism" and "BusHitler" to get even louder than they have ever been. The Nutroots community will get even more vocal and even more frustrated. Hopefully this will push them to nominate someone left of Kerry in '08. The Democrats are often easier to beat when they act naturally.

Kerry Was Just Being Kerry

2006-11-01T16:16:00.000-08:00

The buzz over the past couple of days is John Kerry and his remark that, basically, smart kids go to college and get good jobs while dumb kids go into the military. After much outrage he didn't apologize and then kind-of apologized. I've not served on the ground in Iraq (or Afghanistan), but as a Navy man for over twenty years I think I've got a perspective on this.

Was I insulted? No.
Was I outraged? No.

Why? Because I already had very little respect for the man and whatever he had to say his words and opinions do not personally effect me. Do I take it personally when the neighborhood stray takes a dump in my yard? No, because he's just being a dog and I knew long ago he was an obnoxious pest. Perhaps I am cynical, but I expect nothing but condescention and sneering disrespect from that pompous wind-bag anyway (I mean Kerry, not the dog), so it has long ceased bothering me to see Sen. Kerry act like Sen. Kerry. I'll grant him that he probably did not intend for those words to come out like that and he most certainly intended to mean something else, but his whole initial non-apology was because he didn't really see anything wrong with what he said. This crap that "As a combat veteran ... [he] never intended to refer to any troop" is just that. Being a combat veteran does not automatically make you not be an ass, just like being a Naval Officer doesn't automatically make you respect all service members. Talk to anyone who's been in and they're bound to have at least one story of some numbskull officer who thought he was better than the enlisted troops just because he has that commissioning document. I think one would be hard pressed to abuse me of the opinion that Sen. Kerry feels he is better than not only the enlisted service members but the entire officer corps as well. That's just who he is and I'm not loosing any sleep over him acting like the pompous jerk he has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be.

That said, though, I like to see the story get play simply because I believe the more people who have to deal with the fact that this is how Sen. Kerry is and the fact that the Democrats only two short years ago felt he best represented them to be the President, the better informed the American voting public will be.

Was Steele Overly Sensitive?

2006-10-19T15:37:00.000-07:00

Recently Senate Candidate Michael Steele got a mite testy when Rep. Steny Hoyer said Steele has "a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party." Paul Mirengoff at Power Line echoed my initial thought that being offended and playing the race card over the a comment that very likely was innocently made is so Dem. However, upon further consideration, in the face of a Democrat campaign that regularly included calling Steele an "Oreo", "Uncle Tom", "Sambo" and even included photoshoped pictures of him in minstrel makeup, it's easy to see how a comment that should get the benefit of the doubt in any other climate might, instead, be assumed to be just another slur and attempt to reinforce the message the Democrats have been pushing on the black voters in Maryland the entire race: Steele's not really one of you; he works for The Man^®.

DPRK: The Road Ahead

2006-10-10T11:34:00.000-07:00

The DPRK's claims this past weekend to successfully conducting a nuclear test have (thankfully) shifted most observers' focus off the tawdry but honestly insignificant details of Rep. Foley's failings as a mentor and adult and to other topics. Unfortunately, for many this focus is represented by the dichotomy of the "it's Bush's fault" and "it's Clinton's fault" camps, completely ignoring that at the core it is Kim Jong Il's fault. It is accurate to say that little the Bush administration has done over the past six years effectively deterred or prevented the DPRK from pursuing and, apparently, achieving its nuclear ambitions. It is, however, equally accurate to say that Clinton was equally unsuccessful in the six years between the agreed framework and Bush taking office. When the DPRK wasn't enriching uranium or extracting plutonium it was busy doing all the other technological research and work it get ready for the big day. The ugly truth that both camps should be facing is that absent convincing China to hold them back (and it seems that this recent development was actual contrary to China's desires) we had no way to stop this from happening short of military intervention.

People are going to do what they want unless there is sufficient motivation to restrain their personal desires. Granted, nations do not operate exactly analogous to individuals, but in the case of totalitarian regimes like DPRK and Saddam's Iraq it is about as close as you can come to the actions of a nation reflecting the personal desires and motives of an individual. The greater and more noble motivator is, of course, just reward for desired behavior. When that fails, though, there must be suitable and sufficient punishment for undesired behavior. For some, the positive motivation is more of an incentive to deceive, receiving bounty without having to sacrifice. As it was with Saddam, this too is the oft demonstrated pattern we see with Kim Jong Il and DPRK. It is apparent, too, that our punishments were woefully inadequate to achieve the desired goal. When I was a child I famously told my mother to go ahead and spank me twice, as the promised punishment was worth the personal reward of the soon-to-be repeated offense, so I fully understand how an individual can make such a trade. Moving forward, we must ask what is the behavior we desire from DPRK and what are suitable punishments to achieve this behavior.

Of course, if we could waive our magic wands and sprinkle Kim with fairy dust we'd have him completely and verifiably destroy all existing weapons and dismantle the production capability. This is an important goal, but we must understand that absent the tools mentioned above the likelihood of such occurring is very slight. At a minimum, though, we must strive to ensure that neither nuclear materials nor knowledge is exported from DPRK. The question is what, short of intrusive military action, will accomplish this goal. Allow me to offer the following for consideration:

Expulsion from the UN. This is unlikely to happen, as China will most certainly veto the action, but I still think from demonstrating the resolve of the US we should make the proposal, push hard for it and demand a vote of record on the action. It will in all likelihood never pass, but we need to be on record saying "willful violation of the NPT will exclude you from the world community."
Increased Surveillance. Increase surveillance and intercept of DPRK communications, including physical intercept of communications and overflight of key locations and facilities. The latter poses potential risk, but if done infrequently, with little warning to various sites using appropriate platforms we should be able to do so successfully.
Require Inspection of All Exports. If it's done my an international team with the blessings of the UNSC, fine as long as US agents are part of the team. If not blessed by the UN, then intercept, board and inspect shipping in international waters. After all, we are still officially at war on the peninsula. More difficult will be what to do in the face of trans-shipments through an enabler, such as China. Perhaps the answer is to monitor the shipment until inspection can be more easily performed. I admit that this latter possibility poses a problem, but as a rule I am for intercept and inspection to the greatest extent possible.
Prohibit Missile Launches. Publicly and openly declare that the launch of any missile outside DPRK territorial waters will be construed as a possible nuclear launch. As such, the missile, launch site and support sites would all be subject to immediate destruction without further notice. Aegis cruisers supporting the inspection mission would be able to monitor for such launches as well as coordinate cruise missile strikes of launch sites. We must then be ready to follow through when they test our resolve.
Public Support for Japan. Openly offer support for Japan, making clear that the US would have no objections should Japan feel it needs to ammend its Constitution to allow it to develop a nuclear deterrence capability. This is singularly significant since we had a pivotal role in the constitutional restrictions on Japanese military power. This would also have the effect of motivating China to further pressure DPRK, as the last thing they want is to face two nuclear competitors in the Pacific.

The dovish amongst us would look at my recommendations and decry it an act of war. As I pointed out before, though, was are already at war with DPRK. We cannot shut down their nuclear program with the current regime in place nor can we change the regime without all-out war, an option that noone wants to see. However, we equally cannot allow DPRK to use or export their nuclear weapons or nuclear knowledge. Frankly, I think we should be beyond any illusion that what we do will make one ioia of difference to what they do. At this point it is more important to make sure our actions are correct and sufficient to accomplish what we want rather than aimed at trying to make them do anything specific.

Violating First Amendment Rights or Just Plain Common Sense?

2006-08-25T13:17:00.000-07:00

The Blogfather points to a case in New York where a man was arrested for rebroadcasting Hezbollah's satellite channel, al-Manar. The crux of the violation lies in that al-Manar has been designated a "global terrorist entity" and therefore all transactions between Americans and al-Manar are strictly verbotten.

As the good Prof says, this certainly raises First Amendment questions. Can the government legitimately stop Americans from hearing what Hezbollah has to say? Apparently it can, but should it be able to? If it can stop Hezbollah, why not, using similar tactics, silence any other entity it wants? While the professor "favor[s] exempting retransmission of news material, etc., from the statute", is that really all there is to it?

As any reasonable person knows, First Amendment rights to free speech aren't absolute. Besides the most obvious non-protected examples of obscene and libelous speech, there are other recognized exemptions, most notably in this case threats and sedition. I know the latter has seemingly fallen out of favor of late (how else can you explain groups that honestly support, advocate and reward mutinous action by members of our Armed Forces without consequence) and, coming from a foreign source the term "sedition" may not be strictly accurate, but should there be a compulsion for any government to allow open broadcast by its enemies? You can't fault Hezbollah for trying, but neither should one fault the U.S. government for putting a stop to it when discovered.

Finally, the broadcast of any of America's enemies' signals into the U.S. could constitute a real national security issue. If nothing else, the recent rash of "Hezbollah news" busted by bloggers of all stripes indicates that one should expect no better from the official source. It has long been suspected that numerous Iranian and Hezbollah agents may be placed within the U.S. in sleeper cells, so why should anyone think we need allow Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, to broadcast into our own country, possibly providing a means to communicate organizational or directive orders? Simply recall how the radio was used in Rwanda to plan, coordinate and launch the genocide there. Yes, in today's modern age of communications there are many other ways to get word out to agents, but why should we feel compelled to intentionally make it easier for them?

USS Grunion (SS-216) Found?

2006-08-17T08:56:00.000-07:00

On or about July 31, 1942 the USS Grunion (SS-216) and her crew began their eternal patrol off the Aleutian Islands. Yesterday the decades-long efforts of the Catpain's sons to pay their final respects to their father and his crew may have begun to bear fruit.

The Boston Globe has an excellent article about the search effort and the exciting news Bruce Abele received yesterday morning. More information is available, including pictures, on the Search for the Grunion Blog. Fascinating story.

Megan McArdle Unhinged

2006-08-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Megan McArdle is guest blogging at Instapundit, and managed to get a mind-nubming rant out front early. Now, I know that economics it her real forte, but Megan has always seemed to me thoughtful and considered in whatever she chose to write about, so I am somewhat at a loss to explain the holes in this post other than to write it off as general anger and frustration over needless deaths and an inabiity to do anything about it. But anger does not a compelling logic make.

"Israel responded to a Hizbollah attack on a military target by killing huge numbers of Lebanese civilians. [...] [Y]ou don't nuke a neighbourhood to catch a shoplifter. [...] Israel's stated aim of using violence to pressure the Lebanese people to reject Hizbollah has eroded the moral edge it normally enjoys over Hamas. [...] The rockets started after the invasion."

It took me several reads to understand that the "military target" she credits Hizbollah with attacking was the initial cross-border raid into Israel and the killing and capture of IDF soldiers. But is it right to say that the Israeli response to this was to kill huge numbers of civilians? There is no doubt that civilians have died, which is a true tragedy (I've heard none but the most rabid and repulsive say otherwise), but claiming that these deaths were Israel's response is akin to saying that the oncologist's response to detecting cancer was to make the patient violently ill and have her hair fall out. Likewise it serves to absolve Hizbollah of the culpability of basing its weapons and fighters in dangerous proximity to civilian populations, an act that is by multiple reports both deliberate and forced upon the very civilians placed in harm's way.

As for the "stated aim of using violence to pressure the Lebanese people," the closest I could come to finding this aim anywhere was an article on uruknet by Stephen Gowans, a statement he attributes to Yoram Peri in the Toronto Globe and Mail, July 14, 2006. In the referenced article, though (available only through subscription), the statement that "Israel is ratcheting up the pressure on the civilian population in an effort to push the Lebanese to reject Hezbollah tactics" is actually made by the article's author, Orly Halpern. The quote by Yoram Peri, who is head of the Chaim Herzog Institute for Media, Politics and Society at Tel Aviv University and not a spokesman for the Israeli government, is that "Israel wants to make Hezbollah a liability to the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government. Israel wants to tell them that the price for Hezbollah's attacks is too heavy and they need to put pressure on Hezbollah to disarm or to change its policies vis-à-vis Israel." The claim that Israel has stated an aim of using violence to pressure the Lebanese people juxtaposed with statements that Israel's response has been to kill civilians creates the impression that Megan believes the Israeli government is actively targetting civiians to punish them for supporting Hizbollah. I don't believe that is the case, nor do I imagine she does so either.

Perhaps it is nitpicking on semantics, but the order of escalation as I understand it is:

Hizbollah invades Israel, killing and capturing IDF soldiers
Israel launched air strikes against Hizbollah and support infrastructure
Hizbollah launches rockets against Haifa an dother civilian targets
Israel continues bombardment and on July 23 cross the Lebanese border.

Normally "invade" is used to indicate the movement of ground forces across a border into another sovereign's territory. For example, during the ten-odd years of Operation Southern Watch we regularly flew across Iraq and even conducted counterstrikes from time to time, but I don't remember a general sense that we had "invaded" Iraq at that time. Again, the use of "invade" by Megan in reference to the timing and progression of violence, especially as regards Hizbollah's intentional targetting of civilians, helps to create an impression that is other than accurate.

When Megan mentions the incident at Qana I think we have finally come to the fulcrum that has moved her lever so strongly. Presented with dead children only the most hardened can turn aside with a shrug, but I have learned that news of any tragedy in the Middle East is best digested slowly. Already there are those casting doubt on the truth of the events put forward by Hizbollah and Lebanon. While I am cautious to dismiss the reports outright, there are several details that lead me to believe the event has been "embellished":

The time of collapse is unclear. Israel struck at night and the collapse was reported in the morning, but some claim it collapsed that night. If it collapsed at night why delay rescue and recovery until the morning? If it collapsed in the morning why were people still there?
There is even some question as to if the building did actually collapse. While the word "collapse" has often been used, I have also read reports noting that the building's roof was intact or indicating that the damage mainly consisted of a large hole near the ground level. What I have not seen are wide angle shots of the reported collapsed building conclusively showing its status.
Some detractors have made much of the ubiquitous green-helmetted, orange-vested worker. What I note as being curious is that there are photos of him placing one body on a stretcher at the collapse site and other photos of him carrying the same body to an ambulance. If he did, in fact, place the body on the stretcher it would then seem a reasonable conclusion that the apparently later photo was less than spontaneous and authentic.
Some have much of the time stamps on the photos or reports to try and create a chronology that seems inconsistent. While I understand the logic, I also know that a digital timestamp is a notoriously bad measurement, as different computers or cameras may be off by minutes, hours or even years from each other. The only useful chronological reference would be between photos from the same camera. Likewise, it is not clear how report file time is determined. If assigned when processed a set of photos could be sitting around for several minutes or hours before processing, leading to apparent contemporaneous inconsistencies.
One question that does seem relevent is the relative good condition of the bodies recovered. The majority of photos I've seen show mostly clean bodies with little or no apparent external injury. Crushed or missing limbs are not seen. Nor, for the most part, is concrete dust or residue.

Perhaps the words unnatural and suspicious best sums up the evidence available. I don't doubt that civilians and probably children died in the Israeli airstrike. But looking at the above inconsistencies and knowing the historty of the region and its culture in using bodies for publicity purposes (remember Saddam's dead baby parades?), I am left wondering if the Qana "massacre" might perhaps bear more similarity with Jenin than just the principle protagonist. I would have thought Megan would have shared these doubts. Emotions are always an issue when dealing with war and death, especially death of children, but I think it is an obligation of those who would offer their opinions on important matters to ensure that they do not allow these very human feelings to skew their logic and cognitive skills.

MSM, Blogs and My Disappointment Over Pajamasmedia

2006-07-31T19:31:00.000-07:00

The other day, Megan McArdle wrote on that popular misconception that blogs will replace the MSM. I agree with her that each medium has strengths and weaknesses that can, together, create more value than individually either promises (hmm, a trade between two willing participants making each richer, sounds like the market principle of free trade in action). I was, however, reminded of my disappointment over what I expected from the promises of Pajamasmedia (nee OSM). Perhaps by dissatisfaction is a personal matter, perhaps it is a result of what seems to me an uninspiring user interface, but I still see that the role I had hoped Pajamasmedia would play is still a largely unfilled role.

To understand my disappointment, it is important to look at the genesis of the effort. Fresh from the public unmasking of the Rather/Mapes attempted drive-by on the Bush campaign and following the MSM unquestioning lock-step with Kerry's response to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims ("but I am a War Hero©, of course I'm telling the truth"), there was much dissatisfaction in what is often referred to as the "right-leaning" blogosphere with the accuracy and truth in what is often presented as news. In the wake of this sentiment Roger Simon, Charles Johnson and a few others began discussing the idea of using the blog as the new news medium, a people-powered interactive reporting tool. This concept saw its infancy in the Iraq invasion, with the now famous ex-blogger Raed anticipating the attack with both resignation and horror and has subsequently been validated during the peaceful revolutions of Georgia and Lebanon, the tragic suffering of the South East Asia tsunami and the unblinking vigilance of the continuous stream of various milbloggers as they take their turn in the sandbox. But how does this connect to blog-based news reporting in general and Pajamasmedia in particular?

While I am not a trained professional in journalism, I see the news process as being largely analogous to any general data collection activity. As such, there are three main steps: collect the data/news, decide what data/news is relevant and accurate and the analyze the data/news for meaning and trends. In the news business the first is the traditionally the domain of the reporter, the second the editor and the last the op-ed writer. Yes, there is some cross-over, as reporters are expected and required to verify the accuracy of their articles and often must draw from multiple sources for their final product, but from a process perspective I still this as an editorial vice collection role. Over the next few days I plan to look a bit more in depth at each of these roles, starting today with the Collection activity.

Collection

As Megan so accurately put forth, collection is a very time consuming activity that is completely dependent upon physical location. From that perspective, I have always felt it both naive and fanciful to imagine the blogosphere being able to effectively supplant the vast network of reporters the MSM and wire services support. True, often ground-level blog reports seem to be more accurate than many MSM reports (e.g. Katrina, Iraq), but however much value these reports have provided they are still secondary to reports coming from traditional MSM sources. This partly a matter of the sheer volume of traditional reports, but also a factor is that these blog reports are quite often ignored by MSM news. The virtual monopoly on this data that the blogosphere enjoys may be because of the MSM's general mistrust of blogs, its inability to independently verify the reports, simple ignorance as the existence of the reports or a combination of these and other reasons. The conjecture is often that as more people get their news from blogs and other on-line sources the value and importance of these blog reports in shaping important decisions will grow, but barring a continued complete lack of awareness and business savvy on behalf of the MSM the increased value of these reports will also work to improve the product offered by the MSM as well. Over the long run, though, the paucity of blog-reports compared to MSM-reports will continue to make this an erratic niche factor.

As Megan also noted, individuals who need to do activities other than collect and report news/data in order to put food on their table and clothes on their children will never be able to dedicate the same amount of time and effort to the activity as those who are paid to do so. Likewise, blog reporting is often done at the intersection of interest and proximity, both of which are highly coincidental. For example, Beirut is a large, modern city with many young, politically interested citizens. In hindsight having extensive and varied real-time reports during the Cedar Revolution was only to be expected. Compare that, however, to the dearth of blog reporting from Afghanistan or the jungles of the Philippines where the fight against Abu Sayyef Group militants happens on a daily basis. Even if interested, bloggers, with relatively few exceptions, cannot travel extensively on their own dime or devote the time waiting in order to be at the right place at the right time to get to the stories they care about. Granted, the quality of material from these exceptions (Michael Totten, Michael Yon and Bill Roggio, to name only the first three to come to mind) is, itself, exceptional, but while the three named funded their reporting forays using a currently unconventional shareware model, it is important to remember that they are still individuals that have chosen reporting and journalism as a profession and not the citizen-reporter often touted as the blogosphere's answer to the MSM. In short, a collection model relying primarily upon blog-reports will be heavy on high-action, exciting events in major population centers and sparse on low-intensity coverage in remote locations. While it may be true that most items of interest will happen where more people live, one must be honest and say this formula leaves many gaps uncovered.

As much as it pains me to say it, the major hurdle I see to maximizing the potential importance of citizen-reporters is credibility. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in this regard the essence, if not the particulars, of an oft repeated MSM slam against blogs has relevance. While one may question an MSM reporter's honesty, bias and accuracy (and it does happen often), they are, if nothing else, "their bastard." Warts and all, the MSM goes to its reporters over bloggers because it knows them and can lay their hands upon them. There are several cases of bloggers "making the big time" and being coopted by the MSM (e.g. the 'fore mentioned Raed), but this is a process that happens only after the MSM is confident it knows the individual blogger. It might seem the rampant use of anonymous sources speaks against this theory, but not really, as there is always at least one layer of "reporter" between the source and the consumer. The point is, even in cases like the most stridently tilted AP or Reuters reporter, as part of an organization they are, at least in theory, accountable to that organization for their work product and professionalism. The MSM looks at, for example, the brothers at Iraq the Model and asks "who is making sure that these fellows are really who they say they are, where they say they are and are accurately reporting the events as they saw it?" And, given the recent popularity of sock puppetry, who can blame them in theory.

As good and helpful as the citizen reported may be, is it really necessary for the blogosphere to replace the existing MSM reporting structure in order to achieve its goal (whatever that goal may be)? Some may think I've built a strawman around this argument since most thoughtful consideration of blog reporting has, to my knowledge, always acknowledged a continuing MSM presence and contribution. But I do think that the most ardent supporters of citizen journalism place too much emphasis on just such a revolution. Not only is this idea fanciful and completely unrealistic, but I also believe the benefits may be over sold. While I am a big believer in the empowering of the individual, I also feel that the value of specialization is often taken for granted. The real musical revolution in the '60s was not Rock & Roll (that was just the form it took), but rather the ascendancy of the singer-songwriter. While this represented in many ways a gain to the individual artist, I have often wondered if we now live in a world that will never again see song-writers like Irving Berlin, George & Ira Gershwin or Cole Porter and never hear singers the likes of Frank Sinatra, Mel Torme or Billie Holliday. Likewise, few could argue that the works of the great masters such as Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Bach and Mozart were a direct result of a system of patronage and specialization starting from a young age that no longer exists. Modern technology easily allows any dilettante to script, direct and edit their own film, I am hard pressed to find anything offered on the web that can hold my interest for more than ten minutes. Contrast this with a film my daughters have recently fallen in love with: The Wizard of Oz. Although almost seventy years old and crafted under a studio system any in Hollywood would decry as archaic, it still holds the magic to captivate the eyes, ears, hearts and minds of children and adults alike. So, too, the value of specialization, experience and practice the professional reporter can bring to the collection of news and information must be appreciated.

What, then, can Net Media bring to the Collection process? The first step has been the empowering of the individual citizen-reporter to get their story out there, and quite a giant leap it has been. But where to next? Perhaps the formation of an independent but transparent authority to verify individual citizen-reporters? If there was an equivalent of an internet wire service, where not only contributed stories on all sorts of topics all over the world could be retrieved, but also where the accuracy and validity of individual contributors could be recorded, tracked and then evaluated. This would allow the braver MSM outlets to establish their own threshold of comfort for accepting reports, eventually providing them with quicker access to quality product and making a wider assortment news available to more consumers. This could also be used to affect the traditional wire services, as the comparative quality of their product and services would not initially be subject to the same scrutiny and evaluation, making it less of a known quantity.

Many bloggers have their "favorite" MSM or wire service whipping boys, but a better way to affect the quality and accuracy of their product is to become a true customer. I'm not sure what the business model for AP or Reuters is, but I would imagine that news organization buy the feed and in return get speed and quantity. How can blogs and Net Media affect the pocketbooks to reward and encourage consistent, reliable, accurate reporting and to discourage inaccurate, biased or intentionally disingenuous and purposefully misleading reporting? I don't know, but I strongly suspect that as long as blogs and Net Media remain outside this business model their influence over the practice of those inside is limited.

New Features!

2006-07-24T13:14:00.000-07:00

Astute readers (and repeat visitors) may note the addition of one of my favorite WWII recruiting posters to the left. Well, lured by the promise of "free stuff" (what bubblehead can ignore that?) I went to Zoomr and signed up for a free photo hosting account. Additionally, simply by posting a photo with their tags in it I can go back and ask for an upgrade (2.5GB/mo.). So, here's another photo I had sitting around of some curious local residents wondering about the recent arrival of a new neighbor.

Shot_across_Bow Hosted on Zooomr

Useful Analogies

2006-07-17T13:19:00.000-07:00

In considering the Israeli actions in southern Lebanon, the following two analogies may be useful in explaining the situation to others.

1. There is an extreme political ideology in Mexico that contends that the Southwestern U.S. belongs to Mexico and should be returned/taken. Imagine if this ideology supported an armed force on the border and that this force invaded, took U.S. soldiers captive and fired rockets into El Paso. Further, imagine the government of Mexico was either unwilling or unable to stop this force, despite a six-year old UN resolution requiring them to do just so. What might the U.S. response be?

2. If the U.S. provided monetary and materiel support to Zapatista rebels in Mexico, along with military training in the U.S. and advisory support by American "militia" members would Mexico be justified in contending that the U.S. was in effect waging a war against it?

Anybody that addresses the current situation from a position that Israel is wrong to act against Hezbollah is either operating from ignorance of the situation or willfully being disingenuous. The only potentially valid point of criticism against Israel is in the question of proportionality.

Senate Refuses to Support a Free Iran

2006-06-23T16:14:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I am being reactionary in my title, but I was amazed to find that on June 15 the Senate voted down an Amendment (46-53-1) to the Defense Appropriations Bill "[t]o authorize, with an offset, assistance for prodemocracy programs and activities inside and outside Iran, to make clear that the United States supports the ability of the people of Iran to exercise self-determination over their form of government, and to make enhancements to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996." (S.Amdt.4234) While I didn't see anything in the text that jumped out at me screaming "must vote against," Sen. Warner raised objections during discussion that the timing may negatively impact ongoing efforts by State. Or maybe it's just the fact that everybody's favorite boogie man Sen. Santorum proposed it. Other notable aisle crossers included Sen. McCain, Sen. Lugar and Sen. Specter (no surprise). But more interesting is when you look at the record for discussion on the Amendment.

We have had lots of debates on the floor of this Senate. We have not had a debate on what I believe is the greatest foreign policy threat to this country at this time; that is, Iran, what our policies should be toward Iran, and what we as a Congress and the Senate should do with respect to supporting the President's policy or modifying the President's policy with respect to Iran.
...
The Senate has, so far, not taken any action to try to deter that development [of nuclear weapons], to try to change the political dynamic within Iran. Obviously, we have not taken any action to pursue any military force to stop them from doing so.
These are our three options, the way I see it: to get some sort of political dynamic going on within the country to change the regime; to impose sanctions or to get collaboration with other governments to stop them from developing these weapons; or, third, a military option.
I don't think we are prepared at this point to offer a military option, but with this amendment I am offering the other two. I am offering an amendment that will both support and codify Executive Order sanctions already in place against Iran; impose additional sanctions, not on Iran but on other entities that are doing business with Iran; and then try to impose a prohibition on importing into this country nuclear fuel assemblies made outside of this country if they do business with Iran.
Companies have to make a choice whether they want to do business with Iran or whether they want to do business with the United States. That is the sanctions part of it. So we need to enact these provisions because a lot of what is in place right now is done through Executive Orders.

Or maybe the idea of sanctions with real teeth designed to really do something is just a scary idea for some Senators?

Projected Date For Iraq Pullout ...

2006-06-23T15:58:00.000-07:00

Senator Kerry recently was quoted by the Boston Globe expressing optimism that his push to get a timetable for a withdrawal is gaining support based upon the fact the his latest effort drew twice as many votes as his previous attempt. Since it only garnered 13 votes, though, let's play a little math and see what's what.

The main difference between attempt 1 and attempt 2 was the change from 1 Jan 2007 to 1 Jul 2007. So, if we assume a geometric relationship between withdrawal and votes we need at least two more iterations before we get to > 50 votes, or 1 Jul 2008. However, assuming a linear gain of seven votes per six months the timetable stretches out further to 1 Jan 2011.

Methinks Thou Art But a Maiden

2006-06-23T11:46:00.000-07:00

This is a post that may get more than a few folks looking at me askance, but it's something I've thought about for a while now. I have always maintained that words have meaning, and that it is better for continued accuracy of understanding to judiciously protect those meanings. For example, during mandatory training I was always the one who emphasized the point that "sexism" is not equivalent to "sexual harassment" and that being a disgusting boor, while wrong in its own way, does not constitute grounds for an allegation of sexual harassment. I have deplored the tendency of some to expand the meaning and understanding of words describing horrible or evil actions as it degrades the impact of the true evil. If "rape" is expanded to include the ex post facto analysis that "I really didn't want to do it, but felt like I should" (as I have read in some College "Date Rape" literature), then the impact and meaning of the word when used to discuss the violation of another's body, will and personal integrity is lessened. I was reminded today of a similar trend as regards other crimes of a sexual nature.

A post on ABC's blog The Blotter trumpets that "Online Game Becomes Sexploitation Site." The article discussed a 40-year-old Texas man who was arrested for using the on-line game EverQuest to "lure" a 14-year-old girl into having explicit sexual conversation and send him naked photos. Leaving aside the sensational headline and lede that claims pedophiles are using on-line games like EverQuest specifically to avoid traceable e-mails (a claim for which no evidence was provided) I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no information provided to indicate that the man was just such a predator rather than merely a gamer who became infatuated with another gamer and exhibited poor judgment. I also found it interesting to see EverQuest being referred to as a "Sexploitation Site," despite any indication that the game itself was used to exploit the girl or that the photos were not provided to the man (not the game) voluntarily. It seems one would be equally justified in describing the USPS as a "Criminal Conveyance," since con-men do, in fact, use the mail to communicate and often conduct scams. Apparently they are following the old '80s Dungeons and Dragons story template, where a game being played by some emotionally unstable kids was blamed for them doing the sorts of things emotionally unstable kids are prone to do anyway. Finally, it did not escape me that the intentional implied connection between this man, pedophilia and "child predators" was not lost on several commenters, many who expressed joy and relief at the assumed pending jail time and one who even suggested giving the sick man a medical injection of "straight hydrocloric[sic] acid."

But let's evaluate this situation. A man talks dirty to a young woman and convinces her to send "provocative, naked photos." Considering there was at least three States between them at all times I highly doubt if there was any physical contact or coercion involved. Yes, he was in the wrong, something he openly acknowledged when contacted by ABC News, but is this really something for which a man's freedom should be forfeit and his life should be ruined? While many commenters had already consigned the man to the eighth circle of Hell there were a few who pointed out the inaccuracy of accusing one of pedophilia or sexual abuse when there was no possibility of physical contact while others shared my discomfort with using the label "pedophile" to describe someone attracted to a sexually mature young adult.

This is where you get your chance to look at me sideways and wonder what I'm really saying, but I believe there is a fundamental difference between those who exhibit a sexual attraction to sexually immature youths and those who exhibit an attraction to sexually mature youths. For clarification, I use the word "youth" to describe anyone not attaining majority, nominally 18-years-old, rather than "child" as I think it is a more accurate term for this discussion. In the first case, the target of attraction is without doubt an inapproriate target based upon a clear physical standard, while in the later case the unsuitability of the target is due to an assumed emotional standard. Or, to put it another way, given a photograph of two young people it is easy to tell the difference between a physically immature 12-year-old and a 19-year-old, but this may not necessarily be true if asked to discriminate between the same 19-year-old and a 16-year-old. In the case of the 16-year-old, though, when the age of the individuals becomes known it would then be reasonable to expect an adult to respect that person's youth and to not pursue the attraction. As such, though, I don't see that the attraction itself is necessarily wrong, but rather how the person responds. It's the same principle I teach my girls when I tell them "it's OK to get mad, but it's not OK to get mean." The problem in the event discussed by the article was that the man failed to exercise the judgment one should be expected show. I'm sure nobody could have ever imagined a 40-year-old hard-core gamer without the emotional maturity and judgment to tell a girl who is actually paying him attention that he is to old for her. Granted, I don't know if this the reality of the situation, but nothing in the article tells me it couldn't be.

In the end, though, we have another man who will probably be added to the local "Sexual Predator" listing and who will have to, for the rest of his life, identify himself as such or risk going back to jail. But, based upon the information available, is this right? I have young daughters so I have a strong interest in knowing who my neighbors might be when it comes to such matters, but when my wife and I checked the local register or Sexual Offenders I noticed a very certain pattern. Without a doubt the most common offense was statutory rape or similar offenses involving a minor. What I really wanted to know, though, was who may have been previously convicted of a violent assault or stalking or such, not who got in trouble with the neighbor's daughter back in 1977 when they were 20-years-old. And while it may be reasonable to place limits upon consummation based upon protecting emotional health or parental prerogatives, it seems quite anachronistic to still hold the idea of statutory "rape" in the day of Feminism and Sex-Ed in almost the same regard as when we were interested in protecting the virtue of the innocent. While it may be good for the anti-sexual predator industry, in my eyes it just throws chaff into the question of "who are the dangerous sexual predators."

Personal Effect of Global Warming

2006-06-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

Everybody has been chuckling about ABC News' bleging for tales of personal woe and amazement to demonstrate the terrors of man-made Global Warming. In the spirit of community I share my submission:

The biggest effect Global Warming as had on my life is in the increasing numbers of Yahoos who think they have all the answers and continue to push for government imposed draconian measures that would severely affect my economic and personal life for no demonstrable benefit.

Changing Positions

2006-06-01T15:55:00.000-07:00

Glenn Reynolds had a quick look at a Guardian article praising the recent Gay Pride day in Moscow. While this isn't normally my beat, I just couldn't let pass without comment the following Freudian slip in a very serious article:

A handful of courageous gay Russians got up off their knees and stood tall, proud and defiant.

I leave it to the reader's imagination to conjecture what they were doing on their knees in the first place.

NEWS FLASH: Breakthrough on Chandra Levy Case!

2006-05-25T08:23:00.000-07:00

Based upon the newly invoked "safe base" theory of Rep. Hastert we now have strong suspicions that the Chandra Levy case could have been solved much quicker if only law enforcement could have searched Rep Condit's office, where her body was reportedly hidden for several months. No information is available on which Congressional office is hiding the remains of Jimmy Hoffa or any other literal "skeletons in the closets."

A Little Closer ... a Little Closer ... a Little Closer ... POW!

2006-05-09T11:42:00.000-07:00

Ann Althouse cuts quickly to a key point in GEN Hayden's nomination to run the CIA: the roll the NSA surveillance program will play in confirmation hearings. I don't think the White House is solely playing politics with this, but I do smell another Rope-a-Dope brewing with this nomination. Nothing will emphasize with Joe Sixpack the relative difference between the Republican and Democrat approach to national security than hearing another chorus of how monitoring international calls involving suspected terrorists outside the US is a deadly threat to all Americans' civil liberties. I've not seen any statistics to prove it, but I'd bet a paycheck that over 50% of Americans don't even know how to dial an international phone number.

Let's see, on the one hand we have frothing mouth-breathing Democrat Senators and pundits making claims of civil liberty violations without a single specific claimant or example and on the other hand we have a calm, well-spoken military man explaining how the surveillance was limited just to those with international contacts with known or suspected terrorists. Which do you think will come out looking better to the public? The only strike I can see against GEN Hayden is that horribly ugly blue Air Farce uniform.

Ditch Rummy? Nah...

2006-05-09T09:26:00.000-07:00

To tell the truth, I haven’t paid much attention to those who of late have been so vocally pushing for Sec. Rumsfeld’s resignation. It’s not that I feel Rummy is a water-walker, although I do think he’s got a much higher batting average than the top paid MLB slugger. Neither is it that I feel Bush and the SecDef are far too stubborn to pay this criticism any mind. Basically, I pay it no attention because I see the entire premise of Rumsfeld leaving, either voluntarily or via the Porter Goss door, to be rife with so many negatives that any potential gain would be completely masked or impossible to realize.

While I am not always successful, I consciously try to act deliberately. If I am to make a decision or take action I endeavor to see beyond the finality of that single action and look to how it moves toward a larger goal. As such, when examining the question of Sec. Rumsfeld leaving I can’t help but ask what the larger goal is and if the action helps or hinders it. Ignoring the obvious short-term political goals of some, the greater goal I see that people wish to realize is not only the more effective prosecution of the war in Iraq, but ensuring we are best capable of handling any future military actions in the GWOT. So, will removing the SecDef work toward those goals?

In my opinion, the answer is “probably not.” As I said, this isn’t so much a result of blinding confidence in the SecDef, but more a complete lack of confidence in the Democrats not to overly politicize the process of replacing him. If Rumsfeld left, the President would either have to nominate a replacement or leave this vital post gapped and there can be little doubt that any Bush nominee would subscribe to the President's position that the “only exit strategy is victory.” The net result makes for fine drama during the confirmation hearings as grandstanding Senator after Senator woul pressure, press and demand a withdrawal schedule, all with the intended purpose of exacting maximum impact on the 2006 election cycle. In the end we would have a new SecDef that had already been beaten up on and placed in a defensive position while providing additional hope to the Iraqi insurgent elements that they simply have to hold on just a little longer.

Maybe Rumsfeld made some mistakes, and maybe some of them were significant. Overall, though, I still think the Iraqi campaign is being executed in a generally effective manner. At this time, though, even if I thought someone else could do a better job of closing the deal in Iraq than Rumsfeld I could not in consideration of the larger picture and goals advocate him stepping down. The inevitable political circus would certainly hurt the war effort much worse than anything Rumsfeld may or may not be doing.

IA, Mobilization and the Navy's Role "Over There"

2006-05-05T13:42:00.000-07:00

Chap has written a bit on the IA rumors as they apply to the AC while some of his commenters have pondered what the ramifications maybe for the RC mobilization picture. Allow me to run off at my mouth and offer a somewhat informed opinion. For those not already familiar with my history, please allow me to establish my bona fides in this area by offering a brief personal account of my involvement with the process.

On Oct 2, 2001, after having done about 18 days of AT supporting the Emergency Crisis Center at BUPERS, I was one of five Reservists mobilized to BUPERS, forming what was then called "Pers-44M" (I came up with using "M" to stand for "Mobilized"). At that time the IA issue was hot and heavy at PERS and it was that with which we were initially tasked. Specifically, we were had to identify specific eligible candidates currently serving on shore duty who had the requested skills and qualifications. Until we arrived on the scene this was being done in an ad-hoc "fair-share" sort of way among the various branches (Pers-41/42/43/44), similar to the way 1000 and 1050 billets are distributed. This was recognized to be not the best way, as parochial interests invariably resulted in branch warfare over the "fair share". Additionally, the branch heads were encountering conflicts of interest in having to deal with claimants they were simultaneously manning and borrowing from (and the claimants kept trying to bargain their IA contributions in relation to prospective orders for others). Moving the IA process out of the branches allowed them to continue their normal business without complication and established us as an "honest broker" that simply looked for the right candidate from the right claimant. To make this easier I built a data system that identified suitable candidates and also provided detailed manning information on the potentially affected commands. After all, it's hard for the O-10 from the Naval Academy to push back too hard on an IA requirement when you can demonstrate to him that not only does he have four eligible candidates, but that he is also overmanned both in URLs and designator specific officers of the requested rank. About this time, though, many of our warnings concerning the management of the mobilization were beginning to be evidenced and our focus was, instead, shifted to getting a handle on what was happening with regard to the Reservists.

Fast forward to July 2003, when I demobilized, and we had centralized all mobilization order writing activities, including personal Sailor Advocacy with mobilized Reservists, employing a staff of around 20 full-time mobilized members and the support of a 20-man Reserve Unit. We still had an IA group, but it was relatively small, headed by an FTS Officer and was solely concerned with AC fills. On those occasions where an RC fill was identified as best for a specific IA request that requirement would be reproduced by OPNAV and communicated to CNRF for sourcing. IA orders were still 179-day TAD orders generated by the local commands IAW the JCS IA instruction.

Speaking of which, it should be noted that the term IA (Individual Augmentation) has a very specific meaning. By the IA Instruction, an IA is a requirement for a specific skill needed by a Combatant Commander that the JTF Commander cannot internally source and it is, therefore, referred up for external temporary fill. Since the JTFC we're talking about here is CENTCOM and they're carrying the lion's share of the fighting at this point any IA request that gets all the way through the JTFC is treated pretty much as gospel. At that point the actual requirements are evaluated and farmed out to the various services based upon their ability to provide. It should be no surprise to anyone who has been reading the relevant ALLNAVs that ADM Mullen and VADM Cotton are pointedly looking for how the Navy (AC and RC both) can maximize its contribution to the GWOT, hence an emphasis on IA of late. As I said, the last time I was closely involved AC IA orders were 179 days, but I think this was mainly due to type of orders (TAD) being used. It is my understanding that the standard today is one-year boots on ground plus any work-up and job specific/combat training mandated, possibly expanding the orders to up to 18 months.

To specifically address some of Chap's issues/questions:

The previous shorter tours ... got pushback ... [s]o a lot of 1 year tours now.

For some unknown reason they didn't invent a paper USS Sandbox and detail for that; the process is a bit more ad hoc.

Guys are getting ORDMODS between duty stations. Sometimes it's a surprise.

BuPers is also sending their own folks.

But this in practice means that LTs get the call first. Field grade guys, CT, EOD, and so forth are in demand.

My take is that Pers-42 seems to have succeeded so far in maintaining the standard "too important to take the bogey" stance.

Promotion board precepts on the web do *not* say things like "IA is promoted better than non-IAs". FITREPs aren't always clear about "combat proven", and may be written badly enough that a record reviewer could think you were lallygagging on shore duty. A competitive FITREP in theater, or at least one that avoids automatically being '5 of 5' at the home job because you were gone to Iraq, might avoid a short term career ding.

Re IRR mobilization: it is a world of difference to do an involuntary recall for an IRR member compared to SELRES. If you are in a critical rate (e.g. 8404 HM), there's a chance. Other than that probably not. On the other hand, there are other ways to get from here to there. For example, I just recently received IAP orders, taking me out of an 18-month VTU funk. They say it is to retain a critically undermanned designator (1125), but in the back of my mind I also know that the IAP folks are at the top of the list for getting grabbed.

WESTPAC Warrior is right that a big factor, besides patriotism, is maintaining relevancy in a DoD that is very focused on a ground war with a minimal maritime aspect. Now, once we go at it with Iran and have to control the SOH, deny their SOF and tag their Kilos things may be a bit different...

Bullnav, if you really want to go to the desert just call me and I'll get you orders. You are, however, just making the same point I have been making for several years now. The more that Reserve manning and detailing is pulled from CNRF and moved to Pers-46 the better it gets, though. The Navy mobilization experience has been unique and instructive, in that the majority of our people were ordered as an individual mobilization and not part of a unit mobilization. This can provide us the experience to help us better manage the IA task, but on the RC side of business I agree that there isn't much of a clear overall strategy of managing our human capital. I have heard whispers that it is changing, but I know some of the folks in CNRF who would have to change their way of doing business to make it happen, and the prospects for real change don't look good to me.

Dealing with Illegal Immigrants

2006-03-31T14:57:00.000-08:00

There are several valid yet seemingly contradictory views on the current debate concerning illegal immigration. As is often the danger, though, politicians seem poised to do the simple and defer the difficult but necessary in order to claim the quick victory.

Let’s accept, for the purposes of this discussion, the assertion that there are 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. And let’s also accept that a large number of these are gainfully employed. On the one side, many claim these workers are necessary for the economy by doing jobs that Americans won’t do while the other side disagrees with this characterization. It is important to note, however, that is we woke up one morning and all 11 million had snuck back across the border in the night their former employers would, indeed, have a difficult time finding Americans to do these jobs, if for no other reason simply because the current unemployment rate (<5%) shows practically full employment. In other words, there are no willing American workers left. The market dynamics will certainly result in higher wages in lower skilled positions, in turn demanding greater compensation for goods and services derived. From that alone I think those who claim the illegal workers fulfill a vital role in our economy have a strong point. While a policy of strict enforcement is certainly an option, I cannot help but conclude that such a hard-line position will have short-term and possible long-term effects on the price of most goods and services in the U.S. Are we ready to accept the inflation that seems likely to follow such a decision?

Looking from the other side, though, anyone who thinks that a shortage of workers alone is the driving dynamic behind those who hire illegal immigrants is deluding himself or herself. To employ another mental exercise in the extreme, if we woke up tomorrow and magically every illegal worker suddenly had a valid work permit many of the employers would find themselves in different but still economically challenging circumstances. Without the incentives that exist to employ an off-the-books work force, a labor pool untouched by local, state and federal requirements, would all those 11 millions remain employed? Or would the more unscrupulous owners go out, instead, in search of more illegal workers to replace those lost to the world of the legitimate? There is no logical conclusion other than that conveying legal status on those currently working illegally will not, by itself, stop the practice of hiring illegal workers or significantly lessen the demand for such workers. Without real efforts to better secure the borders and identify and punish those hiring illegally there will be no lasting change to the flow of illegal aliens in to the U.S.

Personally, I think the right answer is a lot like what the President has suggested, but with a bit more teeth. A guest worker program serves two purposes. From a security standpoint it allows better visibility on those we say are OK to come in, better allowing limited border resources to focus on the potentially criminal and security threats. From an economic standpoint, it allows us to use a transient labor pool, increasing the pool to permit more rapid economic growth in periods of high employment and lessening the pool to provide additional employment opportunities for Americans in more austere times. The two critical factors for success, though, are control of the program and control of the borders. As I pointed out before, one attractive factor in hiring illegal workers is the freedom from government interference. Now, I don’t advocate any sort of apartheid that allows employers to treat foreign workers inhumanely, but should a farmer have to complete a dozen forms for each worker and pay uncounted fees and taxes you are more likely to see him back on the corner at 5:00 a.m. looking for ten hands to work that day. And if the border is not adequately secured there will always be more men on that corner than farmers looking. As such, step one must be to stop the current influx to eliminate that dynamic. Any effort that does not address this factor first is just looking for an easy political win.

But, assuming we do stop the flow we are still left with the question of the 11 million. It is very easy to say, "they broke the law, they have to pay," and it is not an unreasonable position to take. We have laws and they should be obeyed. To provide preference to those who do not do so is wrong. However, in addition to being blind justice should be just. As such, it is a very valid question to ask if is a just punishment to deport a man who has worked hard for many years, contributed to his community, married and raised children and possibly grandchildren. I don’t necessarily have the answers, but feel that it is important to approach whatever solution is reached with an understanding of both responsibility to the law and justice to the one who violated it. And, if we ensure that the first priority of a strong border to reduce the current flow to a trickle is acted on with serious intent, then it makes the latter issue less emotional.

"... then you turn left, no, I mean right ..." or Alice Meets the Red Queen

2006-03-05T10:42:00.000-08:00

Like many others occupying a more conservative position and wearing insignia on their collars, I greeted the now infamous Zogby poll of troops in Iraq with open skepticism. For me, too, it just didn't sound right. Without rehashing who paid for the poll or the "trust me" sampling methodology used, I'd like to point out two small observations I had that I haven't seen talked about elsewhere.

First, from Mystery Pollster:

According to the procedure Zogby described, respondents were intercepted randomly (e.g. they were not self selected) at multiple locations throughout Iraq (e.g. not just in the so-called "Green Zone") and interviewed using a paper questionnaire that they filled out with the assistance of an interviewer. (emphasis added)

I wonder how this "assistance" manifested itself? I'm not accusing the interviewers of altering the responses, but emphasis or clarification provided by individual interviewers could certainly affect one's answers.

Second, let's look at the response to just two questions:

Please rate the statements ... as reasons for the Iraq invasion:
8. To remove weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from Iraq
Not a reason 63%
Minor reason 29.3%
Major reason 3.2%
Main reason 1.1%
12. To retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks
Not a reason 2.7%
Minor reason 7.5%
Major reason 50.2%
Main reason 35.3%

From the first we can conclude that over 90% of service members in Iraq don't think the WMDs were that big a factor in us invading. This is despite all the "Bush lied about WMD" and "where are the WMD" stories and talk. Turning to the second, around 85% seem to think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, even though this was never a big news story and even the denial of such a link was often reported. This seems to either defy all logic or represent one of the most ill-informed soldiery of all time. However, if we ask "could the respondents and/or interviewers have been confused on what a '1' and a '4' mean?" these responses just might make more sense. But how would a possible misunderstanding manifest itself with the other questions?

If we conjecture a confusion on the meaning of numerical responses, I think that confusion would be restricted to questions 8 through 14 (reasons for invasion). After all, while it is somewhat logical to rank your number one reason as a '1', questions 17 through 24 are general "how much do you agree with X" and a higher number would be more natural to express greater agreement. Also, while it may be possible for confusion to be limited to a few questions, the similar format and structure would argue for an "all or nothing" situation. So, if we take a step through the looking glass with the expressed reasons we now find:

90%+ think we invaded Iraq to remove the WMDs (a logical and expected result)
47% feel removing Saddam was just a minor reason, with 21% feeling this wasn't a reason at all (this sounds less expected)
74% felt establishing a democracy was a major or main reason (possible, especially if they were listening to the administration)
76% didn't think Saddam/al Queda links were a significant reason (possible)
85% didn't think 9/11 retaliation was much of a factor (matches the previous)
79% thought we wanted to secure the Iraqi oil (not sure if this would be evidence of "it's all about the oil" or an honest pragmatism that we would not want a strategic situation where a loss of Saudi oil to al Queda could severely cripple us)
88% thought we wanted to establish long-term basing for U.S. troops (again, this could be an impression of "imperialism" or pragmatism)

Do these flipped results make more sense? In many ways yes, but it also produces a few confusing results. For example, allowing for my reversal we are left trying to understand how a majority might think we invaded to establish a democracy and yet the same majority didn't think we invaded to remove Saddam from power. In this case, the results as reported make more logical sense (i.e. we invaded to kick Saddam out but not necessarily to establish a democracy). Also the oil and bases questions more closely correlate to what I've been reading and hearing when taken in their original form.

Those problems identified with my reversi world not withstanding, though, I find myself unable to completely accept the results as reported for one basic reason. I do believe there is any way to logically look at the overwhelming number of service members in Iraq who, based upon question #8, apparently believe that WMDs had little if anything to do with invading Iraq and come to any other conclusion than there is something wrong in either how the survey was conducted or how the questions were answered. I doubt you'd find any other segment of the U.S. population, apart from the most virulent imperialist/oil-crony loving/Jew-filled conspiracy proponents, that would even approach these sorts of numbers on this one question. I'm just surprised I haven't seen anyone else seeing the same discontinuity.

An Incomplete Answer

2006-03-05T09:58:00.000-08:00

Hugh Hewitt is a man I have come to look to for considered opinion and rational presentation of his arguments. I fail to see, though, how he substantially makes his latest point with regard to the UAE ports deal. I can agree that there is a significant difference between "assets/businesses ... that have no or little bearing on the nation's security, and those that do," but he falls short of demonstrating that the controversial deal is necessarily in the latter category. While it is true that ports represent a border activity, but is it a sound assumption that every and all operations within a port represents a national security concern? If this had been a contract for custodial services would it, too, be of concern?

I will agree all day long that the potential for deadly cargo to enter via a port is probably one of the most significant national security issues we face, but I cannot see how the operation and management of piers and loading/unloading materially affects the potential for such cargo to make it past our security apparatus in place. That's not to say I donÂt think anything might get by us, but rather to say that I just don't think that who is operating the port will affect the possibility of it happening. The same union labor will be actually performing the operations and the same security personnel will be performing the inspections and surveys. It seems like he is saying the person in change of directing traffic at Tijuana - San Diego border will be able to help get drugs and illegals past the immigration and customs agents.

Hugh may have a valid point, but I don't think he made it in this post.

Searching for the Next Big Bang

2006-02-28T14:15:00.000-08:00

I recently finished an interesting book (The Big Bang) that, at a very high level, provided a summary of cosmological theory from the Ptolemaic earth-centered model to the 1992 COBE survey that measured the variations in cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation predicted by the Big Bang model. A recurring theme in the book, and one that has been oft-reflected in all areas of scientific advance, is the contention between the established conventional wisdom and the new emerging paradigm. Another interesting pattern in this case was the frequency with which religion took sides in the scientific discussion.

While Galileo and Copernicus had to very gently couch their advocacy of the non-Church endorsed theory due to the immense power and influence of religion on both the personal and political, by the time the Big Bang and the Steady State model were contending for dominance in the middle of the last century the societal pendulum had swung wide in the other direction. In fact, Pope Pius XII's enthusiastic support of the Big Bang as scientific confirmation of the creation story told in Genesis was often explicitly used by Steady Staters to denigrate their opposition. This was potentially such a problem that Big Bang proponents, including George Lemâitre, who in addition to being a world-class cosmology theorist just happened to be a Roman Catholic priest, personally petitioned the Pope to leave science to the scientists, a request he thankfully considered as being with merit. It is instructive to note that since the Church's silence on the matter scientific data has further supported the Big Bang model with complete disregard for how conveniently the theory may dovetail with the apocryphal pronouncement "Let there be light."

In many ways I read this as an example of another case of how some people may let their personal bias against religion unduly affect their evaluation of ideas or data simply due to the support that may be lent to those ideas by religious individuals. That a scientific theory supporting a single instance of creation is seen by the religiously minded as a proof of God should never have been unexpected. Such support, however, should not, in itself, lead one to believe the theory invalid or without merit. To use an admittedly extreme example, it does not make sense for one to be opposed to the criminalization of murder simply because the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." Yet it sometimes seems this is precisely the basis for some people's expressed opposition to any number of ideas, both scientific and sociological.

As I read how some Steady Staters deriding the "Big Bang" as non-science, I could not help but be struck by the similarity to opposition often heard in today's discussions of the concept of intelligent design as a theory. (As an ironic side note, the name "Big Bang" was actually coined by one of the most brilliant Steady State model supporters and architects, Fred Hoyle, as a cynical assessment of the opposing cosmological theory) While I am not saying that I have seen any ID theory that approaches in scientific rigor that which was evident in the Big Bang model, I do feel that a heavy anti-religious motivation is often behind the most ardent (and antagonistic) support of the established dogma of Evolution as an explanation for the origin of life and development of the Earth's biodiversity. As emphasized repeated in The Big Bang, a hallmark of a good scientific theory is not only that it accurately explains known phenomena but that it also accurately predicts currently unobserved phenomena. While one must admit that capacity is conspicuously lacking in what passes for ID theory today, in all fairness it should also be recognized that unobserved phenomena predicted by the theory of Evolution (e.g. the "missing link") have, to date, successfully managed to remain unobserved.

In the face of known problems with Evolution it is only natural that a competing theory should arise. Likewise, based upon historical precedence, any such contending theory would be fought tooth and nail by the establishment. Is ID that competing theory? Owing to the problems of verification noted above it may not be. But it may be the beginning of a competing paradigm that will eventually lead to a more complete, even if radically different, understanding. Life and the existence of the known universe itself balances on such a thin edge of probability that it almost defies belief. For example, the mathematical constants that describe our understanding of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces are so precariously balanced that slight variations to any one will result in a wildly unstable universe in which matter never has the opportunity to combine into larger masses or a universe that rapidly collapses upon itself long before conditions would support life or any of an infinite number of other non-viable scenarios. While the anthropic principle assures us that the universe developed in such a way that supports our existence to consider its development, that speaks only to the "how" and not "why". While many support the idea of an infinite multiverse, relegating our existence to sheer statistical variation and relying upon that army of chimps to deliver another Macbeth, one need not be a Holy Roller to consider the possibility that even if we were not specifically planned at least the chain of circumstances that gave rise to us may have been intentionally set in motion.

I'm not sure what sort of scientific evidence short of a submicroscopic trademark or serial number would be acceptable to bolster ID or bring it into greater conventional acceptance, or if such evidence will ever be found. I do, however, agree with Winston Churchill, who essentially said that men are stumbling upon the truth every day but most promptly pick themselves up and merrily continue on their way. The CBM radiation that was essential for many in cementing the Big Bang as the more sound cosmological model had been detected by every single radio telescope ever build, but it was in the recognition of the meaning of that background noise that the genius lay. Perhaps ID, or its successor, one day will have its "Eureka" moment when some scientist stops ignoring a basic truth that had always been there and recognizes it for what it really means. In the meantime, though, off-handedly dismissing any conjecture of design to the questions of life, the universe and everything only seems to be standard fair for the conservative scientific position.

Stolen Valor IV - The Bad Colonel

2006-01-23T14:27:00.000-08:00

(Yet another in a continuing series)

I guess Crossing Jordan is tired of the Crazy War Veteran^® motif, as they fell back on the "Evil Military Officer" theme for last night's episode.

Returned war hero (decorated for rescuing his comrades, not killing bad guys, of course) is found shot to death in his hot tub. Turns out he was going to "blow the whistle" on defective body armor. Seems the armor could stand up to 7.62mm but after two years of exposure to soldier's sweat the fibers became "loose." Long story short, add in the typical evil defense contractor CEO (whose alibi was that he was returning from Aspen on his personal jet), mix with a grieving mother and a returning KIA who somehow manages to find his way onto the Boston ME's slab and wrap it up with a Colonel killing the Sgt. to cover up taking a $2M kick-back for the contract. Sprinkle liberally (pun intended) with a heartless Army that rushed the testing to get the armor into the field and you've got a hit. Garnish with a toss away "2,000 dead in Iraq, kind-of makes you wonder (if it was because of the faulty armor)" and the Colonel's comment that "the war wasn't supposed to last that long" followed by a snappy "guess you should have clued GW in on your time-line."

I guess when your arguments aren't strong enough you have to make stuff up and use it to reinforce your position. Oh, I must have forgotten another election is coming up.

James Baldwin's Dungeon

2005-12-23T10:37:00.000-08:00

As I was waiting to see the chiropractor yesterday I opened the copy of James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time I had brought and read his essay My Dungeon Shook: Letter to my Nephew on the One Hundredth Anniversary of the Emancipation. An amazingly gifted man with words, James Baldwin was able to convey both deep meaning and deeper emotion in barely seven pages, leaving me with several clear thoughts.

First, I was struck and humbled by the love that so filled this man. Born into a world of open racism, legalized segregation and discrimination and Jim Crow, a world where, in his words, he "faced the future [he] faced because [he was] black and for no other reason," he was, however, able to look at this world with none of the bitterness one might expect. He sees his country and fellow Americans as equal innocents in that world, advising his nephew of the need to accept with love the very same who may hold him as an inferior, recognizing them as "innocent people hav[ing] no other hope … still trapped in a history which they do not understand." Such grace is a rare trait in such a world as this.

The second most glaring thought was how much I see almost the exact same feelings and ideas still expressed by many even today, more than forty years after. As I touched on above, I look at the America about which James wrote these words and look at the America I know today and wonder that some seem to see no difference. James Baldwin's America, the country he still loved, was America before the Civil Rights Act, America before the Voting Rights Act, America before real integration. How can the America he wrote of, that "told where you could go and what you could do (and how you could do it) and where you could live and whom you could marry," possibly be seen as the same America today? Despite the very real and legal barriers that existed in his day, James still saw that, like his nephew and himself, it was possible to defeat these intentions, how, then, does one today look at an America devoid of the legal limitations visited upon James and his contemporaries and yet perceive the exact same deprivations by living in a "white man's world?"

All is not rosy, the capricious demon of racism has not been completely vanquished, but I say America today, if it is a "white man's world" is one more from a demographic basis than a legal one. Singapore can be said to be a "Chinese man's world" based upon the 70%+ presence of that ethnic component in the population without implying a negative or subservient position to the 14% Malay or 8% Indian population. "Oh," but some will cry, "the history of slavery and racism in America makes it completely different." Granted the dynamic is different, but the historic manifestation of that dynamic is no more deterministic of today's condition than the sins of the father are of the son. Yes, the history of slavery and racism in America are always a specter that speaks to the White/Black status in this country, just as the son of a petty criminal in a bad neighborhood must face the personal demons and temptations to follow the easy path his father's footsteps have made. How many generations removed, however, does it take until that previously well-traveled route becomes overgrown and no longer recognized as the natural path? It may always be visible, but as its use declines it no longer serves as the reason and motive it once did.

I look instead to the final thought I had. James repeatedly emphasizes both the ghetto into which he and his nephew were born and the unspoken intention of the "white man's world" that there they should live and die. That "the limits of your ambition were, thus, expected to be set forever. … You were not expected to aspire to excellence: you were expected to make peace with mediocrity." In this light it is clear to me that many of the same dynamics and motivations that disaffected James Baldwin are still present in much of the Black community today. A sense of hopelessness, a sense of inadequacy, a sense of low achievement. Whereas his America codified this in clear legal and societal terms some today see the same effect created by "institutional racism." Unfortunately, though, it seems they are not looking at the right institutions. When I read his words, though, I immediately thought of the low expectations and hopelessness that has been institutionalized and perpetuated by the welfare state and today’s Democrat driven "Civil Rights" industry. America freed the slaves from the plantations only to force them into segregated shantytowns. With the promise of real freedom in the '60s, though, we once again moved them, this time to government-funded plantations, all in the name of helping those who weren’t capable of helping themselves.

The rub, though, is that just like anybody else, blacks are just as capable of helping themselves as anyone. Just as James Baldwin and his nephew and countless others struggled against insurmountable odds to rise up in their time, so, too, do even more people persevere today against the historic and cultural limitations placed upon them by not only society but also by themselves. That America is a "white man's world" is likely to continue to be a truism for some time to come, but that does not necessarily entail that it is endemically hostile to the black man as it once most decidedly was. With a resolute refusal to be confined by either the patterns of the past or the prison on low expectations, perhaps, as James said, we can continue together to "make America what America must become" and find, one day, that "The very time I thought I was lost, My dungeon shook and my chains fell off."

What's the Difference Between a Stereotype and a Statistical Finding?

2005-12-15T15:31:00.000-08:00

Sociology professor Rachel Sullivan has been posting a series of pieces on Interracial Marriage over at BlackProf. She is especially interested in the family objections related to such marriages and frequently looks to common stereotypes as the genesis of some objections. I wonder, though, how much statistical backing does a stereotype require in order to be considered a legitimate concern?

I came to this question specifically in reference to the stereotype of black men as sexually flighty, uncommitted and prone to abandonment. Besides the fact that popular media culture makes millions perpetuating this image, there is no denying that hard statistical evidence on absentee fathers and illegitimacy rates in the black community, across all socio-economic strata, lend much credence to the belief that it is a real concern. In fact, it is often cited as one of the most significant social issues facing the black community as a whole. How then should the family of a woman entering into marriage with a black man view this information? It occurs to me that if that woman's family is black it is far more likely that their concerns will be considered more reasonable and founded, while a white family expressing identical concerns may be seen as responding to the "stereotype."

By analogy, if statistical evidence showed that 20% of all blonde men were HIV positive I would be concerned if my daughter began seriously dating a blonde man. Only if such concern continued in the face of contrary evidence and after coming to know the man in question would I consider the concern to be perpetuated by stereotype. Perhaps it is my hard science analytical nature, but I have always been uneasy with any studies that rely upon discerning motivation from behavior, especially in circumstances where the propriety of the behavior itself is dependent upon the underlying motivation.

Pers-42, XO/CO Screening and Chicken Bones

2005-12-15T12:35:00.000-08:00

My buds Joel and Chap have been venting a bit on the business practices of the Submarine Officer detailers (Pers-42), especially as compared to their counterparts in the Surface and Aviation Officer branches (Pers-41 and 43, respectively). One commenter even manages to drag the Enlisted detailers (Pers-40) in to the mix. Well, having enjoyed a rather lengthy relationship with BUPERS as a Reservist ('98 - '04, including ~ 20 months mobilized), I thought I'd jump into the fray, if not necessarily to defend at least to possibly illuminate some less than appreciated factors.

First I'll address the area I'm probably more familiar with: XO/CO screening. Having worked on two such boards I can say with a great deal of honesty that I've never been so happy to have gone into the Reserves. These events were a unique educational experience, as I never dreamed how seemingly random and capricious these boards can be. There are three basic steps:

board members (senior O-6 and up, most of them squadron Commodores) review the records of each person before the board
the board members brief the records they reviewed to the entire board and everyone votes their "confidence" in the candidate (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%)
the records being reviewed are ranked by average confidence and cuts are made: screened, not-screened and the "crunch"

This will happen in several sessions (or "tanks"), with the board always pulling a few off the top, cutting a few from the bottom and leaving some in the middle. After all records have been "tanked" the ones left in the crunch are reviewed a second time (by a different member) and the process repeats. Usually after the second review there are very few left in the crunch and these may be sent back for review a third time or just run through the tank again against each other. This is repeated until all XO/CO slots are filled.

What should be apparent if the criticality of both the records available (especially the FITREP (Fitness Report) as well as the individual reviewing and briefing the record. Far too many times the latter is the deciding factor, as I've seen a quiet, reserved member put forward outstanding records only to fall to a mediocre record that is briefed by a strong, dynamic member. Likewise, I've seen seemingly innocent errors or inconsistencies on reports be interpreted like tea leaves by board members.

One thing that was completely consistent between the two boards I worked was the confidentiality and silence required on the results, a feature both Joel and Chap bemoaned. Pers-42 holds tight to the screening results until all non-screened submariners have been personally notified by their Commodore. This is because unlike the Surface and Aviation communities, there is no life in the Submarine community past being non-screened. You may still be an 1120 (Submarine Officer designator), but you will not work in the community again. You will no longer be eligible for Submarine Pay or Nuclear Officer retention bonuses. The act of non-screening an 1120 basically amounts to career death and at least a $30,000 pay cut. In this light I think it is entirely understandable that Pers-42 does what it must to ensure individuals do not find out about this change in their career on the internet or via message. I'm not saying the notification process couldn't be speeded up (I've had nothing to do with the results or how they are communicated after the board completes), but I do thing the personal notification afforded non-screened members is important and should not be compromised just for the benefit of getting good news out faster.

As for the detailing piece, while I've worked with and around the Pers-42 detailers I've never actually done the job, so I hesitate to throw stones. What I do know is that, right or wrong, officer detailing can be the most mind-numbing juggling trick ever created. On the one hand you have a slate of billets opening in a certain window and on the other hand you have a group of potential candidates. Besides all the balancing of technical scores between CO/XO/Eng to which Joel alluded, you also have overall wardroom balancing. For example, if you have a boat with a new Nav it may be worthwhile to slide a former Nav XO in there. Add into this every CO and Commodore calling and making their own personal requests for whom they want for which job, not to mention the various Admirals with their golden boys. Compound that with ever-changing priorities and vital shore billets that must be filled, continually changing the manpower availability and you've got a bit of the idea. As for Skippy's comment about the enlisted job selection system (JASS), I'd love to see a similar visibility for the Officer billets, but the reality is that the higher you go the more that "the needs of the Navy" are invoked for where you need to go. The market forces will basically level the competencies of most ships' sailors and petty officers, but Pers-42 must retain the ability to place a particularly strong officer into a specifically weak Wardroom when it needs to do so. Again, I'm not offering a blanket defense of the system, as I do believe greater transparency and self selection can work and ease the detailer burden, but there is a valid reason for the control exerted.

What is Torture?

2005-11-23T06:11:00.000-08:00

Over the past two days Jeff Goldstein has been hosting some very meaningful discussions on torture and interrogation techniques. So much of the discussion, however, basically breaks down to "this is torture - no, this is real torture." It seems, though, that no one has taken the time to actually look it up:

18 USC 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter -;
"torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -;
the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
the threat of imminent death; or
the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
"United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501 (2) of title 49.

While that certainly helps in legally defining "torture", it does seem to leave open the question of what constitutes "severe physical pain or suffering." This was one of the key motivations that prompted the Administration to ask its lawyers to research torture and draft the now infamous "Torture Memo." If one is sincerely interested in understanding the legal definitions and ramifications of torture rather than just having a paper political punching bag this memo can actually be quite helpful. I wrote on this before (June 10, 2004), but will, in the interest of clarification, go over two key points in the memo.

First, the memo addresses that 18 USC 2340 requires "specific intent" in order to constitute torture. Likewise, while Article 1 of the Geneva Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment prohibits "... any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person ..." the United States' ratification of this convention in 1994 included the reservation and understanding that "... in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering ..." This distinction of "specific intent" has real importance in determining if an act is or is not torture, since there is a legal difference between specific intent and general intent. If an individual performs acts with reasonable knowledge that they will inflict "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and thereby violate the statute it demonstrates specific intent and, therefore, is torture. However, if an individual performs acts that he sincerely and reasonably does not believe will inflict "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" but such results do happen it demonstrates only general intent and, while they may still be subject to other criminal statues (e.g. assault, battery, homicide, etc.), it does not constitute torture. For example, if you beat a man and break his legs it is torture (such acts will obviously produce severe and permanent physical pain), however, if you are yelling at and stressing a subject and they have a heart attack and die it is not torture (there was no specific intent to kill).

To complete our definition, however, we must achieve an understanding as to what "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" really means. As noted in the memo, by applying the adjective severe to physical suffering the law seems to contradict the position expressed by Cathy Young that "any interrogation techniques that rely on physical suffering are torture," since there is certainly a difference between "any" suffering and "severe" suffering. Since the law, however, declines to define "severe physical suffering" we must look to other sources in order to determine the basis for this difference. In defining "severe," various dictionaries include terms such as:

causing great discomfort, damage, or distress
very dangerous or harmful; grave or grievous
extremely difficult to perform or endure
very great; intense
causing great discomfort by being extreme

Additional guidance on understanding "severe physical suffering" may be obtained from 18 USC 113. Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction, which defines "substantial bodily injury" as a temporary but substantial disfigurement or impairment/loss of function and "serious bodily injury" (by way of 18 USC 1365) as including a protracted disfigurement/impairment/loss of function, extreme physical pain or substantial risk of death. Can one reasonably believe that physical suffering "severe" enough to constitute torture is significantly less than that constituting substantial or serious bodily injury in matters of assault or tampering with consumer products? I would say, rather, that these legal standards may provide a minimum basis upon which the possibility of torture may be established.

The law, however, is much clearer when it comes to defining "severe mental suffering." One immediately sees that in order to be considered such the damage done must be "prolonged," or in other words continuing over time. While persistent conditions such as PTSD, clinical depression and other neuroses and psychoses may certainly be evidence of torture it is clear that the temporary mental stress associated with interrogation or even humiliation does not meet this standard. Additionally, the prolonged condition must have resulted from a limited number of specific acts. If, for example, a subject goes "stir crazy" and develops a mental disorder from confinement or intense interrogation that does not include the prohibited acts it cannot legally be considered torture.

Some may say "but that's just legalese and looking for a loophole," but, as Americans, we pride ourselves on being a nation of law, an impartial law that in theory treats all citizens equally. As such it seems to me that any discussion of legal and criminal matters must start with a clear understanding of what the law actually is and not what any random person feels the law should be. Since our interrogators in the GWOT have always been subject to this law I think the McCain Amendment was largely political preening. After all, if this statute is not sufficient then change it or clarify it.

NOTE: I have intentionally not touched on the third point of the memo, that the Constitutional separation of powers may create circumstances whereby specific conduct that would otherwise be criminal would actually not be unlawful. While this is an important Constitutional issue that has largely been ignored in the political bluster it does not have bearing on the definition and understanding of what actually constitutes torture.

Update: Thanks prof, I invite all visitors to stay a while and look about.

Pre-Invasion Intelligence: the Questions that Should be Asked

2005-11-18T15:34:00.000-08:00

The questions of what we did and did not know and what we could or should have known prior to the invasion of Iraq are very important and can be very helpful in determining the proper course of action in potential future crises. Unfortunately those questions are currently being intentionally wrapped around the axel of politics in an attempt by one party to turn public opinion against the other. One result of this is that a broad question of capabilities and accuracy has been narrowly defined based upon the successes and failures related to a single area of interest (WMD). While this is the topic de jour I will generally restrict myself to discussing the intelligence concerning Iraq's WMDs and programs. I will return to the political angle later, but first want to provide, as best I can, some objective thoughts on the important issue of pre-invasion intelligence and what it may mean for either future collection activities or the use of similar intelligence in the future.

In general I am uncomfortable with declarations of what we did and didn't know, as that can often be more contentious than constructive. I would rather speak of what we thought we knew and what we now know and examine where these are not at variance. Barring the most outlandish moonbat conspiracy fantasy wherein the President alone is privy to some super-secret data revealing that everyone else in the world was wrong, the major items of critical information we believed prior to invasion can be summarized as:

Iraq possessed secret stock piles of chemical weapons, including the ability to produce more
Iraq possessed secret stock piles of biological weapons or the ability to produce them on short notice
Iraq possessed a secret nuclear weapons development program

It is important to note that all these items were believed with very strong confidence. So now, following the collapse of the Saddam regime and inspection activities, what can we say to actually know?

Iraq had neither chemical nor biological weapons ready to be used during major combat operations even though handling equipment has been discovered at some depots
No major stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons have been recovered
While facilities capable of producing chemical and biological agents have been discovered, there is no proof that these facilities had been used in that capacity
Materials that would be useful in biological and nuclear weapons programs were discovered hidden at the homes of important scientists alledgedly involved in these efforts
Iraq had plans to reconstitute all WMD programs (including nuclear weapons development) once UN restrictions and inspections had been lifted

It is important to note that this is only what we know. I am sure that in classified channels there are many more things we thought we knew and many more things we have discovered as fact that have not been release. These items may further support or contradict each other but I have no way to judge them, and I hope it stays that way (i.e. people who are supposed to keep classified information secure do so). What is often lost in the background noise of accusation and grandstanding is that nothing we have discovered as fact after invasion completely refutes what we believed to be true prior to invasion. The fact is that it will never be possible to prove Iraq had no WMDs at the time we believe they did. It is also, for example, an entirely reasonable belief that sometime in the many months prior to invasion Saddam had the opportunity to hide or move his contraband. I do, however, think that the reported complete lack of deployed weapons is a pretty good indication that the pre-invasion intelligence likely overstated both the extent of Iraq's programs and the certainty with which the evaluation was made. If one accepts this finding the next question is did we either have the information available or should have been able to collect the information needed to have provided a better capabilities estimate and a more accurate self-assessment of our confidence?

One thing we have learned from post-invasion analysis of documentary evidence is that it seems Saddam may have been just as wrong about Iraq's WMD capabilities as we were. There are indications that he was routinely told what he wanted to hear, often out of a well justified fear for one's life. If this is the case then it is clear that in this particular circumstance the most sure way to have improved the accuracy of our intelligence would have been to have had HUMINT (human intelligence) inside the Iraqi armed forces to report exactly what the situtation was at the unit level. The combination of the severe degradation of the CIA's HUMINT structure throughout the '70s, '80s and '90s coupled with the very closed Iraqi society make this a virtual impossibility. While additional information might have been available with improved satellite or communications intercept capabilities I don't think we have any meaningful way to evaluate if this is the case, and I don't necessarilly believe this possibility bears meaningfully on the apparent failures. This is because the greatest failure of pre-invasion intelligence was also seen as a failure of pre-9/11 intelligence that hasn't been much remarked upon: over confidence.

In both cases our intelligence structure failed to accurately assess what we did not know about the situation and to accurately appraise the confidence with which to ascribe to the intelligence. Basically, our failures were not so much in the data as in the metadata. We live with uncertainty every day in our private lives and so, too, does the national intelligence structure live with uncertainty. Understanding the known unknowns and anticipating the unknown unknowns (to borrow from Sec. Rumsfeld's lexicon) is essential in providing the most accurate evaluation possible, and this is no easy measure. Despite all the Monday morning quarterbacking of how obvious X is now, one must remember that the intelligence business is like putting together a 1,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, except that the pieces come from 10,000 different puzzles, some of them have the picture part torn off and pieces may be added or removed from the box at random. Out of all this the analyst is expected to put together enough of the one picture needed to answer the question. It is vital to understand what is unknown or may be unknown to evaluate just how likely it is that the picture you're putting together is both the right one and put together correctly.

So, while the politicians in DC are not actually asking these the questions they are, in a round-about way, asking a legitimate question, albeit in an illegitimate manner: had we accurately known the degree to which our pre-invasion intelligence was flawed would it have been sound to still have conducted the invasion? I say this is being asked in an illegitimate manner largely because they are framing the question with the assumption that at least one party (the President) did know the extent to which the intelligence was flawed, an accusation that not only has no evidence to support it but, rather, is being made in the face of much contradictory information. The discussion is furthermore delegitimized by the false impression that the supposed faulty reasoning that led to the invasion somehow obviates any value in or obligation to following through in Iraq. The real applicability of this discussion is instead in trying to frame a conscientious thought process whereby our policy makers may, in the future, make meaningful decisions in the face of known inaccurate and incomplete intelligence.

As to the political matters alluded to earlier, I have always held it to be one of the most despicable acts possible to misuse one's knowledge or intelligence to mislead and misinform those who have less of either. For example, while I can respect the consistency of Rep. Kucinich's anti-war position, I have nothing but disdain for him when he rolls out such standard talking points as the fabled "changing justifications for the war." I wish I were in the same room so I could ask him if he really believes that the assumed presence of WMD was the sole reason for the Iraqi invasion, because if so he apparently didn't even read the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that he voted against, since it clearly outlines multiple reasons apart from WMD.

I have no objection to asking critical questions or even making sound criticism. I do, however, most stridently object to trying to pass impassioned cries of outrage based upon false pretext as legitimate discussion. Maybe it's just easier for some to make up a reality out of whole cloth then to constructively engage issue from the ground of truth.

NIE vs. PDB: The Alphabet Soup of Intelligence

2005-11-16T12:03:00.000-08:00

The loudest voices in the "Wah! The mean Bush lied to me" crowd of Democrat lawmakers have, in light of the incontrovertible truth that they had equal access to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), have latched onto the claim that since they didn't have equal access to the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) they didn't know what Bush did. Now, if the PDB contained information that the NIE was wrong they may have a point, but that is quite a stretch given that the commission that investigated pre-war Intelligence deemed the PDB to be more alarmist and strident than the NIE. This, however, is no surprise given the different ways in which these different reports are created.

A National Intelligence Estimate is a big deal. In order for an NIE to be published all national intelligence agencies have to agree that the information included is, to the best of their knowledge, accurate and supportable. This means the CIA, DIA, NSA, NIMA, INR and whatever other random sets of phonemes happen to be in the mix for that iteration get together and say "this is right." By definition, then, what comes out in an NIE is often the most conservative estimate. When I had extremely peripheral contact with an NIE concerning DPRK in the mid '90s this was well known, as State Dept INR and NSA, especially, differed greatly in their estimates of both capabilities and intent. I have no reason to doubt that the discussions concerning Iraqi WMDs was equally contentious during creation of the related NIE.

The Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), as I understand it, is a document of contemporaneous information and analysis from the various national intelligence agencies compiled by the CIA for use in briefing the President. As such, there is no wide-ranging consensus required. While this admittedly opens the door to inaccuracies or slanted data, a daily briefing is worthless if it takes three or four weeks of negotiation in order to produce it.

So, that the PDB reflected the more aggressive positions generally help by the CIA is no surprise. Unfortunately, it is also no surprise that those who wallow in the mud of blatant partisanship would try to exploit the general lack of understanding concerning the Intelligence business and its products to try and push its "gotcha" politics.

CNN Has No Sense of the Ridiculous

2005-11-15T11:39:00.000-08:00

From CNN:

Jordan's King Abdullah II has vowed that the perpetrators of Wednesday's suicide bombings will be brought to justice.

Not to be dismissive of a terrible event, but it would seem to me that "the perpetrators" may be just a bit beyond King Abdullah's jurisdiction. The King went on to express his solidarity in purpose with other victims of terrorists:

"Jordan is now part of many countries that have suffered from the senseless violence of suicide bombers, whether it's in European countries or in Arab and Muslim countries."

Or even, dare I say it, Israel?

Riots in Paris: Vive le Revolucióne

2005-11-03T08:47:00.000-08:00

Gateway Pundit offers a fine assortment of information on the Paris Riots that seems to have be pushed off the front page by vital breaking news like month-old e-mails from an ex-FEMA official. He appears to take a hard-line "law and order" position, agreeing with La Shawn Barber's sentiment that:

Those Muslim rioters in Paris, angry about being unemployed or whatever their excuse, need to be crushed...

While my natural instinct is to say "you go, girl," something I read at Instapundit from Aussie SF writer Joel Shepherd gives me cause to pause and think deeper:

[I]t's not an intefada.(sic)

There's just no damn jobs. ... [T]here's people there who want the French dream ... but they just don't see it when they look around, and they resent the fact enormously. They can't change schools to get a better education because the government says you have to go to the school where you live, and they live where they do because of the zoning laws... which I'm no expert about, but I do know that the government owns 30 percent of all housing in France, and poor immigrants basically live where they're told. The government tries to give them everything and does it extremely badly, there's no upward mobility, and it doesn't breed a happy community. Religion exacerbates the feeling of exclusion, I'm sure, but the rioting seems mostly driven by economics and bad social policy.

I seem to remember some very smart people once saying:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
(emphasis added)

Now, I see no evidence of a shadow government being formed (a defining part of a classic revolution), but neither was there any such body at the time of the Boston Tea Party. But I have also seen nothing, other than in the punditocracy, explicitly connecting the riots to Islam. We need to not let the predominant religious makeup of the rioters drive us to conclusions as to why they are rioting. Just because a group who takes up arms is mostly Muslim, it does not automatically make their action a part of the Islamist movement. Separating the motive from the actor is in my eyes an essential thought process for any who sincerely believe the GWOT is not a war on Islam, but rather a war on a radical and violent Islamist movement.

I'm no anarchist, and neither do I believe in the LA riot "throw a bone to the rabble to quiet them down" mindset, as that just rewards illegal behavior. But I do think it is a legitimate question to ask at what point and to what degree can mob violence serve as legitimate revolutionary action against an oppressive state? How much different is what we are seeing in Paris to the quickly crushed protests in Côte d'Ivoire almost exactly a year ago, except that the troops haven't (yet) been called in to spray the crowd with automatic weapon fire. Can or will the unrest currently evidenced coalesce into a focused takedown of the French government in favor of one more respective of individual (economic) liberties? This may be the question we should be asking, rather than automatically pushing for the crushing hand of the State to maintain the status quo.

Bursting Bubbles on Site Meter Counts

2005-11-02T07:59:00.000-08:00

OK, I just couldn't keep it in, but I have to admit that the visiter stats on the left side are bogus. That's right, that 6700+ number is a fraud. And most of the counters you see on other blogs probably so too.

When I was away from the blog for a couple of months I noticed that I was still getting around 25 hits per week. I wondered "are there really that many bored folks that have nothing better to do than to keep checking back on my silly site? Why don't they just subscribe to the RSS feed and wait until I update?" Well, while I was occasionally getting a new visitor from some of the folks I've been linked from, it still didn't make sense.

Well, when I looked a bit closer at individual hits I noticed most shared an interesting similarity: a visit duration of zero seconds. Now, does it make sense for all these folks to be opening my blog just to jump out after loading? No, it doesn't. What does make sense, though, is to conjecture that my blog is being automatically pre-loading and cached. Many browsers, programs and ISPs do this as a way to "accelerate" page loads. The way it works is that while you are reading a web page and your browser is idle, in the background it visits to the various links on the page being read and retrieves the files needed, especially graphics, so that it's ready to give you that quick load sensation just in case you decide to go there. In other words, the majority of the "hits" I receive do not represent a person reading my musings but rather a machine just pulling the data and putting it on the shelf, where more often than not it just sits until the man behind the curtain wanders off to another room, leaving my bits to gather digital dust.

Bottom line: hit counters are nice bling-bling, but often don't mean what they seem to say.

Update: Thanks to my man Bubblehead for reminding me to RTFM. "Duration" is defined as time between two page loads on the same site, so someone who follows a link to the site but doesn't poke around registers "0:00" duration regardless of how much they actually read. I still believe, though, that there is a certain amount of 'bot traffic and pre-loading that cannot be accurately determined.

Valerie Plame Revisited: Who Outed Whom?

2005-11-01T12:33:00.000-08:00

OK, now that there are indictments out both sides are using it as vindication of their positions. For the Democrats, this proves that the Bush Administration is just as corrupt and underhanded as any other and that they tried to cover up their lies by exposing a covert CIA operative. The Republicans rebut this characterization by accurately pointing out that nowhere in the indictments does Fitzgerald mention the "outing" as a criminal act. What I'm still trying to get, though, is an unambiguous answer to who did the alleged "outing," when it occurred and what specific event constituted "outing."

It's been beat into the ground sufficiently for me to take as given that any honest party to the discussion will agree that neither Valerie Wilson's maiden name (Plame) nor her relationship with Joe Wilson (wife) was classified information. Where confusion starts to enter into the picture is if her contemporaneous employment status with the CIA was classified. A July 15, 2005 article in The Washington Times quotes Fred Rustmann, a self-acknowledged former covert agent and supervisor of Ms. Plame, as saying she had been employed at CIA headquarters in Langely for more than five years and that "she made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat." Given that she got up every day, drove to the CIA headquarters and, presumably, received paystubs and W2s all openly acknowledged her employer I believe it would be a difficult thing to argue that her working for the CIA in 2003 was classified. So, assuming I am correct concerning the unclassified nature of her contemporaneous employment status, would "Scooter" Libby's telling anyone "you know, Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, works at the CIA and got him that gig" constitute "outing" her as a covert operative? I don't think so.

So who, specifically, was the first to say outside of official channels that she had previously been employed in a covert status? Many say it was Robert Novak, who in a July 14, 2003 article said the following:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.

It's interesting to me that while Novak clearly attributes the information that Wilson was sent based upon his wife's suggestion, the connection between the two "senior administration officials" and Ms. Plame's status as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" is not explicitly, or even implicitly, made. Also, does it necessarily follow that Mr. Novak, who consistently uses present tense, by his statement means that she was also previously a covert operative? While one might assume based upon the word "operative" that she was working in a classified capacity, for reasons I provided before I don't think that characterization would be accurate for her employment status at the time the article was written. In fact, in an October 1, 2003 follow up that emphasized the "common knowledge" aspect of Ms. Plame's employer, Mr. Novak expresses regret at having used the word "operative" in retrospect. The only thing in the two sentences that gives me pause was the specificity with which he identifies her area of expertise.

The first linking of Valerie Plame and "undercover" seems to be the July 22, 2003 Newsday article by Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce (I couldn't find the piece on Newsday's site, but the link appears to be a complete copy of the original article). It contains the following information:

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity...

"If what the two senior administration officials said is true," Wilson said, "they will have compromised an entire career of networks, relationships and operations." What's more, it would mean that "this White House has taken an asset out of the" weapons of mass destruction fight, "not to mention putting at risk any contacts she might have had where the services are hostile."

So, if I have the chain of events right, "senior administration officials" (including Mr. Libby) tell Mr. Novak "the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger because his wife, who works there, asked them to." Mr. Novak pairs this with other information he has that Wilson's wife was Valerie Plame and she worked for the CIA on WMD programs, publishing on July 14. Within about a week we have a CIA official confirming the supposedly classified status of Ms. Plame's employment and Joe Wilson and another CIA agent making dire predictions as the consequence if the administration officials outed a covert agent. I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Anyone who ever worked with "special" (i.e. nuclear) weapons in the Navy is well familiar with the standard reply to any questions concerning their location:

I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons onboard this vessel, I can only say this vessel is capable of carrying such weapons.

This was often the source of much pleasure and private jokes, as you stood on the deck of your SSBN with sixteen closed missile hatches, a vessel whose mission relied upon the assurance it was indeed carrying such weapons, and tried to relay the standard reply with your best poker face.

When the movie "Hunt for Red October" came out several Norfolk area theaters reserved the first showing for submarine crews and the SUBLANT PAO provided specific guidance on replying to press inquiries. It was a good time, but the best show was on the evening news watching the reporter receive basically the same answer from sailor after sailor:

Q: How accurate was the movie?

A: The movie was a work of fiction based upon a work of fiction. The Navy does not discuss submarine operations so I cannot provide an analysis of the relative accuracy of the film.

The point being, if Novak got it right or wrong, any CIA official that was truly concerned about protecting the status of an agent and preserving any potential deniability concerning her previous operations could simply have said "we don't discuss the employment status of individuals." Joe Wilson, if he was honestly concerned with his wife's safety, could have refused the trip or simply kept his mouth shut. Instead we have CIA officials falling out of the woodwork to ironically tell us how much damage is done by outing a covert operative, led by Joe Wilson in ascribing to "senior administration officials" statements that Mr. Novak not only didn't say they made but specifically denied in his later follow up.

Simply put, if Valerie Plame was, indeed, employed in a covert status on July 14, 2003 the CIA was negligent in both having her work out of its headquarters in Langley and in tacitly permitting the "common knowledge" of her employ without either seeking the source of this knowledge or attempting to shore up the cover story. If, however, she was operating in a defacto open status at the time then we have CIA officials intentionally misrepresenting the situation in order to slime a sitting administration. Neither of these possibilities speaks well of the organization.

Case in Point

2005-10-31T11:12:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin has a new book, Unhinged, that addresses the manic and irrational side seen far too often from Democrats these days. Brian Maloney noted a "preemptive strike" by an Amazon reviewer that reads, in part:

If you buy this book, you hate America- just like Michelle Malkin, who wants to destroy everything that's great about this country.

A neat thing about Amazon reviews, though, is that it allows the user to see other reviews written by the individual in order to better appraise the value of the review. A quick look at the "Patriotic Professor's" 15 Amazon reviews reveals an interesting pattern. For a person one might expect to exhibit nuance and understanding, her reviews demonstrate a total digital breakdown. Not only does the good Prof have just two speeds (1 for Hate, 5 for Love), with the exception of the single Jazz album reviewed the Love/Hate breakdown falls perfectly along party lines.

But wait, it gets better. Three of her reviews, for books by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reiley and Sean Hanity are identical except for the tailored insult:

Simply put, if you agree with the sentiments expressed in this book, you hate America. Any person who agrees with [Bill O'Reilly's | Ann "B**ch" Coulter's | Sean "Pig-Head Idiot" Hannity] lies is unpatriotic and is an agent of Osama Bin Laden.

In essence, conservatives hate America. The only way to prove you don't hate America is 1. to not buy this book; and 2. to vote Bush out of office in November.

So, if I got this right, a person claiming to be a professor (i.e. educated and supposedly not unintelligent) who devotes their time to doing cut-and-paste mudslinging on Amazon.com against conservative authors takes offense with Michelle's characterization of the Left as "Unhinged" and proceeds to offer a live demonstration of her thesis. Michelle couldn't have paid for better advertising.

Update: Thanks, Blogfather. I welcome all new visitors to look about.

A More Complete Answer

2005-10-27T15:15:00.000-07:00

In response to the discussion of the Iraqi vote, "Western values" and the invasion that set all this in motion Manateechik asked a sincere and valid question:

should we invade some more countries so that they can be Westernized?

While I posted a lengthier reply to her question at Spiral of Lies, in my own comments I offered the short response that I didn't think the option should be completely ruled out. I take the opportunity now to somewhat flesh out that reply.

I whole heartedly support this Administration's commitment to achieving lasting meaningful peace through promoting and spreading democratic reforms in oppressed countries, a goal that would not have been foreign to JFK. Say what you want, but history clearly demonstrates that working democracies are much less likely to start wars with other working democracies. Take Europe, for example, and contrast the continued bloodshed seen throughout the 18^th and most of the 19^th centuries under the various kings, tsars, kaisers and emperors with the 20^th century, where WWI saw the fall of the last Empire on the continent and WWII was entirely precipitated by totalitarianism in the form of fascism. If, in fifty years, we see a Middle East that has a similar level of democracy and peace as Europe everyone gains.

Let me be clear, I certainly do not believe in running roughshod over anyone who disagrees with us or some grand vision of the US as being on a democracy crusade (vote or die!). At this time, though, we are at war, a grand struggle like most we fought in the last century in which it was a war of ideas as much as of military. This war is very much like any conflict, however, in that the failure to achieve clear and unambiguous securities may lead to catastrophic results. To minimize the potential for such results we must be ready to go where it is needed to destroy terrorists and terrorist organizations, to deny them the resources (weapons, money and infrastructure) they need to fight and to promote the democratic reform and societal transparency (i.e. "Western Values") that will deter the reconstitution of terrorists. In those cases where we are unable to achieve these goals with the cooperation of a nation's government it would be both foolish and foolhardy to anticipate overall victory without retaining a military option.

Further, the willingness to act provides a deterrence all its own. You must not forget that Bin Laden himself said that the US unwillingness to act and basic retreat after loosing soldiers in Somalia were critical in his estimate that we were a "paper tiger" and ripe for a killing blow and many shared his opinion. Following our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, though, there are many who have changed their minds. The cooperation of Libya was paramount in not only removing another thorn from our sides but also in exposing the A. Q. Khahn nuclear weapons technology transfer ring, and none but the most steadfast partisan can say with a straight face that this capitulation had nothing to do with the rapid collapse of Saddam's power. Likewise for the unprecedented rash of elections, opening of political processes to opposition parties and proliferation of women's suffrage seen throughout the region in countries such as Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. Again, the idea that all this happened in a vacuum without being influenced by events in Iraq is laughable.

In Afghanistan the President said "hand over the Terrorists or we'll remove you from power." When the brutal totalitarian government of the Taliban refused to provide the securities we needed he did just what he promised. In Iraq the President said "open your WMD programs to real transparent and complete verification or we'll remove you from power." Again, when the brutal totalitarian government of Saddam refused to provide the securities we needed he did just what he promised. If the time comes and this President is forced to tell Iran "abandon your nuclear weapons programs and open your country to real inspections or we'll remove you from power," do you think he'll be taken seriously or as a paper tiger? Do you think our commitment and resolve in promoting "Western values" in Iraq will have gained us any non-military leverage over Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia?

So when I say "it should not be completely discounted" I mean that promoting democratic "Western values" is a hard job, and doing so in the face of bloodthirsty, power hungry tyrannical governments it is damn near impossible without having a credible threat of forcible removal. It's not nice and it's not pretty, but it is also undeniable that without the application of force the world would never have seen the end of the likes of Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini or Saddam.

Rumors of my Demise ... On the Iraqi Vote

2005-10-17T10:05:00.000-07:00

Wow, two months already? A couple of high-demand releases coupled with two ADTs (temporary Active Duty) can sure drag on your time. Interesting to note that this site is still routinely getting at least 25 hits a week, so I guess the RSS 'bots are doing their jobs. Does make me wonder, though, what the hit stats of the bigger boys really mean, since they also have an order of magnitude more 'bots tracking them. Lookout blogs, you'll be next to have your published circulation questioned.

A recently published triumphant post at Spiral of Lies in regard to the past weekend's vote in Iraq offered Why it was worth it. A reader (manateechick) seemed to disagree:

So you really think it's okay to kill tens to hundreds of thousands of innocents in order to make "Iraq the vanguard of Western values in the Middle-East"?
1.) Why do you think it's okay to achieve your goals that way?
2.) Why do you think that the whole world must have "Western values"? Please don't say because all non-Western values lead to terrorism, because only a small percentage of non-Western beliefs lead to terrorism.

I pointed out to that her questions were implicitly based upon two assumptions with which I did not agree.

The first assumption is that Coalition actions in Iraq have "kill[ed] tens to hundreds of thousands of innocents." A assume the basis for the upper bound (~100,000) is the flawed and oft filleted Lancet "study." The statistical errors and poor methodology in reaching that estimate have been reviewed and demonstrated repeatedly. In any event, even if we accept the Lancet's 98,000 excess deaths as truth, that acceptance still carries the assumption that Coalition Forces bear full responsibility for the estimated 60,000 deaths attributed to post-invasion violence and that none of the self-reported deaths were anti-Coalition combatants (neither Iraqi Army, Republican Guard, insurgent nor terrorist). I assume the basis for the lower range (10,000+) are sources like Iraqi body count, who admittedly use a methodology that includes hostages that have been beheaded by terrorists and children that have intentionally blown-up by terrorists as civilian casualties resulting from the occupation. Both of these sources rely upon this assumption of responsibility, regardless of actor. Using this same thought process, one might contend a woman should be held responsible should her psychotic ex-boyfriend kill her coworker in an attempt to dissuade her from dating. I doubt if Manateechick in her capacity as an attorney would offer such a defense, and so question why she seems to accept it as a reasonable way to assign "responsibility" in this case.

The second assumption is that the phrase "Western values" as used by the previous posters implies a cultural evaluation or attempt to supplant. When I read that phrase, in context, I saw "Western values" being offered in juxtaposition not to the regional culture, but rather as an alternative to the entrenched totalitarian political regimes that are rife in the Middle East. "Western values" have nothing to do with which religion you practice, but have everything to do with idea that neither your neighbor nor your government has a right to treat you differently based upon your faith. "Western values" have nothing to do with how many wives you may have but have everything to do with ensuring every wife is valued as an individual human being and affording the same rights (and responsibilities) as any other citizen. "Western values" have nothing to do with Coke, Hollywood, McDonald's, Microsoft, Fox News or any other corporate entity but have everything to do with allowing each citizen the freedom to individually decide if they wish to patronize the chain restaurant or eat at Achmed's, if they want to see "Animal House" or take their children to "March of the Penguins," and recognizing their freedom to go where they want on the internet and to talk to whomever they wish. "Western values," to my thinking, simply entail ensuring that each person has the right and ability, individually and collectively, to decide the course of their lives and country.

So, with that in mind, I will answer her questions, stating that I believe firmly that the whole world should most certainly have "Western values" as I understand them to be, because that is the value set historically demonstrated to yield both the greatest personal freedom and happiness as well as create the most macro-peaceful environment. Given these benefits I would further hazard to say, in the long-term, it is indeed "worth" the nebulously unquantified (yet demonstrably inflated) costs to which she alluded.

On the Media, On the Other Side?

2005-08-11T12:26:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when I'm forced to be up early on Saturday morning, I will listen to NPR's On the Media, if for no other reason than to roll my eyes at how seriously journalists tend to take themselves. This past weekend, though, I was struck by the unquestioning assumptions embodied in a report on William Laurence, the NYT reporter who was basically embedded (and some contend in bed) with the Manhattan Project (emphasis added):

BOB GARFIELD: Sixty years later the dropping of the bomb remains one of the great historical controversies. What I find so stunning about this is that at the contemporaneous moment when the world had to make up its mind, the New York Times, in effect, became a propaganda tool of the U.S. government...

DAVID GOODMAN: That's right. And the very debate that you elude to about was the atomic bomb an appropriate response, well Americans really wouldn't know if they don't know the reality of what happened on the ground. ... I think that this story has some very important modern parallels, certainly in the case of the Iraq Wart [sic] and in the case of the New York Times, with the, I would say, credulous, uncritical reporting of Judith Miller, among others. Anytime we see the drums of war, we should really be looking to journalists to challenge those in power, not to become a megaphone for those in power.

So here we basically have David Goodman laying out the media's responsibility, especially in times of war, as being in oposition to the government, a position that Bob Garfield apparently accepts without comment.

After all, who cares if "those in power" might be right? And they still want us believe they are unbiased and fair?

The Stem Cell Debate Simplified

2005-08-04T17:11:00.000-07:00

In addition to the intentionally misleading verbiage often employed in discussing this issue that I previously discussed, as with almost any other political debate there is more than a modicum of "gotcha" being played. We turn to Jeff Jarvis for a fine example of this technique:

[T]his morning, I thought I heard Sen. Sam Brownback say that this would be the first case of using taxpayer money to intentionally end human life. Uh, Senator, what about capital punishment and war?

Thanks for advancing the debate, Jeff.

While Jeff is technically correct that both capital punishment and war use federal funding to end human life, it is really quite easy to break down the issue of embryonic stem cell research to a few clear benchmarks by which an individual's position may be defined:

No embryonic stem cell research should happen at all
No federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research limited to existing strains
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research limited to stem cells that may be collected from blastocysts discarded after in vitro fertilization therapy
Unrestricted federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, including the creation of embryos specifically for research purposes

Often the rhetoric used leaves the impression that Bush and all those backward Republicans are sitting on level 1 like Luddites. The reality, though, is that Bush's policy is sitting at level 3 and Senator Brownback was obviously speaking about the current proposal to move to level 4.

There is no argument that some Americans are completely opposed to any research or federal funding, but we have already crossed that Rubicon and are unlikely to retreat unless alternative stem cell sources are demonstrably superior. Likewise, I feel confident in saying that those who support unrestricted funding are also likely to be dissatisfied, as for most Americans the intentional creation of an embryo just to harvest its stem cells feels a little too much like human experimentation for comfort. Therefore, when all the innuendo and passion is stripped away what is generally being discussed is if we should, as a country, set our policy at level 3 or level 4.

It should be recognized, however, that to open the door to research using discarded blastocycts also opens the door for the potential abuse of this provision, and these dangers need to be discussed, as Senator Frist recently has. This is an important issue that needs to be discussed with logic and consideration rather than with ad hominem attacks and snark.

Public Service Announcement

2005-08-04T16:47:00.000-07:00

In the interest of the public good and true to my good-nuke background, I plotted a lowest-cost curve of BellSouth Domestic Long Service rates. The results are as follows:

If monthly use is ...	then the cheapest plan is ...
0 - 5 min.	Standard Rate ($.18/min)
6 - 19 min.	One Dollar Plan ($1/month + $.10/min)
20 - 90 min.	30-Minute Plan ($2.95 for 30 minutes, $.09/min after that)
60 - 160 min.	60-Minute Plan ($5.95 for 60 minutes, $.08/min after that)
160 - 380 min.	Nickel Plan ($5.95/month + $.05/min)
381 + min.	Unlimited Long Distance Plan ($24.99/month)

(appologies for any excess spaces, but Blogger isn't playing well with my <table> tags)

This, of course, doesn't take into account any possible benefits derived from bundling various specific combinations of services. Neither does it account for wide distribution of monthly use, especially in the border regions (for example, if your average usage lies slightly above 20 minutes, but your distribution is very wide the money saved during low usage months using the $1 plan may offset the slightly higher cost during high usage months).

Here at submandave, we do the geeky math so you don't have to.

Bumrush the "Stem Cell Ban" Meme

2005-08-02T06:52:00.000-07:00

Recent articles and posts about Senator Frist's “change of heart” on stem-cell research (which isn't really a change at all, but we'll discuss that later), continue to rehash the tried and untrue popular meme that ties the words “Bush,” “embryonic stem-cell,” “research” and “ban” all together very neatly. In their discussions, even the esteemed Glenn Reynolds, Roger Simon and Bill at INDC are quick to leave the impression, if not say outright, that these words belong together. While I assign no malicious left-wing conspiracy intent to them, it does not escape me that the common wisdom (such as it is) on the matter is precisely what the left-wing would wish it to be. Neither does it escape me that this common wisdom is at best inaccurate and misleading and at worst an intentional misrepresentation of the issues at hand.

“Bush has banned stem-cell research based upon his religious views”

I'll bet a paycheck that a majority of casual news consumers along with a substantial number of news junkies would agree that the preceding statement sums up the controversy. How, then does this square with President Bush's well considered remarks on August 9, 2001, when he became the only president to have ever federally funded embryonic stem-cell research? And while I'm not one to casually drag the ghost of Bill Clinton out to make a partisan point, there is no denying that in 1999 the National Bioethics Advisory Commission “recommended [to President Bill Clinton] that publicly funded research go forward,” with the caveat that “embryos not be created solely for research purposes.” When President Clinton subsequently rejected this recommendation, though, I remember no hue and cry in these same quarters. I use this séance not to say “Bush is better,” but rather to highlight what to me is obvious partisan rather than pricipal motivation on behalf of Bush’s greatest critics.

Ignoring inconvenient facts to make your point has always been a staple of the political life, but it has also become a far too common occurrence in the Main Stream Media, as well. I believe that one reason many politically-focused blogs find themselves in ascendancy today is their willingness to examine and present all facts, good and bad, and to attempt to demonstrate by logic and good writing how the truths exposed best support one's positions. This candid examination of facts is in my mind tantamount to the trust the readers place in the individual blog authors, and trust is the coin of the realm in privately published on-line media. To support the wrong assumptions inherent in the “Bush has banned stem-cell research” meme, either by repeating them or failing to challenge them, betrays that trust. As such, I will try to present the facts I know about this issue:

In 2001 President Bush provided federal funding for research using embryonic stem-cells derived from an existing stock of 60 lines
President has also provided federal funding for research using stem cells from other sources (adult, placental, umbilical) without restriction on collecting
President Bush opposes using federal funding to harvest new stem-cells from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization therapy or to create new embryos for the expressed purpose of research
There are no government limits placed on private research using embryos left over from in vitro fertilization therapy that have been donated to private research (in fact, this is how the 60 lines mentioned above came to exist in the first place)
I know of no government limits placed on private research using embryos specifically created for research (but these may exist)

Now, getting back to Senator Frist's “second opinion,” as it was referred to in a political cartoon Glenn linked to. The press got itself in a tizzy over the Senator “opposing Bush’s ban” so fast it failed to notice that this “reversal” is really little more than a restatement of a position he first made public July 18, 2001.

Q: What is the basic difference between Senator Frist's and President Bush's positions?
A: The Senator supports the harvesting of stem-cells from blastocysts (or pre-embryos) left over from in vitro fertilization therapy that would otherwise be discarded.

Q: How does Senator Frist's position differ from the recommendation President Clinton rejected?
A: Not at all, since both explicitly ban the creation of embryos solely for research purposes.

Q: So why the new announcement the other day?
A: Because the availability and condition of the stem-cells that existed at the time President authorized funding have been reevaluated and Senator Frist now feels they are inadequate for the research desired. The Senator also emphasized shortcomings in the current proposal that could provide loopholes for abuse of the limitations established.

So the basic facts that are (in some cases) intentionally muddied or ignored are:

President Bush has federally funded embryonic stem-cell research with limitations of the stem-cell lines to be used
President Bush clearly stated at the time that the policy might need to be revisited as more is learned from this research
Senator Frist has always support federal funding of stem-cell research
Senator Frist thinks the original limitation on using already created embryos needs to be revisited based upon research results indicating the existing lines may not be sufficient or suitable

“Bush's ban on federal funding”

This is an important issue, one that deserves more than a four or five-word sound bite that is factually wrong. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the President’s policy, nor with an accurate examination of the Senator's varying support. I do, however, have a problem with straw-man arguments that are based upon patently false premises and with those who aid in masking these false impressions rather than exposing them. You don’t have to agree with the President to say the argument most commonly used against him is pure bunk; you just have to be honest.

Update: For clarity, I'm not calling any of the above mentioned bloggers dishonest, but I do think that by not clearly highlighting the errors in the "Bush's ban" meme they tacitly help others to be dishonest. Maybe I'm ranting over semantics, but it seems that the word "ban" in this context clearly implies a complete prohibition on the said activities while an alternative, such as "limitation" not only more accurately represents the reality of the issue but also does not cary the partisan political baggage the MSM and others have tied to the phrase "Bush's ban."

Update: Oops, in my attempt to clarify I left out the word "not" (italicized above). I've also clarified that Senator Frist's support has always been for federal funding of stem cell research.

All Wag and Little Dog

2005-07-18T10:41:00.000-07:00

The greatest mystery for me in the whole "Plame affair" is that anyone of passing intelligence would cling to the latest "news" hoping to find a smoking gun revealing some secret. The major news organizations have finally publicly (though in many cases also quietly) abused themselves of the idea that anyone is going to jail, officially making this the most manufactured "scandal" since the war with The Duchy of Grand Fenwick. And for those wondering exactly what Valerie Plame’s status was when "outed" and how this came to pass, I’d wager a paycheck it all hinges on the following:

Valerie Plame is a poseur and a wanna-be.

I’ve never worked undercover, nor have I knowingly worked with anyone in that status, but I have worked with raw intelligence products and been acquainted with the results of collection activities. Working around the intelligence business you mostly find responsible, conscientious people who take their responsibilities seriously and don’t talk much about it to those without a need-to-know. You will also, however, occasionally run into someone who becomes intoxicated with the "I’ve got a secret" game and fancies himself or herself the embodiment of James Bond or the next Mata Hari. As a rule, people who are serious about their business do not, as reported in Vanity Fair, reveal their undercover status to a boyfriend during a "heavy make-out" session on the third or fourth date. This, to me, is as much the mark of a wanna-be as some long-haired looser wearing a camouflage jacket with fifty medals, a half-dozen warfare specialty badges and a beret hanging around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial telling blood and guts stories about "the 'Nam." I admit that I have no idea what she was doing while she was in an undercover status or where she was doing it, and maybe it really was some neat stuff, but based upon her actions I stand by my assessment that, for the most part, she is a wanna-be poseur.

And so is her husband. Regardless of any political motivation in his original Op-Ed the basic sense I get from almost everything he’s said on the matter is "look at me, listen to me, I’m so important they sent me to Niger." As another loudmouth that, for some unexplained reason, expects others to listen to him and take seriously his thoughts I am perhaps on shaky ground with this, but Joe Wilson not only pontificates outside any area of expertise but creates a fantasy in which the Vice President’s office hand-picks him for the mission. He is so full of himself, in fact, that he spouts off any tripe he feels like, not even caring if it contradicts his own written report or fails chronologically to mesh with reality. I would almost think in arranging his trip to Niger Joe Wilson used the same travel agency Sen. Kerry employed for his jaunt to Cambodia.

So here we find ourselves, with testimony about hearing the rumor of Wilson’s wife from this reporter, that reported, Karl Rove and just about anyone else in DC. I have no doubt that the person who originally outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative is no further away than her own mirror or the other side of the bed. I’ve known too many people who simply couldn’t keep their mouths shut, especially when it concerns themselves and stories of their exploits, to believe otherwise. For this information to have been "common knowledge" like it reportedly was means someone had to talk, and prior to Joe Wilson’s boondoggle there were only two people who stood to gain, in terms of gravitas, reputation or social standing, from such a revelation. And you don't have to take a secret trip to Niger to figure out who.

A short respite

2005-06-20T17:32:00.000-07:00

I will be away for a few weeks, to return in early July. Anything you may read during my absence about pro-democracy demonstrations or uprisings in Kurdish Iran you may read about are purely coincidental.

Our Party, Right or Wrong

2005-06-20T17:30:00.000-07:00

Nothing in recent experience speaks more to the mindset and state of the Democrat Party today than the trifacta of Senator Durbin's brain-numbingly myopic statement on the floor of the Senate followed by his equally tin-eared non-apology; the thunderous roar of crickets heard amidst the response from his fellow Democrats; and what, in the absence of wide-spread blinding fury, must be seen as if not acceptance then at least an expectation by Americans in general of such rhetorical excess on behalf of the Democrats.

Like other officers of the United States, Senators take an Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

So, can anyone explain how knowingly making hyperbolic accusations against our fighting forces in a time of war and providing our enemies with Information Warfare resources serves to defend the Constitution against our enemies? Those in support of Sen. Durbin (vocally or tacitly by silence) would have us believe that "speaking truth to power" and standing up for the ideals of our country do, in fact, support the Constitution and that one could even say that those who would betray the promise of America through nefarious deeds are, in a manner, enemies of the Constitution. To this I say "pish-tosh".

While self-examination and the open airing of problems is a part of America that I would be loathe to sacrifice, the expression is not "speaking manic hyperbole to power" for good reason. Likewise, I believe there is a proper place, time and manner in which to discuss sensitive matters and that it varies based upon both the nature of the issue and the external circumstances and context in which the matter arises. When the house is on fire you don't complain about a clogged toilet. When you are at war with an enemy that makes excellent use of IW you don't provide them free ammunition over someone turning the A/C too high.

The real question is if Sen. Durbin's actions were out of ignorance or if he simply felt the immediate political effect was more important than any potential international effect. To make such baseless comparisons and then turn around and blame international reaction to your statements on the baseless "facts" defies logic. It, instead, is indicative of an individual for whom their primary focus is not supporting or defending the Constitution, but rather supporting and defending themselves and Party. In a way it is a reaction to the losses of power the Democrats have experienced over the past decade, to circle the wagons and reflexively come to the defense of any member at question. What the Democrats haven't figured out yet is that there are some rats that need to be thrown from the ship lest it sink completely.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ...

2005-06-20T11:59:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean: "We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations"

This was in response to the fact that individuals at the Democratic National Headquarters were distributing materials linking Israel, 9/11, the Bush Administration and the Iraq Campaign in a big Zionist conspiracy. The charges against Bush were remarkably similar to those Dean himself called "interesting" during the 2004 Primary season.

"The entire Democratic Party remains committed to fighting against such bigotry."

(Except, of course, when they are distributing it and it serves their political purposes.)

When is Racism not Racism?

2005-06-13T15:34:00.000-07:00

A recent Supreme Court decision left me with mixed feelings, but mostly with that sick churning in my gut that once again the majority has ruled based upon how they would like things to be rather than how the law is documented.

The case before the Court was a capital conviction of a Texas man for the murder of a hotel clerk, in which the Court overturned the 5th Circuit and ordered a new trial for the prisoner. At issue was the contention that the prosecutor "stacked the jury" with whites and that this was done by specifically striking nine of the ten potential black jurors based upon their race. In reaching their decision, the Court rejected the Texas prosecutor's argument that the action to strike those particular candidates was based upon their vehement opposition to the death penalty.

This finds me somewhat conflicted. On the one hand it is important to ensure all charged, especially those in capital cases, not be subjected to racism and bigotry at the hands of their jury. On the other hand, though, it is the job of the prosecution to do their best to obtain a conviction, just as it is the job of the defense to obtain a acquittal. As such, shouldn't the prosecution be able to strike any potential jurors they wish to do their job to the best of their abilities. After all, if statistical studies demonstrate a general reluctance on behalf of blacks to convict in capital cases and interviews with the individuals reveal an opposition to the death penalty, is it really accurate to say excluding them from the process is racially motivated? If the prosecution felt those ten individuals, regardless of their race, posed the greatest threat to obtaining a conviction why shouldn't they be able to strike them?

The defense cited prosecution training manuals from the 60s to early 80s that advised removing blacks or Jews from death penalty juries. I generally think of racism and bigotry as involving negative treatment or opinion based upon unfounded reasoning. But even if the prosecutor's striking of potential jurors was based upon largely race, how, in the face of much statistical evidence supporting the theory that black jurors are less likely to return a death sentence, can one claim that such action is either negative or unfounded? Any counsel's action to strike a potential juror is solely based upon an assessment, either as a result of profile or interview, that the particular juror won't find in the manner desired.

Are we now to see minimum racial quotas for juries? Racism has been and is a blight on our national soul, but the immediate assumption of racism in all matters that have a racial component is fast becoming an equal danger. Just a racism erodes trust and self confidence, the assumption of racism erodes trust and honesty. As we shun the former, so should we abhor the latter.

Was the Iraqi Campaign Necessary?

2005-06-13T08:57:00.000-07:00

This is a frequently argued point, especially among those who say "the war wasn't worth it." Not to borrow to much from Bill Clinton's play book, but the answer entirely depends upon what one defines as necessity. In the eyes of one history professor in North Carolina, it decidedly was not based upon an assessment that the UN sanctions were sufficient to prevent Saddam from reacquiring WMD. I will grant him that the UN sanctions were effective at that time to do so, but I think a more complete evaluation of the necessity of the campaign should be based upon an evaluation of what other differences would exist today had we continued to rely upon the sanctions to contain Saddam.

Containing Saddam required continued military presence in Saudi Arabia, a presence that was specifically cited by all major terrorist organizations as being one of the causis belli for their armed jihad. As a result of the campaign US military footprint in the Holy Lands of Islam has been practically removed, eliminating that point from any discussion of legitimacy. Without the campaign we would most certainly have still been in both a politically and militarily poorly defended position.
If we were still containing Saddam our ability to present a credible threat against other bad actors in the region would be greatly lessened. If it becomes necessary to militarily prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons is this more credible from positions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arabian Gulf or only from the latter two? Without Iraq would we have secured Libyan cooperation?
If we were still containing Saddam any potential military action that may be required in the region would have to deal with the presence of a large hostile force operating against our flank, greatly reducing the power available to bear on the specific issue at hand.
Even if Saddam was unable to reconstitute his WMD stocks, he still possessed scientific and technical knowledge and skill to do so, knowledge that could easily have been shared with others who did posses resources to build WMD. The transfer of nuclear weapons knowledge by A Q Khan to various Arab nations is a perfect example of what likely would have happened.
If we were still containing Saddam the Arabists would still have their favorite strong man, still standing defiant against the imperialist American infidels, a rally point and living demonstration of the inability or unwillingness of America to act. It was such an assumption of American impotence that greatly emboldened Al Queda to implement their 9/11 plan.
If we were still containing Saddam the Iraqi people would still be subjected to the iron fist of him and his sons, suffering the brunt of the sanctions while he cut his deals with France, China, Russia and the UN.
If we were still containing Saddam we would still be fighting against France et. al. trying to lift sanctions against Iraq. True, we could have indefinitely sustained them by vetoing any proposed lifting, but only at the cost of probably even worse name-calling and UN malcontent than that received for trying to hold Saddam accountable to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
If we were still containing Saddam there would be no demonstrable example of Muslim freedom and democracy in the Middle East and no example of America's demonstrated commitment to such. Without Iraq there would have been no Cedar revolution in Lebanon, no election in the Palestinian territories, no talk of multi-party political reform in Egypt, no local election of representatives in Saudi Arabia. All these positive changes boding well for long-term stability and real advancements in the human condition in the region would have never happened.
If we were still containing Saddam we would have no viable alternative petroleum source should the Islamists succeed in overthrowing the House of Saud. Imagine, if you will, the complete removal of Saudi oil from the market and us faced with having to try and wrest it from Al Queda without an alternative and with a hostile force to the north (see comment above).
If we were still containing Saddam the Islamists and terrorists would have been free to plot and plan in relative peace, once again having the luxury of being able to choose the time and place of their next action. As it is, we have captured or killed thousands of fanatics and despite what some would have you believe, radicals willing to die in order to kill are not an inexhaustible resource.

So, OK, I'll give you that with sanctions (even as porous as they were) and containment we probably could have prevented Saddam from having a usable stock of WMD, but at what cost? We would still have to be dealing with a power-hungry mad man who was an avowed enemy of the US and who, by Russian reports, was coordinating with terrorist elements to plan actions against the US up until the day we crossed the border. We would have made little, if any progress on the democratization of the Middle East, the path I believe that may eventually lead to true lasting peace. And we would have reinforced the image of America as a short-sighted nation that has no stomach for a real fight.

I'll agree with anyone that 1600 of our nation's finest is a terrible price to pay, but contrasted against the alternative I believe it was the right choice.

Absolutely, Positively Bunk

2005-06-05T18:53:00.000-07:00

In the interest of full disclosure, I must begin by saying that I am employed by FedEx. As such, I took the mini-rant by Jeff Jarvis somewhat personally. Compound that with the assumed credibility conferred by a Glenn Reynolds link, and felt damned-near driven to do what I could to defend the honor of the Purple Promise^™.

Jeff's entire problem is based upon a patently wrong and misleading assumption:

FedEx is now charging fees if you need a signature from the recipient to guarantee that the company delivers the thing you entrust to their care

The fact is that FedEx Express service has always required a signature for delivery as a normal part of the service, unless the shipper explicitly authorizes the courier to leave the product at the door (and then only if a signature cannot be obtained). Nothing has changed. What Jeff found confusing was the addition of three new delivery options now available to shippers at a nominal fee:

Indirect Signature, which allows another person to sign or the recipient to authorize leaving the package if no one is home,
Direct Signature, which automatically directs the courier to reattempt delivery if there is no answer the first time, and
Adult Signature, which requires the courier to verify the age of the recipient against a legal ID

A huge difference between residential and non-residential shipment has always been the failed delivery rate (i.e. no one was available to take receipt of the package). Before, a shipper sending a product to a residential address had two choices if the customer wasn't home: have the courier leave the package at the door (not a great idea in some neighborhoods) or have the package returned to the station and inconvenience their customer by requiring them to either pick it up or schedule another delivery. Now, however, the shipper has more options to provide timely delivery of the product and still accommodate their customers' convenience. This is good for both the shipper and his customer.

The Adult Signature option, a service I don't believe is available from any other carrier in the industry, both allows the shipper to be responsible for adult materials (such as alcohol, fire arms or erotic materials) as well as provides a proactively solution for possible legal compliance. In light of the Supreme Court's recent interstate commerce ruling in regards to the New York wine industry, it is entirely possible, and some would contend responsible, for State legislatures to require age verification for all adult purchases, both direct and mail-order. Without this new delivery option it would be impossible for many shippers to comply with such laws in multiple States. Living in Tennessee, I would have imagined Glenn would have quickly seen the potential of this last service option.

So, in summary, Jeff got his panties in a knot over three brand new options that work to enhance the recipient's service experience or enable transactions that are currently legally or logistically prohibitive and an assumption that fees associated with these options somehow applied to the delivery signature service that has always been a normal part of service at no additional fee. These new options not only represent the sort of service differentiation that has always helped to define the FedEx brand, but they all are demonstrably designed with providing a better online retail experience for the customer, something Jeff has been all for in the past. I can only guess that past problems alluded to by Jeff clouded his judgment, leading him to not read the actual words he quoted but instead to lash out based upon his erroneous assumptions. It sincerely saddens me that Jeff may have had a poor service experience with FedEx, but from working in the company for some time and based upon numerous independent service studies I truly feel that FedEx does a better job at both preventing delivery failures and, when such failures do happen, making it as right as possible. These three new services are examples of FedEx continuing to offer shipping customers more choice and ensuring the customer receiving the product has the best possible experience.

(Update: I fixed some awkward syntax and spelling errors as well as emphasized that normal FedEx delivery signature service has never and still does not cost extra.)

NPT? We don't need no stinkin' NPT!

2005-06-03T14:16:00.000-07:00

Whoa! Where did May go? Rumors of my death were just wishful thinking run amok.

Daniel Drezner recently laid a bit of smack down of Anne-Marie Slaughter's critique of the Bush administration's diplomacy, in which she used the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a prime example of incompetence.

[W]e have managed to generate still more global animus by apparently refusing to take the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review seriously, even though Iran and North Korea are front-burner issues and there is general consensus that the NPT needs amending to prevent states from getting to the edge of nuclear capability in complete conformity with the treaty and then legally withdrawing and making a bomb.

He rightfully slaps about the idea that the PSI would, for some nebulous reason, be somehow better if it were institutionalized vice ad hoc. But another tiny fragment of an idea in Anne-Marie's piece betrays one of the fundamental differences in view that leads her to the assumption:

[Make] all nuclear fuel generating facilities part of multinational consortia, so they are not controlled by a single state (emphasis added)

There are some who simply seem to embrace centralized control via legalism as a panacea for all ills. A problem with guns in schools? Make more laws. A problem with nuclear proliferation? Make more international laws. At the risk of broadbrushing it, these individuals seem to generally fall to the left of the aisle and look longingly upon any vestiage or intimation of multilatteralism or international cooperation, in my eyes investing their confidence based more upon the form than the results. How else may one explain the naivitae exhibited by suggesting an international consortia to control the world's nuclear materials even as the UN is falling over itself to continue the Oil-for-Food coverup. One commenter specifically cited "the problem with the 'ad hoc' approach [being] that it is essentially acting 'above the law'," an argument based upon the assumption that international law is an answer to this matter. Those who tend to blindly worship at the alter of legalism don't seem to realize that in a vast number of cases the greater problem lies not with a clear understanding of morality, propriety or legality but rather with the ability and will to enforce those well understood and recognized standards. For example, there was nothing at all ambiguous about Iraq's legal requirements to comply with international law following Desert Storm. In the face of demonstrated unwillingness by the UN to enforce those requirements Saddam simply chose to ignore them. Can anyone explain how the provisions of the NPT are substantially different?

Citing the situation with DPRK as a good reason to work with and reform the NPT defies credulity. What in the NPT has ever stopped DPRK from doing anything it wanted with regard to nuclear research? They regularly closed off facilities to inspectors whenever they wanted, suspected plutonium reprocessing was discovered up to three years after the fact and their participation as a signatory was brazenly used as a bargaining chip for material and political concessions. On May 10, 1993 in response to a threatened withdrawal the U.N. Security Council demanded DPRK to stay in the NPT "though no penalties for noncompliance were specified," a demand they promptly thumbed their noses at before prolonging the drama by suspending the withdrawal.

Blind faith in the NPT demostrates a neo-Luddite gun-control mentatity approach to the problem of nuclear weapon proliferation. Sometimes I'm guilty of trying to sound smart or educated to the distraction of clarity, so I'll try to say this as simply as I can:

The problem with nuclear weapons proliferation is not nuclear weapons.

If Spain or Canada announced tomorrow they were starting a nuclear weapons development program I wouldn't loose a wink of sleep. How many people are aware that at one time South Africa had a nuclear capability, one they voluntarily dismantled as secretly as they developed it. The problem with nuclear weapons proliferation is the presence of despotic regimes with the resources to pursue the technology coupled with the desire to subjugate, intimidate and oppress or the willingness to unscrupulously share the technology with third parties. The bottom line is that there is one and only one free, democratic nation that did not develop its nuclear weapons as a direct response to a nuclear weapons threat (or potential threat) from a unfree, undemocratic nation, and that was Isreal, who was surrounded by hostile neighbors and had already fought three conventional wars of defense. I may be accused of missing the big picture, but the answer seem intuitively obvious to me:

If you don't want bad guys to have nuclear weapons the answer is not to try and lock up the weapons. The answer is to concentrate on taking the bad guys out of power.

This does not mean invading everyone we don't like, but to my knowledge, the NPT has never stopped any determined nation from pursuing its nuclear weapons goals, and I highly doubt if additional laws would change this. The NPT is completely unnecessary to prevent Finland or Thailand from becoming nuclear powerhouses and is relatively ineffective against countries like DPRK, Iran, Libya, Iraq or Pakistan. Simply put, free nations don't need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from other free nations and have better things to spend the resources on than what basically amount to symbols of power. There will always be a need for strong free nations to maintain a nuclear capability, but absent a specific threat there is simply no incentive for a democratic government to try and join the club.

While one of Dan's commenters bemoans that "the likelihood of these ad hoc arrangements standing the test of time ... is pretty questionable," I see that as boding well for the commitment behind the effort. Flexible ad hoc partnerships to handle specific bad actors eliminates a "one size fits all" approach to diplomacy and imparts an immediacy to action. The only way non-proliferation concerns remain in place long-term is if we only treat the symptom of technology transfer while ignoring the human root cause of our concern, the despotic governments themselves. The only real long-term solution to nuclear weapons proliferation if the same prescription Dr. Bush has written for terrorism: individuals living in democratic freedom, with liberty and justice.

What's Next to Go, Article 114?

2005-04-26T07:29:00.000-07:00

Eugene Volokh waxes longingly on a NYT report of an end to sodomy prohibitions in the UCMJ (Article 125). The DoD responded that it was only recommending the "laws prohibiting consensual sodomy be moved from one section ... to another." What I actually suspect (and Volokh reader Paul Johnson, a former JAG, does as well) is that the recommendation ammounts to the removal of consensual sodomy from the punitive articles under 125 and including it as an element under the General Article (Article 134), similar to how matters such as adultery, wrongful cohabitation, indecent exposure, indecent language and indecent acts with another are currently addressed. This has the effect of relegating prosecution of the act only to those circumstances where it is contrary to good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the service. In most cases, I would imagine it would be an "add-on" to other charges (prostitution, indecent exposure, adultery, fraternization, etc.)

I have an interesting perspective from which to speak on consensual sodomy and the UCMJ as I once sat a Courts Martial where Article 125 was the only offense of which the accused was found guilty, and then by his own written testimony. The situation involved luring another's girlfriend into a barracks room, plying her with Bacardi 151 and then possibly raping her after she passed out. The prosecution didn't push too hard on the other counts, so we always suspected he cut a deal to testify against his room mate. Even if he didn't do the rape, though, he got himself into a stupid situation where things were out of his control, so I didn't feel too bad using the hammer available to let this guy know he needed to rethink his priorities.

Despite my personal experience, I have no doubt that Eugene Volokh is correct in his assessment that consensual sodomy has long been used to implement the services' prohibition on homosexuals, but its just one tool among many. Besides the fact that the vast majority of people leaving the service because they're gay do so under an Admin discharge, if it came to invoking punitive articles of the UCMJ it is much easier to prove fraudulent enlistment than sodomy. Also, giving someone a Dishonorable Discharge as a result of Courts Martial requires the agreement of the members that the punishment fits the crime. While we had one hard-line member who wanted the kid to do hard time for his knobber, that certainly wasn't the majority opinion. Likewise, in a case of pure consensual sodomy without the background and circumstances in the case I sat can anyone reasonably conceive of an entire court wanting to ruin the accused future simply because he likes his bread buttered on the other side? The military may be authoritarian, but it is generally fair and proportional and slapping a young man with a felony conviction and a BCD for getting caught in the head with his pants around his ankles is neither.

In summary, just remember this is only a recommendation, so don't go gettin' your freak on just yet. Or at least, don't tell!

Oh, and Article 114 has always been one of my favorites.

In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King ...

2005-04-13T14:44:00.000-07:00

but in the land of the color blind does the racially conscious have an advantage?

A while back Cobb, a blogger I've always enjoyed, put together a group he named the Conservative Brotherhood, a blog-roll of black conservative voices in the blogosphere. The other day he noted a commenter on Wizbang that apparently took deference to a group of "black" conservatives, believing their racially-based identification and membership criteria constituted a sort of racism that should be beyond conservatives. A similar, though less stridently expressed, sentiment was raised by fellow steeley-eyed killer of the deep and all around good guy Chap (of Chapomatic fame), who while uncomfortable with the idea of racially based exclusivity recognized that similar types of self-imposed selective grouping (MilBlogs, regional blog groups, even SubBlogs) is evident every day with little comment.

While I think the commenter on Wizbang may be speaking from a genuine belief that we should move toward a color blind society and that this is only made more difficult by continually highlighting race and ascribing a racial angle to every aspect of life, I believe his focus is off here. In the first place, there can be little argument that the experiences of Cobb, Juliette, La Shawn or any other of the CB in developing and expressing their conservative ideas as well as handling the reaction to their ideas is markedly different than those shared by many other conservatives and this difference is probably greatly related to cultural or societal expectations based upon race. As such, one would probably be just as accurate to describe the CB as a group based upon a shared experience resulting from skin color and political persuasion more than a group based just upon skin color and political persuasion. Secondly, no more than closing your eyes kept you hidden as a child, ignoring the real-world effects of racial identification (either self-identification or assumed identification on behalf of an observer) on experience does nothing to change that experience or make it less real. And third, that recognizing the impact that racial identification has in a situation where it implicitly and explicitly effects expectations and perceptions is not the same as creating arbitraty racial aspects to everything. If we were discussing the Brotherhood of Left-Handed Blacks, however, the commenter might have a stronger point.

Like many things, though, I believe much of this is yet another potato-poTAHto issue and a result of conflicting assumptions, beacuse the word "black" carries the potential for conveying much more than just color, especially when used to refer to cultural identification and experience. As such, I feel that the depth of its meaning in cultural terms is, to a degree, lost on my brother Chap, just as it is largely lost on me. This is a result of the cultural homoginization of much of America, an effect I think is especially evidenced in "white" America. This watering down of culture was brought home to me very strongly while living in Japan (an experience Chap shares). The strength and clarity of the Japanese cultural identity was so evident that I couldn't help but find it to be in great contrast with my own identity, one formed more strongly from a sense of individualism rather than one of group or culture. I see a parallel between my experience in Japan and this discussion that really amounts to understanding the effects of "black culture" on identity. I'm certainly not claiming to have any special insight on the world of "black culture," but I do recognize it exists as a distinct entity that is as significant or more so to the identity of most black Americans as the culture of one's origin country is to our imigrant population. Perhaps one day the black cultural identity will be diffused throughout America's melting pot like Irish or German culture is, but that is not the case today.

As such, I welcome the diversity of ideas and perspectives the CB brings, allowing me a peek into thoughts and experiences I'd never even be aware of otherwise. And, in building a fuller view of the issues and engaging them with my thoughts, we work toward what I think is a better goal than a color blind society. That is a society in which it's OK to use skin color to identify a person just as you'd use hair color or the shape of their face without feeling self conscious or wondering if someone else might read more into your observation than you'd like. A society where you can recognize the different effects of culture upon identity without having that recognition presumed to be biased. A society that understands and embraces diversity as the celebration of what makes each person unique and individual and yet still a part of the whole. This, I think, is a better realization of Dr. King's dream than that of blindly assuming color blindness in all matters.

Sin City - Beautiful if a Bit Jumbled

2005-04-12T16:34:00.000-07:00

Going to the movies is simply not something I get to do as often as I once did. This past weekend, though, I called up my friend and caught the Robert Rodriguez take on Frank Miller's Sin City, a film where the accent is heavilly on the first word in the title. Google any review of this film and you will come up with more adjectives like "stunning," "visual" and "dynamic" in reference to the presentation than I believe any other film recently has garnered, and rightly so. To say "this is unlike anything you have ever seen" is an appelation that, for a change, is both completely accurate and well deserved. Frank Miller was a key contributor to this film and it shows through the beautiful graphic framing of every shot. In many cases it seems the original works were used for the storyboards. But while the strength of the presentation gains from exploiting the comic medium, so to may it contribute to some of the criticisms.

While I fully believe the black and white motif was chosen for stylistic reasons, I can't help but conjecture that the film would have been pushing an NC-17 rating if all that blood had been in living color. This is not only a violent movie, but a movie of comic-book level violence. Think about those House of Horror black and white magazines you used to have to hide from your Mom. While I accepted it as part of the package and medium I'm sure there are some who find the violence overload or seemingly supernatural levels of punishment taken by lead characters a bit distracting.

My greatest disappointment in the film, though, was also inherited from the source material, and that was a lack of cohesion. While some have likened the non-chronological presentation to other films weaving multiple story lines together (most notable Pulp Fiction), the stories presented in the film, strong as they are, really represent more independent events that just happen to transpire in close proximity and fairly contemporaneously with each other. In other words, I left the theater feeling that they could have just as easilly included any three random stories and produced an equally strong film. While a more reflective work using this motif (such as Grand Canyon or Magnolia) can work with more independent stories that compliement or explore common themes, I didn't get this from Sin City. Don't get me wrong, the stories were good, but they really didn't rely on each other except tangentially. Originally issued as individual stories set in a common locale, he film ultimately plays more as three episodes in a series than as a single grand work.

As amazing as the film looks, though, it is ultimately the performances of the actors that makes the backgrounds worth the effort. Truly an all-star cast, everyone in the ensemble shines. Coming from the theater, though, I was struck with another thought I'm sure others have had before. Namely, that Bruce Willis could do a commendable job playing another Bruce in yet another Frank Miller vehicle. For years rumors of an impending filming of Frank Miller's greatest work, The Dark Knight Returns, have bounced around. The tale of an aging Bruce Wayne fighting time and a world gone mad and devoid of heroes is seen by many as a high water mark in the blurring of comics and literature, and I, for one, hope the look, feel and success of Sin City helps to refuel these rumors.

It's All About the Oil (Really)

2005-04-12T13:49:00.000-07:00

In the New York Post today, Amir Taheri provides a good overview of Al Queda's war against Saudi Arabia. To some, the idea of terrorists fighting against their Muslim brothers in a country held by many (for good reason) to be the largest financial supporter of terrorism sounds too much like the ouroboros. While in at least one manifestation of the ancient story of a snake eating its own tail it ultimately, in its last bite, simply disappears, I hold little hope a similar discorporation would befall our adversaries should they succeed. Neither, though, am I surprised at their efforts to take Saudi Arabia.

It must be remembered that Al Queda and UBL in particular have always railed against the presence of infidels in the holy lands of Islam. Between Mecca, Medina and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia represents most of what these people believe they are fighting for and have always held the house of Saud as a bunch of somewhat poor Muslims for inviting all the foreigners into the land of Mohammad. What we have seen the last few years hasn't so much been a change of goal as much as a shifting of priorities and tactics. The increased emphasis that Al Queda is placing on securing the Holy Land, though, reinforces the wisdom in understanding this threat and taking proactive measures within our capbilities to mitigate any potential dangers.

In this regard, I have always assumed the potential for Saudi Arabia to fall under Al Queda control has been a key component of our military strategy in the region. Key because, right or wrong, there is no denying the potential for a severe economic impact of what might essentially amount to a total loss of Saudi oil on the world market. At the very least, if Saudi Arabia fell to Al Queda our contingency planning would have to assume a loss of that petroleum to the US. Furthermore, given the cultural and religious significance of Saudi Arabia, the option to simply charge in to take the country back is probably not too realistic either.

Now, let us imagine the potential picture planners were looking at in 2002: a complete loss of petroleum resources from Saudi Arabia coupled with the presence of a hostile nation north of the potential target (i.e. Saddam's Iraq) and a need to completely stage all operations from the sea or remote airbases. Compare that, however, with the picture planners are looking at today: a complete loss of petroleum resources from Saudi Arabia, offset by purchase of resources from Iraq coupled with the presence of an allied, though admittedly not completely stable, nation north of the potential target (i.e. Iraq today) and an ability to stage and launch operations from sea and land within close proximity. Besides the WMD concerns and humanitarian issues (both important and viable in their own right) this article simple reinforces the strategic reasons that made launching the Iraq campaign the right decission in the right place at the right time.

More Unrecognized Assumptions

2005-04-06T11:31:00.000-07:00

I've railed before that assumptions are only bad if you fail to recognize they exist. While I am sure it occurs in other quarters, it seems that those on the left tend to get smacked by their unrecognized assumptions with greater regularity than their political opposition. For example, in discussions on the passing of the Pope I ran across this little "smack-down":

Listening to the endless radio "coverage" of the Pope's death, it's remarkable how unbalanced it is. They have priests, saying we all know deep inside the Pope was right about everything. Hello. Earth to Catholics. The Pope was a good PR guy, but come on, he was against birth control. The Catholics actually burned condoms in AIDS-plagued Africa.
- Scripting News (emphasis added)

Leaving aside the obvious assumption that birth control is good and therefore anyone opposed is wrong or bad, I think the bolded sentence reveals an even more deeply hidden assumption.

Without arguing the merits of birth control in general (I've often been very appreciative of its existence) or even the propriety of condoms in Africa, I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that the AIDS rate among truly monogamous non-condom wearing Catholics is much lower than for promiscuous condom wearing anybodies. Assuming the Catholics in Africa that were burning condoms weren't randomly breaking into people's homes and stores and burning all the condoms in town, it seems clear that the action was done in conjunction with the Catholic church's other key teaching on sex, namely that it is restricted to marriage and then only practiced in monogamy. It is only in the unstated, unrecognized assumptions of the author (assumptions, incidentally, not uncommon) that the event described seems to represent a disregard for AIDS or those suffering.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty, via Hugh Hewitt, tracks several CNN "yes, but..." moments in the coverage of the Pope's death, including these gems:

many people have been hurt terribly by ... the notion that the pope will not allow the use of condoms, ... even to stop the spread of deadly diseases, such as AIDS

A pope who embraced AIDS victims and who went to Africa and talked to them, and there are pictures of him being embraced by young AIDS victims, and yet who refused to sanction the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS.

This, presimable said with a straight face, never recognizing that condom use to "stop the spread of AIDS" is completely unnecessary in the context of monogomous, married sexual relations, the context from which the Pope was most certainly speaking.

After all, if you're going to commit the sin of adultery already I seriously doubt the Pope's position on birth control will effect your decission to use a condom or not.

Leads Herself to the Water, Still Refuses to Drink

2005-04-06T10:38:00.000-07:00

Megan McArdle has recently written what I think is one of the best rational, non-religious based arguments against the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. She is very careful, though, to bookend her points with disclaimers that her argument really doesn't mean anything.

Unlike most libertarians, I don't have an opinion on gay marriage, and I'm not going to have an opinion no matter how much you bait me.

(insert really good argument against gay marriage here)

I realise that this probably falls on the side of supporting the anti-gay-marriage forces, and I'm sorry, but I can't help that.

OK, maybe my characterization of her opening and closing is a little strong, but if you think about a subject matter and see a stronger argument against than for, why not say so? She often characterizes herself as an independent thinker or politically moderate, but I would think that means agreeing with positions from both major parties based upon the merits of the position and not the party endorsing the position. In this case, she seems to be defining these terms as merely adding the two positions together and computing the average. However, in some matters, like this one, it is impossible to compute the average because the solution set is binary: same-sex unions are either legally recognized as marriage or they are not. Contrary to the impression some want to create, I don't believe there is any serious challenge being mounted to the rights for individuals of the same sex to enter into any personal or legal arrangement that is available to any other citizen, regardless of sexual orientation. Why then the reluctance to embrace the conclusions one has reached?

I can't say this applies to Megan in this case, but similar equivocations I have witnessed seem to find their root in self-identity and group dynamics. Often we humans, as social animals, are reluctant to act outside of established norms within our groups, be they natural or self selected. As a corollary, we too are sometimes loathe to be perceived as belonging to an undesirable group. For example, if the KKK were holding a bake sale to raise money for the local school I would not attend, not so much out of a disagreement with the specific goals of the sale but rather because of the common (and in this case accurate) perceptions of the sponsoring organization and my opposition to their general goals. In another example, though, at one point in history there were many white musicians who would not perform "race music" or work with black musicians. I can easily imagine this may have been, at least in part, out of a fear of going against the norms of their own group as well as a fear based upon the common (and in this case inaccurate) perceptions of black musicians and audiences.

As I've pointed out before, simply because Conservatives or religious people (and no, they are not synonymous) support a specific position it does not magically make it a "rich," "white" or "religious" position. Policies and positions should be rationally judged on their own merit, just as Megan has done. To not follow the conclusions reached, though, presumably out of a sense of unity or principle, betrays the very rational train of though that got you to the water in the first place.

He Ain't Talkin' About a Beach Boys Album

2005-03-31T13:45:00.000-08:00

Like many submariners I was somewhat struck by the title of James Dunnigan's Strategy Page piece on the USS San Francisco (USS San Francisco Heroes and Villians(sic)). For those who do not know, Mr. Dunnigan is a legendary wargame designiner and the founder of SPI. As such I doubt his intent was to insult anybody, but I still took the liberty of sending him the following e-mail:

Dear Mr. Dunnigan,

While it is an honor to address one whose work (most notably Patrol, Sniper, Mech War ’77 and Foxbat & Phantom) has given me so many hours of enjoyment, I regret that this contact has been precipitated by my contention with elements of your recent Strategy Page article "USS San Francisco Heroes and Villians(sic)".

In this article you allude to "leaks" that the crewmembers awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP) "could have detected the approaching sea mount and taken evasive action if they had followed proper procedures." While I am not privy to the source of the referenced leaks, I find a more accurate conclusion based upon the reports published in Navy Times and other papers is that the crewmembers punished failed to perform duties that may have either routed the ship away from the navigation hazard or may have provided sufficient grounds to warrant greater caution in operations. The first is important, as the most preferable way to avoid an accident such as this is to avoid navigating through the potentially hazardous waters in the first place. The second is important since there is no way to say for sure the grounding could have been avoided, but it is almost certain that had it occurred at a lower bell the loss of life and damage to equipment would not have been as great.

I also feel your assessment of the choice of NJP over Courts Martial is in error. While the decision to charge a service member under Article 15 (NJP) may be driven by a lack of sufficient admissible evidence to successfully prosecute, my experience is that it is usually based upon an assessment of the apparent severity of the offense and an absence of willful malice. For example, had any of the charged members seemed to have actively contributed to the accident (by knowingly withholding key information or intentionally hazarding the vessel) I have no doubt the matter would have been referred to Courts Martial vice NJP.

Further to your observations on NJP, both assessments that "[t]he non-judicial punishment hurts, but does not destroy, the career of a submariner" and that the Navy’s difficulty in "recruiting qualified people for this kind of work" played a roll in the punishments handed down. While junior enlisted members often do weather NJP with relatively little impact on their future careers, the actions taken against the Chief Petty Officer (removal of Navy Enlisted Classification code) and officers (Letter of Reprimand) are coffin nails in the truest sense. While the Chief likely has sufficient time in to continue to serve to full retirement, I would wager a paycheck he will never again be promoted. Neither officer has any viable future in the Navy. And while the Navy indeed is concerned with recruiting, training and nurturing qualified submariners, it has never been prone to coddle or otherwise enable those who demonstrate their incompatibility with the rigors of the service. Just ask any of the multitude removed from nuclear power duties every year for "demonstrated unreliability."

Finally, my greatest discomfort comes from what I feel to be a particularly poor choice of words and most likely stems more from professional pride than any real slight. I refer, as you may have guessed, to your chosen title. The implied characterization of the members charged at Article 15 proceedings as "villains" is completely inaccurate and underserved. While the characterization of an individual such as Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who killed two sleeping officers with a grenade in Iraq, as a "villain" can be understood, this word seems unduly harsh when attributed to those whose "crimes" appear to be more of omission than commission. This may seem trivial to some, but you are speaking of service members who, for the most part, are still part of a crew that performed probably one of the most extraordinary acts of seamanship in recent history. This crew has worked hard and suffered greatly and mischaracterizing these crewmembers denigrates the amazing work done to return the ship to port with the loss of only one soul. They collectively deserve more.

The Importance of the Schiavo Case

2005-03-29T17:43:00.000-08:00

I read an excellent editorial by a Harvard student who just happens to also have Cerebral Palsy that really zeros in on some of the larger issues brought to light by issues surrounding the Terri Schiavo.

The case of Terri Schiavo has been framed by the media as the battle between the right to die and pro-life groups, with the latter often referred to as right-wing Christians. Little attention has been paid to the more than twenty major disability rights organizations firmly supporting Schiavos right to nutrition and hydration.
...
The reason for this public support of removal from ordinary sustenance, I believe, is not that most people understand or care about Terri Schiavo. Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots.
...
In the Schiavo case and others like it, non-disabled decision makers assert that the disabled person should die because he or sheordinarily a person who had little or no experience with disability before acquiring one"would not want to live like this."

Wesley Smith recently debated bioethecist Bill Allen on Court TV and some of the conversation centered on the concept of "personhood," or, frankly, that some humans are not, based upon their cognitive, awareness or interactive abilities, people. It's important to note that the person arguing that Terri Schiavo is not a person since "I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood" and that "there should be consent to harvest her organs, just as we allow people to say what they want done with their assets" is the Director of the Program in Bioethics, Law, and Medical Professionalism at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

I share Wesley Smith's position that this is not a matter of Religion vs. Science but a profound question of human rights, what degree of control a guardian is allowed to assert over a disabled person and upon what basis the control of life and death may be exercised. I have often asked on other blogs, what is the difference between the Terri Schiavo case and the guardian of a disabled person choosing to not feed them. If you ask Bill Allen, perhaps there is no difference provided the disabled person isn't sufficiently aware to be considered a person.

Prediction 05-2 Update

2005-03-29T16:28:00.000-08:00

The net is resounding with rumblings about the Iraqi Insurgency and their desire to come in from the cold, such as this brief piece in the Financial Times. If this represents a trend toward Prediction 05-2 or not is unclear, as it could just be a rehashing of the events that intially informed the prediction.

Let's Have a Snarkiness Contest

2005-03-25T11:52:00.000-08:00

At one time I read Andrew Sullivan fairly regularly. At that time I felt he was a well considered and thoughtful writer. Well, he seems to have gotten over that and fallen victim to Professional Writer's Snarkiness Syndrome. You know, that disease that causes an otherwise intelligent person to extract isolated events or statements in order to intentionally misrepresent the meaning and afford themselve's the opportunity to play the "look how stupid they are and how brilliant and witty I am" act. While this affliction used to mainly manifest itself when discussing some aspect of "Same Sex Marriage," it has spread to other areas of his commentary, most recently anything dealing with Terri Schiavo. Actually I may be over specifying here, as the peaks of his PWSS are seen directed toward "religious zealots."

First a thoughtful comment by Glenn Reynolds that the methods "conservatives" have employed in support of Terri Schiavo closely mirror the same tactics they have deplored when used by "liberals" is twisted by Andrew into a confession by Glenn about "what the religious right is doing to conservative principles." This is further expounded upon in the now typical Andrew hysteria as proof that "religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism." Of course, considering that "religious zealotry" is certainly unwelcomed in the liberal camps I can only conclude that Andrew's point is that those he considers these zealots simply should not be represented at all. (OK, that was a bit "snarky," too. God, I hope it's not contagious.)

But Andrew reserves the big guns for those who support Terri Schiavo's parents in their desire to sustain their daughter's life. A refusal to unquestioningly accept Michael Schiavo's word and prefer a stricter standard (i.e. a properly executed living will) to demonstrate Terri's wishes is, in Andrew's view, a hypocritical attack on the "religious-right's" avowed belief in the "sanctity of marriage." Perhaps he hits this so strongly because it not only plays against "religious zealots" but also relates to his other sacred cow. Granted, I'm not plugged into conservative Christianity, but I don't think it's all that hard to believe that the "sanctity of marriage" does not necessarilly mean that one spouse is allowed to unquestioningly speak for the other with no further legal documentation required. Further I'd wager a tidy sum that by the standards of many on the "religious-right" Michael Schiavo voluntarilly gave up his moral rights to speak for his wife once he decided to take on a defacto new wife, including starting a completely new family. While there is certainly room for disention on the validity of Michael Schiavo's claims, trying to depict questioning it as some sort of hypocracy on behalf of a large and nebulous religious group on the basis of the concept of the "sanctity of marriage" just doesn't fly.

The final example is probably one of the efficient uses of snark, based upon a line to snark ratio:

"I just heard Terri Schiavo's brother say on CNN that his sister is speaking to him. What did she say? Or is he lying?"

I didn't see the event, nor did Andrew provide a link to any source transcript, but might there not be a third possibility? Maybe a metaphorical use of the verb "speaking"? Something like the lawyer who claims the dead to be "speaking from the grave" through the evidence presented? C'mon Andrew, is it really that important to you to make fun of a man whose sister is dying while he is powerless to stop it but others could? Have you really become so myopic, mean spirited and small minded?

When is a Person Not a Person?

2005-03-23T15:54:00.000-08:00

In the face of several "all Terri Schiavo, all the time" blogs I have left a trail of various comments and thought I'd repeat my main thoughts here.

I'm big on understanding assumptions and stripping an issue to its basics. When I do that with this matter what it seems to boil down to is that a severely mentally disabled person is having their nutrition and hydration witheld so they will die and that the basis for this decision is what amounts to hear-say evidence offered by a party whose motives have been questioned by some. There is understandably much emotion surrounding the matter, but I have been most surprised by the vehemance with which some feel the decision is 100% right. There are several points, though, that these most ardent supporters seem to either be ignorant of or intentionally disregard.

First, there can be little doubt that there is a fundamental difference between a "feeding tube" and what is commonly thought of as "life support." There are many people who basically lead completely normal lives with the exception of requiring a feeding tube to supply nutrition due to esophogeal or other problems. By a similar token, would a colostomy bag be considered "life support"? There are even more who suffer some degree of disability including the need for a feeding tube. My nephew, for example, has what I consider fairly severe Cerebral Palsy and had to have a feeding tube installed due to problems with swallowing and reflux. The main differences between him and Terri Schiavo (besides sex and age) are the source of their disability, their relative ability to communicate and the attention and desires of their designated guardian.

Second, there is also a fundamental difference between a mentally disabled person and someone suffering from a terminal medical condition. Leaving aside the fact that we are all dying at one rate or the other, there is nothing physically wrong with Terri Sciavo that threatens imminent death. For this reason, while I can understand their feelings, I cannot accept the numerous personal accounts of relatives dying of cancer or 90 year-olds refusing to eat as relevent to the matter at hand. If anything it is more akin to a hunger strike.

Except, of couse, that a hunger strike is something one undertakes of their own will and action. In this case one of the few undisputed facts is that we do not positively know Terri's desires and wishes nor were they ever unequivically recorded for our review. A common argument made is that "I wouldn't want to live like that," an argument I also largely dismiss as irrelevent. I do not doubt that individual's sincerity at this moment in time, speaking from a position of health, but there are also many men in the VA who once just as strongly felt it would be better to never come home than to come home "half a man." We can make predictions and assumptions, but I don't believe you can really know where the line between lack of quality and love of life itself lies until you find yourself at the crux. And in any event, the question was never what would these people want to do in this circumstance, but, rather, what does Terri want to do? And we can't answer that for sure.

In watching my nephew grow and develop I have often returned to a thought I first had as a child when I began realizing that in addition to me and my (generally) smart friends there were other kids at school who fell on the other side of the bell curve, some quite far on the other side. To what degree does a disabled person recognize their difference as a disability? For those who are higher functioning, people with Down's Syndrome, for example, the difference is more accutely recognized and we know this because the individual is able to communicate their thoughts and feelings in a way we understand. For those with greater disabilities, though, this communication is less perfect and more guessing is required. In the case of my nephew, I think he probably knows we function differently and he seems at times frustrated he cannot do some things he wants, but if that frustration is related to an understanding of his disability or simply based upon his inability I can't tell. As the communication becomes less, for example as in Terri's case, at what point do we cease caring about their perceptions? The whole "I wouldn't want to live like that" argument rests upon the assumption that should you be in her condition you would be aware of the difference between what you once were and what you had become, an assumption that is completely unfounded and without basis.

So what I really see in the Terri Schiavo matter is an assumption of non-personhood based upon a lack of communication. While we may agree that a kitten or puppy does not posess self awareness like a human we would still shy away from purposefully withdrawing nutrition and hydration simply because it could effectively communicate its discomfort and its desire to live. Terri, in the eyes of the court, can do neither and is therefore not afforded the same consideration.

I wonder, based upon this precedent, what would be the difference between this and if my sister just stopped putting food in her son's feeding tube? In both cases the legal guardian would have made a decision that the disabled person was better off dead. And neither disabled person is in a position to effectively argue otherwise. Once we cross this Rubicon what other non-terminal situations could conceivable merit withdrawal of nutrition and hydration? In the absence of clear evidence the action is in compliance with Terri's wishes, the witholding of nurishment and hydration from an otherwise physically healthy person feels too much like passing a death sentance against one simply felt to be less than human and therefore one whose life is of lower value and importance. I have a severe discomfort with any government willing to make those decisions concerning its law abiding but disabled citizens.

Shameless Whoring

2005-03-22T11:38:00.000-08:00

OK, now that I'm a year old I can be a shameless whole like the rest. Actually, I have decided to sell my soul and engage in the most open, transparent pyramid-like scheme on the net. Specifically, I am referring to the Free iPod button in the left column.

I've done a bit of reading (including this Wired article) and this is really a kind-of Frankenstein monster melding of a pyramid scheme with a marketing tool. The way it works is that you go to the link and sign up for a promotional offer (i.e. the marketing part) and if you can get five more people to do the same (i.e. the pyramid part) they'll send you the iPod. I signed up for some home improvement thing for a $1 one-month trial membership. Since it comes with a $20 Lowe's gift card it should be a net gain. After 7 days I'm supposed to get iPod credit and then I can cancel (if I forget it's $8.99/month, so I'd better not forget). Other offers included the omnipresent BMG and Columbia record clubs, a couple of 0% credit cards and a free 30-day eFax trial.

So, the bottom line is that if this looks like something you'd like to try (or if you have five friends you think you can convince to help you get a nice present), give a click. It doesn't have to cost you anything. If you don't want to, that's cool too. I wanted to give it a try but just didn't want to come off like some of those other wankers who beg for PayPal tips simply for doing something they enjoy.

Maybe the Lancet Was Right!

2005-03-22T10:38:00.000-08:00

Yes, after rolling my eyes at the (in)famous study in the British medical journal Lancet that estimated 100,000 Iraqi deaths resulting from the invasion, I have finally seen something that makes me think they might be close in their numbers. Sure, this study was popularly debunked by Slate and others (such as Shannon Love) have gone to great lengths to show how ridiculous the claims are, but a single comment on Brendan Nyhan's post has made me shift my focus. The problem may not be with the data but, rather, that the data in the report is simply being advertised as something it is not.

Arrgh: "THE STUDY DOES NOT COUNT CIVILIANS! It estimates excess deaths. It does not distinguish between combatant and non combatant."

In this light, if one takes into account the size of Saddam's army and the unmerciful pounding dished out upon those who did not desert whole scale, the 100,000 estimate may not be far off. We haven't talked about it much, largely because we don't want to look like cruel bullies, but we literally erased entire divisions in the charge to Baghdad. We applied the first rule of war-fighting and killed the other guy before he could kill us, and we did it extremely well.

Obligatory Blogiversary Entry

2005-03-22T10:17:00.000-08:00

OK, technically I crossed the one-year point on 3/10, but since that was just the "obligatory 'testing' post" I'll count my 3/22/04 entry as the first complete thought expressed. In honor of this day, I took an online English test on commonly confused words. It had some tricky questions, but considering this 'gear managed a pretty good score maybe it wasn't such a tough test after all.

English Genius
You scored 100% Beginner, 86% Intermediate, 93% Advanced, and 77% Expert!
You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Forget Diversity in Blogging, There's More Important Matters

2005-03-17T14:02:00.000-08:00

The latest hubbub and indictment levied against the blogosphere by the MSM (namely Steven Levy) is that it is not only not diverse enough, but nothing is being done to attain and ensure diversity. Jeff Jarvis has already pooh-poohed this notion, but given his admitted xanthachroid credentials we all know he's just part of the problem. But at this point, I must slightly shift focus from diversity in the blogosphere to a few other key areas where the lack of diversity is truly troubling.

For example, while Brother Jed and Sister Cindy are doing their part by taking their five daughters on the road to help them, my personal experience has been that street preaching is a decidedly male bastion. Likewise for remote-control airplane enthusiasts. And can you remember the last time you saw a Science-Fiction convention remotely approaching a 1:20, much less a 1:1, ratio? On a more economic vein, I can't remember the last time I met a freelance computer repair technician that, regardless of testoterone level, wasn't universally recognized as a male of the species. What are these communities doing about their lack of diversity?

OK, Dave, so how do you tie blogging in with street preaching, Sci-Fi or anything else in the last paragraph? It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer once you recognize that every endevour I mentioned, including blogging, is a voluntary activity that anyone can freely engage in. This does not, however, address any individual's particular desire to do so, though, and that is the falicy these diversity bean counters always seem to step in. In my entirely unscientific and non-comprehensive research on the matter, while I can fully agree that the percentage of "big-name" political blogs that are clearly authored by women is much less than 50% my experience has also been that the percentage of "this is what I did today and how I feel about it" blogs I've seen that are clearly authored by women far exceeds 50%. Since blogging is a voluntary act, largely for recreation, perhaps the latter is, for whatever reason, more interesting and of greater appeal for more women.

Before anyone jumps me as anti-woman or sexist, my perceptions in the preceding paragraph are made in a non-attributional manner. I do not perceive an individual's interest in one topic over another as a "good/bad" thing, just a matter of a difference in taste. Some women obviously like talking politics (and many do it well), just as some men like talking fashion (and do it well). The reasons for this apparent variance among women in their areas of interest can be discussed all day long. Some, like La Shawn Barber, may feel it's greatly societal in origin while others may see it as a result of the widely accepted less confrontational, more nurturing and communicative nature attributed to women. Most, like me, probably feel it's a bit of both. In any event, it seems a bit silly for anyone to even insinuate the blogosphere is organized enough to effect some sort of diversity policy to make sure women's voices are heard.

Perhaps the next time Mr. Levy is at one of those fabled posh liberal dinner parties he'll take a moment to stand back against the wall and observe how many little groups of only women or only men gather to discuss topics of common interest. And there will probably be a few groups including both men and women engaged in discussion. Would it occur to him that the circle of mostly men discussing the March NCAA basketball tournament needs more women's voices? For the most part the blogoshpere is a giant never ending dinner party. This group is talking about Iraq, that group is talking about getting dumped and the participants are free to move back and forth, to listen and contribute where their interests lie. Even among the "big players" this is still something they choose to do and it is something anyone else can try. In short, Mr. Levy, go peddle your egalitarian gender-neutral utpoia elsewhere.

Post Script: It doesn't really fit into the flow of the above paragraphs and I didn't want to make a separate post on it, but I did want to say something about a difference of opinion I do have with Jeff that was highlighted by this issue. Namely, his seeming acceptance of the left meme that Harvard President Summers "got in some hot water for [making gross generalizations based on gender]." In my analysis, Larry Summers "got in some hot water" for challenging the dogmatic assumption in academia that the under-representation of women in certain disciplines is necessarilly a result of discrimination and bias. Anytime you are discussing human behavior and conditions that largely depend upon individual volition one must take into consideration the effect of self-selection. Like I touched on above, under-representation by a definable group may be a result of self-selection within that group based upon the desirability of the goal. Physical differences between male and female brains is a documented scientific fact so it seems reasonable to ask if these physical differences may manifest themselves as differences in either inclination or aptitude relative to specific mental disciplines or skills. To ignore this possibility seems, from my engineering perspective, the height of nonacademic pursuit. To attack anyone even mentioning this possibility seems to me not unlike reactionary defense of religious dogma.

Day Late / Dollar Short - USS San Francisco Follow-up

2005-03-17T11:34:00.000-08:00

This is why I'll never be a pro at this. The Diveblog honors me with linkage and much traffic over the weekend, and it takes me this long to capitalize on it and offer thanks. Thank you for reading. Given the relative interest in this topic over almost anything else I've written, I thought I'd try and clear up a few ideas that seemed to be expressed in Diveblog's comments. Chief among these is the question of how the San Fran's movement orders related to the accident. I will briefly touch on the ideas of Mutual Interference and submerged operating areas in this discussion and while I don't think the overview I've provided touches on any classified information it has been a while since I've read the pubs, so any needed bitch-slappin' from NAVs or ANAVs is welcome.

The submarine world has always relied heavily upon the "big ocean - little ship" rule, with the marked exception of something called Mutual Interference, or MI. The idea of MI is that if every submarine were assigned specific areas of water in which it was safe to operate submerged and no other submarine was assigned the same area the potential for underwater collisions is reduced to either unknown submarines (i.e. non-allied) or a result of navigation errors (i.e. someone operating out of area). Even if you do want two submarines operating submerged in the same area (e.g. training exercises), MI can still be avoided by specifying separate safe depth ranges for each submarine in the area (e.g. sub X operates from 0 - 300 Ft and sub Y operates from 400 - 600 Ft). This is all managed by the Submarine Operating Authority (or SUBOPAUTH) for the theater (COMSUBGRU SEVEN in this particular case), coordinating the movement not only of US submarines but acting as the honest broker with allied submarine forces to best ensure safe submerged operation.

There are generally two ways to assign water to a submarine: the operating area and the moving haven. As the names imply, the major difference is that the operating area assigns a static geographic region to the submarine while the moving haven assigns a "moving haven" of safe water along the submarine's track. The moving haven is obviously more restrictive for the submarine, but in cases where the SUBOPAUTH is routing a submarine through waters with lots of other submarines or desires greater control over where and when specifically the submarine will be it has its advantages. From my experience, though, the Pacific is a particularly large ocean with relative few submarines and as of a decade ago the norm was to use operating areas. For this reason, it has always been my assumption that the San Fran was transiting its assigned operating area and not operating in a moving haven as some reports stated. The only bearing this has upon the accident is that if the San Fran had been assigned a moving haven it should have been carefully checked for hazards to navigation by the SUBOPAUTH prior to being assigned. While that would not obviate the Captain and Navigator of their responsibilities for safe navigation, any moving haven that routed the San Fran over the reported "discolored water" should have resulted in the SUBGRU SEVEN Ops boss standing in front of the green table right beside CDR Mooney. On the other hand, if the submarine was assigned a large chunk of ocean in which to operate advising them of hazards to navigation, like some commenters have mentioned, would be an exercise in the ridiculous and a terrible waste of time for the SUBOPAUTH considering that the submarine would likely never have been anywhere near 99%+ of the potential hazards.

So where does this leave us in understanding the findings against CDR Mooney? I must reiterate that I have neither reviewed the charts in questions nor do I have insider information on the investigation. Based upon the statement from COMSUBGRU SEVEN, however, I believe the Admiral's decision was likely based upon a lack of good sounding data in the area, the reported "discolored water" and the availability of alternative courses or routes that not only avoided the discolored water but also made better use of available charted soundings. To some the question of alternative routes may seem like Monday morning quaterbacking and 20/20 hindsight, but the Admiral obviously thought there were steps that could have proactively been taken to either avoid or reduce the risk of the accident. Again, this is just one long-gone boat driver's opinion who hasn't stood OOD in over ten years and then just as a JO, so I definitely do not consider myself the authority but, rather, more of an informed pundit.

Will the Republican Coalition Hold?

2005-02-23T09:26:00.000-08:00

In the wake of reported anti-libertarian tendencies at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), several bloggers have been either speaking of a possible Republican Party schism or assessing the event as not being too significant. Personally, this is just more confirmation of my premise set forth before speaking of the political realignment happening in America.

Today's "big, but moral, government" Republicans represent the influence of conservative socialists moving from the Democrat to the Republican Party. Really, if one is really talking about "neo-cons" and not just using the phrase as a pejorative or an alias for "the Jews" they are really taking about is this group. The ascendancy of activist and fringe elements in the Democrat Party have driven more of these people to align with their moral peers rather than their political peers. An the more the Republican Party moves left politically the more attraction the Party exudes over this group. I think we are approaching a cusp that many in both parties do not seem to fully grok (not saying that I do either). I also think those who better see the totality will be better positioned to nudge the political future of America in the direction of their choosing.

The eventual prize to be won by complete effective Republican Party dominance of the political sphere will most certainly be schism. And that will not be a bad thing. The nature of our election mechanism and especially the "winner-takes-all" presidential race naturally produces a bicameral machine. The lack of an effective national opposition will result in drawing the same from within the party of strength. I say this notional schism will not be bad because I feel the current opposition in American politics is largely moral and I think the country will be better served by returning the opposition to one of a political liberty basis.

In the history of the United States, political alignment has tended to shift between the axis of morality and axis of liberty, often responding to the needs of the times. In early America the important issues were all about how much power should be centrally vested in the federal government. As this question seemed to reach a general consensus (or at least an agree-to difference of opinions), the moral issue of slavery became more central in national politics. Moving forward into the '20s and '30s we see again the question of federal power taking center stage. In the '50s and '60s the issues of social justice and Civil Rights won the podium. But I see those moral issues largely settled and the current danger to the heart of America again being the reach of the government into our personal lives, the liberty to decide our own fates without being serf to any man or government.

The real challenge will be if the Republican coalition can hold together long enough to politically crush the power of those wanting to continue fighting for moral change. Libertarians (little-l) rightfully recognize that neither party represents their interests of restricted government and personal autonomy, but most recognize the marriage of convenience forged with social conservatives is still a necessary evil. But even if the Democrats, as the exist today, cease to be a political power, the success and effect of a libertarian schism from the conservatives does not necessarily spell success for those desiring small government.

Rather than the old axiom that "power corrupts," I tend to subscribe to the idea that power attracts the corruptible. One of the biggest disadvantages of small government, personal liberty advocates is that it is precisely those sorts of people who do not want all the hassle associated with obtaining the power necessary to effect their will. Most politicians seek power precisely because they want to tell others what to do. It is only in rare cases is the motivation provided by a negative desire the match to the motivation by a positive desire. I only hope the libertarians can solve this issue before they jump ship. Otherwise, a Republican schism, regardless of the state of the Democrat Party may only end up completing the cycle and returning us to where we've been.

Left Field Political Prediction 05-2

2005-02-22T13:35:00.000-08:00

I know my first prediction hasn't borne full fruit yet, but I'm in the mood to offer another. We'll go global for this one and say:

Shortly after the trial and prosecution of Saddam (or perhaps in the run-up) a representative of the Ba'ath party in Iraq will openly denounce the former regime and formally dissolve the party, absolving any claim to the government.

We've seen several hints that the Ba'athist hold outs are in negotiations with the Coalition. We've also seen U.S. military spokesmen refer to "insurgents and terrorists," clearly separating them into distinct categories. While I haven't checked the numbers, it also seems that military-style attacks targeting Coalition soldiers have been on the decline. Add in the open talk among Sunnis about now wanting to be a part of the new Iraqi government and it's clear change is in the air. And it's a good thing.

I always felt the U.S. made a mistake when they took Baghdad and noone was home. They should have taken the most senior government official they could find and held a formal surrender ceremony. I think this is a central part of the reported negotiations happening now, because once the Ba'athists formally surrender/quit it removes the air of legitimacy from "insurgent" activities, leaving just criminals, thugs and terrorists on the bad side. And everyone can agree to wiping those elements from the face of the earth. Smart Ba'athists realize their future lies not in Saddam but in getting as big a piece of the political pie as they can and right now is the time to be grabbing. Some sort of formal recognition of an end to hostilities allows them to come out of their holes and participate. They know there is no future in continuing the insurgency, they just have to agree to the way out.

What was FDR Really About?

2005-02-18T09:34:00.000-08:00

Bush's Social Security reform initiative is being brandished as either an anathema to the social promise of the New Deal or a return to FDR's true intentions, depending upon who is being cited. I haven't paid much attention to the "he’s misquoting FDR," "no, he’s misquoting" bickering, but Deinonychus antirrhopus provides the contested FDR quote in the clearest manner I've seen, and while my take is that both sides are not quite on target the Democrats are not even on the firing range.

The quote in question is:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

This specifically outlines a three-part program, which I summarize as follows:

"non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance": I read this to mean "tax today's wage earners to pay for today's retirees."
"compulsory contributory annuities": I read this to mean the government forces you to save for your retirement.
"voluntary contributory annuities": I read this to mean the government facilitates individuals to be able to save more, if they want.

If I were to equate these three to today's situation, it is clear the first equates to the current model of Social Security and I see the third provided by government sponsorship and creation of IRA, 401(k) and other retirement specific accounts. What is clearly missing from the picture is the second category, the government mandated annuity "for those now young and for future generations." That is, unless one stretches the use of "annuity" to mean a big, huge honkin' bundle of money and IOUs that makes payments to millions of beneficiaries for various reasons and has funds coming in and out on a daily basis. Considering that this definition has never traditionally been applied to the word "annuity" and that FDR most certainly would not have recognized it as such, one is left with the only logical conclusion that the specific use of "annuity" means an individual's account into which funds are placed providing a guaranteed return at some future point in time. Gee, sure sounds like the Bush plan to me.

The other intellectually troubling part most Democrats pass by like a Brahmin ignoring an untouchable is that Social Security as we "know and love it" represents the only leg of the triad for which FDR envisioned a twilight. The idea of paying for today's retirees by today's workers is explicitly expressed as a necessary evil for "perhaps thirty years" until annuities of the then current workers had built up to a self-sustaining level. Of course, when Congress failed to institute and protect individual annuities they, of course, never built up to a self-sustaining level. Besides, once Congress got their hands on the Social Security teat did anyone seriously believe they would on their own retire the tax? Additional Social Security entitlements enacted in LBJ's "Great Society" further damned ever pushing this slobbering baboon off the taxpayers' collective backs.

Maybe I'm slow on the take, but perhaps the real danger some traditional Social Security advocates see is that once individual annuities are part of the system and workers can see the real return for their own money in their own account they may start questioning why they're still paying the rest instead of investing it as well.

Of Looking Glasses, Lynch Mobs and Eason Jordan

2005-02-15T09:57:00.000-08:00

Well, Jordan took himself out of the picture and the speculations and recriminations flew. Quite a few have openly wondered why he resigned, given that there was no clear commonly agreed upon smoking gun driving him to do so. Others looked upon the event as just another sign of the latest manifestation of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy^™, aka the Lynch Mob of Conservative Blogs^™.

As to why he left, I believe I can sum that up in two words: plausible deniability. In the intelligence gathering business (and I'm sure it has its analog in law) there is considerable effort spent in establishing cover stories that impart plausible deniability. "No, I wasn't taking pictures of the security measures of your secret facility, I'm just a tourist who is a military nut and have taken pictures all over the world. Just look at my home page where I've got pictures of UK, US, Russian facilities and dozens of others." As many have pointed out, the most likely effect of continued coverage and speculation on Eason's comments was the eventual compelled release of the Davos video. The main thing missing at the time he resigned was a major news organization officially making the request and, as much as the MSM often sticks up for itself, he simply could not rely upon perpetual stone walling. He rode it out waiting to see if it would blow over, but it did not. By removing himself from the issue it becomes old news, and reduces the likelihood anyone with muscle will start asking for that tape. Without the video evidence he maintains his plausible deniability, always able to peddle his story that he was mischaracterized, misquoted and generally abused by the "conservative blogs." Give him a year or two, but I would almost be willing to bet a paycheck that he'll be back in the news business sometime in the future. After all, his future employer has only to reference this plausible deniability in order to "give him the benefit of the doubt" while most likely that damning video will have been long since lost, erased or destroyed.

This silliness about the Lynch Mob of Conservative Blogs (LMCB for short) is as much sour grapes as it is fear. I will largely ignore the hyperbolic terminology, as Eugene Volokh decisively devastates this meme by ably pointing out that in these terms Jordan's resignation constitutes a suicide rather than a lynching since the LMCB really exercised no power at all over either CNN or Jordan. When Steve Lovelady of the CJR Daily refers to the "salivating morons who make up the lynch mob" or responds to Will Collier's commenters in his "take my ball and go home" best by characterizing his foray in the land of the LMCB as "sort of like Alice slipping through the mirror into Wonderland. At first, all you see seems strange and wondrous, upside down, backwards, inside out" though, understanding the emotional motivation behind such vitriol and contempt requires understanding the target. While most have looked upon this reaction as self-preservation fear ("who will the LMCB come after next?"), I see more an issue of frustration and, frankly, envy.

Without a doubt, the high water mark for American Journalism with a capital "J" came in the early '70s, when the pen proved mightier than the sword and the press toppled a man who would be king. The only evidence required that the press itself recognizes this is the glee with which they append the suffix "-gate" onto any silly word possible to elevate even the most minor of incidents to the pantheon of scandals to rival Tammany Hall. Currently, though, they've been busy chasing their own white rabbits and collectively coming up empty. On the face of it, the very idea of a major and respected news organization using obviously fabricated documents to support a story, regardless of how much they believe it, is scandalous behavior of which all journalists should innately be interested. That they, themselves, have invested so much personal and emotional capital into the same story, though, blinds them to the fact that they're just chasing rabbits.

Every single article I've seen bemoaning the way either Rather or Jordan was treated make a point of specifically highlighting that it was "conservative" blogs. Is this because "liberal" blogs do not engage in pointing out what they see as significant issues? Especially in light of the blog raping given former Talon reporter Gannon at the hand of well-known and "respected" left-leaning blogs, anyone familiar with the blogosphere would dismiss this assertion out of hand. Perhaps a reason for this emphasis that is closer to the truth relies upon a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of such criticism. While mainstream "liberal" blogs are still trotting the worn-out 911 conspiracy theories or lamenting Bush's National Guard service or performing the great public service of forcing a conservative "journalist" to give up the pen by dragging his private life through the public mud, the mainstream "conservative" blogs are identifying issue of substance that do not rely upon baseless innuendo or anonymous stories or fanciful scenarios to support the known facts. Perhaps the threat felt by many MSM reporters and pundits is that the LMCB is doing a better job of processing, assimilating and integrating multiple sources of data into a single logical picture and deriving sound conclusions and follow-up questions than they are either capable of doing or willing to do.

In Dance of Electricity, Laurie Anderson tells a charming story about Nikolai Tesla and Thomas Edison and their rivalry. Edison was the prototypical American inventor, disheveled, often dirty and sweaty, always with his sleeves rolled up working hard. Tesla, on the other hand, was always proper, reporting to work in formal atire, long coat, tie, top hat and gloves. According to Anderson, the main crux of Edison's enmity with Tesla derived not only from Tesla's dress, but more so from the fact that he was able to invent so many wonderful things while dressed that way. Draw your own parallel.

My Apologies to Real Lawyers and Law Students

2005-02-09T11:46:00.000-08:00

While I'm not prone to short posts, I had to share that this post I did on the "Torture Memos" is the top item in a Yahoo search on "difference specific and general intent". I certainly claim no special knowledge and blame this on Yahoo and not an intent to deceive on my behalf. More importantly, I publicly deny any liability for bad information obtained from my site and any damages use of said data may cause.

(I hope that covers me)

Eason Jordan and the Truth

2005-02-09T11:20:00.000-08:00

Well, CNN news executive Eason Jordan is rightfully being lambasted for a supremely bone-headed and unfounded accusation of US forces "targeting" journalists that has been attributed to him at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Predictably, the blogosphere is waiting for the MSM to catch up. I've not written on this as so many others seem to have it well in hand, but there is an aspect to this whole story to which I haven't seen a lot of attention paid.

Despite others' conjecture, I do not think the alleged comment (which I believe was made, based upon eye witness accounts and prior similar comments by Mr. Jordan) was done neither out of knee-jerk anti-Americanism nor calculated courting of foreign markets. However, while I believe Mr. Jordan was quite sincere in his beliefs that does not necessarily mean that I believe the claims have much merit of basis in reality. Rather, the root of these beliefs lie in both a marked detatchment from reality as well as an arrogance and inflated sense of self-importance.

Some sharing Mr. Jordan's beliefs have pointed out that more journalists have been killed in Iraq than in previous wars, offering this as evidence that there must be some concerted effort being made to "target" journalists. I won't try to disprove these claims at this time (too lazy to Google), but simply point out logical holes in this position. First, there is a higher density of journalists covering the Iraq campaign than ever before. Throw a rock you'll likely hit someone associated with some news organization. But secondly, the major difference in Iraq is that this is the first time I believe that journalists have regularly tried to cover the fighting from in front of the US troops. Better get ready to put it on your scrolling banners, folks, but if you stand in front of someone shooting you are more likely to be hit than if you stand behind them. To ignore that journalists, either due to competitive pressures or out of a sense of purpose, are positioning themselves in more dangerous locations than ever is to ignore the reality of the very nature of war. After all, if journalists believe their own story that US forces have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians why should it require intentional targeting to kill journalists positioned in even more dangerous position?

In the end, though, it comes down to arrogance and inflated self-importance. How many times have we heard that US forces are not doing enough to protect journalists? As if being a journalist should impart some magical aura that bends bullets' paths, allowing the the sanctified to trod unscathed amongst the carnage to conduct his holy duty of conveying the Truth. The reality is that combat forces in battle work to eliminate threats. Presented with multiple threats it is the responsibility of commanders to prioritize these threats based both upon the severity of the threat and the potential for success. What arrogance it is to believe that US commanders and troops facing gun-toting terrorists and camera-laden journalists would waste any time at all worrying about the journalists. It is much more logical to conclude that journalists are largely falling victim to a "kill them all and let God sort them out" sort of thinking. And, as I said before, depending upon the proximity of the journalist to the action the decision that results in that journalist's death may not be all that wrong.

Because, to the Eason Jordans of the world, it is more important for the individual soldier to take the time and attention and care to distinguish that nine of the men facing him have guns and one has a camera and for him to take care in directing his fire in order to kill one man but not another who is within a few degrees of arc than it is for that soldier to protect himself, his squad, his company and sector. Because, to the Eason Jordans of the world, that reporter is more important than that soldier, his squad, his company and everyone in the entire sector. Because, to the Eason Jordans of the world, that journalist is Truth. So, if that reporter is killed it must have been an intentional effort to suppress the Truth.

It is this sense of self-importance that is taught in the journalism schools. It is this sense of self-importance that tells the journalist that he should be able to stand wherever he wants and should remain unscathed, because he is Truth. In reality, the only thing that distinguishes that journalist from any other random Joe in the area is his ability to effectively communicate (possibly) and access to the means to amplify his voice above others. What the Eason Jordans of the world are missing, though, is that the blog revolution is largely taking away the second distinction, allowing those who really can effectively communicate to do so. There is no monopoly on the Truth. The journalist is really just another guy with a notebook and if his bosses don't want him killed the best advice is not to whine about the people shooting but to first make sure he gets out of the way of the bullets. Because, from a perspective of responsibility, I think that the Eason Jordans of the world, by teaching journalists they are as important as Truth itself and then pushing them to get ever more dynamic, on scene reports, deserve a much larger share than the soldiers who are doing nothing more than should have been expected by placing ordnance on target.

Prediction 05-1 Update

2005-02-07T11:18:00.000-08:00

For what it's worth, I honestly didn't hear about this until after I made my prediction:

On the Democratic side, two candidates have said they intend to seek Frist's seat - U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and state Sen. Rosalind Kurita of Clarksville. - Knoxville News Sentinel

OK, I always thought this was the easy part to predict. My feeling, though, is not universal, as illustrated by Bill Hobbs' recent cite of state Sen. Jim Bryson saying:

"Personally, I dont expect Harold Ford to run. He is a rising star in Congress with a bright future ahead of him. It would be difficult for him to win a statewide race against a solid Republican and, therefore, the race is too big a risk. Look for him to milk the publicity right up to the endthen pull out."

I still say, though, Jr. will grab that third rail and ride it for what it's worth. Social Security reform will happen this term, it's just a matter of if a Democrat will try and get any political mileage out of it or if they will all go down swinging.

Left Field Political Prediction 05-1

2005-02-04T11:13:00.000-08:00

OK, I'm going to start something here and make a political prediction relying upon nothing more than just an idea. As such, while I'll try and keep an eye on it, I certainly don't plan on using it as any evidence of my acute perspicuity should it come to pass. Likewise, I shall entertain no rebuff should it go bust.

Left Field Political Prediction 05-1:

Democrat Congressman Harold Ford Jr. from Tennessee will "cross the aisle" and support President Bush in establishing private Social Security accounts. He will end up one of Bush's major bipartisan partners and be invited to the signing of the final Bill.

Harold Ford Jr. is one of the Democrat Party's rising stars and most certainly has his sights on higher things. Being African-American and part of the Ford political dynasty, he has never been seriously challenged in his District since his daddy decided to will the House seat to him in 1996 at the ripe old age of 26. I'd be very surprised, though, if he did not at least look at the Democrat ticket to fill Senate Majority Leader Frist's seat when he leaves the chamber in 2006. But to make the leap to a more national position will require a more national profile. His play in 2002 for Minority Leader of the House with a comparatively centrist, pragmatic position never had much chance for success and I always assumed this effort was more marketing than anything else. Being a Democrat and a Ford is, however, can be a bit of a liability in Tennessee politics on a whole. In order to seriously challenge the Republicans for the Senate seat he has to distance himself from the left and establish his bona fides as a centrist Democrat to Tennessee conservatives.

His record, to date, has not been bad on this front. He's generally supported Bush in the GWOT, only occasionally taking the odd political swipe. He's sponsored several tax bills aimed at increasing deductions of education expenses and raising the estate tax threshold, even if none seem to have made it out of committee. He has generally expressed agreement that ownership and empowerment go hand-in-hand and that economic prosperity serves as the best means to uplift people. In short, had he been born to a different family he could just as easily have landed in the Republican Party. What he hasn't had, though, is a major political victory.

Social Security reform is his chance to distinguish himself and break out from the pack. The President is getting good reviews on the matter of individual accounts and seems to have hit a line drive in shining a spotlight on the unfairness of the current system to African-Americans, a spotlight the Democrats can't extinguish without opening themselves to a lot of criticism. I think idea of keeping and being able to pass their own money on to their children will continue to win the public over to the President's general proposal. This spotlight, though, can also allow a savvy African-American pol like Junior to cross the aisle with moral authority and purpose without having to sacrifice his claims of loyalty to the Party. When it's all over and done with he not only gets to tell conservative Tennessee voters he sided with the President in reforming Social Security, he also gets to tell his Democrat constituency that he helped keep Bush's more radical right-wing tendencies in check. It's a win-win, gives him the national attention he needs and makes him a damn near shoe-in for the Senate in 2006.

Denial or Forced Perspective?

2005-02-01T12:43:00.000-08:00

Evaluating the success of the elections in Iraq have created a boom market in punditry on all sides of the political equation. I fall into the camp that can't see past Sunday's performance as anything other than a resounding success and another step foward for the Iraqi people in their desire for freedom, for the American people in their mission to secure a future free from terrorist threat and for the people of the world who, in many cases in spite of themselves, stand to reap the benefits of a more free and secure planet. At possibly the other extreme you can find the rationl minds at Democratic Underground bemoaning those poor Iraqis who were fooled by the "Chimperor" into voting. What then of a more moderate, dare I say centric response?

Mark Brown bravely asks "What if Bush was right about Iraq?" The Washington Post asks "Who Gets Credit in Iraq?" which logically seems to imply an acknowledgement that something for which one would want credit actually happened. But even while both of these seem to imply some degree of common perception with us Bush supporters, a read of the contents leaves me not so sure.

Mr. Brown's article contains many poisoned gems, such as (all emphasis added):

characterizing the Iraqi enthusiasm for the election as the "first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people"
musing on "this brave new world we are forcing on [the Iraqis]"
the obligatory question if "Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out"

I should long ago have shed any sense of surprise at the racist condensention of the left, but something this strident still flabbergasts me. Why, in God's name, wouldn't freedom mean something to Iraqis? Why should they have to proove to you or anyone else they don't want to live under a totalitarian regime? How does a phrase like that not only get formed in the mind but committed to paper by an accomplished writer like this?

The Washington Post's piece is even more fun filled. After being forced to recognize the significance of the elections and acknowledge that many view it as a vindication of Bush's policies, they unquestioningly jump to the other aisle with the following claim:

"The more common view is that the election vindicated the political vision of Ayatollah Ali Sistani" (emphasis added)

"More common" among whom? I'm not the final authority, but I've not seem this idea put forward anywhere else. For a "common view" it certainly is keeping covert. Oh, a reporter from the UK opined that "[t]he reason there was a poll [Sunday] was that the U.S., facing an increasingly intensive war against the five million Sunnis, dared not provoke revolt by the 15 to 16 million Shia." In that case it must be not only the most common but also the most accurate assesment. Never mind that Bush has not only stated from the beginning that our goal was to hold elections as soon as feasible and that he adamently opposed any delay once the schedule had been set.

Are we again seeing the ascendancy of the Democrats' well-developed defense by denial? One might easilly look to theabove examples as the political left yet again denying the obvious when it rebuts their position. I believe, however, we are seeing instead more evidence of the forced perspective they impose upon themselves. Let's review the base assumptions upon which the above commentary is built:

the United States is wrongfully imposing its will upon the Iraqi people
the Iraqi campaign was always fated to fail and America woul dhave to retreat in shame
the President (and his croneys) never really intended to give Iraqis their freedom from the start
the vast majority of Iraqis want nothing more than for the US to go away and leave them alone

Where have I heard this before? Oh, right, these are bin Ladin's talking points, almost item by item. Not to imply the left as a whole supports bin Ladin, but, rather, to offer that they find him more honest, accurate and reliable than the current Administration. Now, would a reasonable person see this as more indicative of a problem with the Administration or a problem with its critics' perception and perspective?

Mark Brown is still wondering "about a timetable for [Bush's] exit strategy," never grasping that the only acceptable "exit strategy" is tied not to a timetable but to an event: victory. The Post says that Bush's adversaries "believe that Iraqi voters have seized the elections as the best means of thwarting U.S. domination of the country." Despite Mark Brown's consiliatory lede, both articles still rely upon their old assumptions that are rooted in the other assumption that Bush is bad and he can do no good. Perhaps denial is at the root, but the real symptom evidenced is a complete unwillingness to even question the wisdom and validity of their own assumptions. If this is denial or monumental arrogence, it still has the same effect.

Among the pundits, though, I think the most accurate prediction was actually made by Jon Stewart, when he said

"What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may ... implode."

I don't think he'll be alone.

(hat tip: link meister Glenn Reynolds)

Remember the San Francisco

2005-01-31T12:11:00.000-08:00

Gentleman, this is what happens when steel meets rock at high speed.

A few answers I can give for anticipated possible questions:

Q: What's that blue tarp doing there?
A: The Navy wants to provide as much information as possible, consistent with our nation's history of openness, without giving away classified information. Under that tarp is one of the ship's sonar arrays. I'm sure it is extremely mangled as well, but there is no reason to provide open source photographs to whomever may be interested in its shape, size, configuration, wiring, placement, etc.

Q: It says they hit a sea mountain. Why didn't they detect it before they hit?
A: The ship was reported to be traveling at Flank speed (i.e. maximum speed). I will assume the reader understands that submarines (except research vessels) are not outfitted with visual ports as they are of minimal value and degrade watertight integrity. I will also assume the reader understands the principles of active sonar (i.e. ping and listen). Above certain speeds the utility of active sonar is degraded by the fact that the water rushing over the hull is so loud you can't hear the echo anyway. Additionally, fathometers (i.e. depth finders) are tuned assuming a certain speed range. If you go too fast you basically pass the reflected sound before it reaches you. Short answer: there was no way to detect it given the operting parameters.

Q: Well, isn't it on the chart.
A: The reports have emphasized it was an uncharted sea mount, but it is important to understand this in context. Some places in the world have been traversed so much and the depths of the water have been sounded so often that the charted soundings have been checked and verified to the point of near absoluteness (for example, the Mediteranean Sea). Other bodies of water, however, have been relatively seldomly traveled and sometimes not by ships well equipped to accurately determine the soundings. In the Arctic Ocean, for example, the Navy posesses several classified charts since the line of soundings visible clearly indicate the paths our submarines have traversed. Likewise, in parts of the South Pacific an entire chart may have a couple of dozen clear lines of soundings, some literally from Capt. Cook, and the rest of the chart will simply be blank. I haven't looked at the location the accident occurred, but it would not surprise me to see a low sounding density.

Q: If that's the case, what were they doing going so fast? Wasn't it dangerous?
A: I don't know specifically what they were doing other than conducting a high speed transit, a fairly routine activity. If there were circumstances that should have advised against the chosen course and speed the investigation should reveal them. And yes, it was dangerous, but submarining is itself a dangerous and often thankless profession. Comparatively speaking, running at a Flank bell in open ocean is so much safer than any number of other, more fun, things that submarines do it hardly merits mention. My assumption at this point, absent further information, is that the dice just came up wrong for the San Fran on that particular day.

CDR Mooney and his crew lived up to the history of the force, brought everybody home but one and did it on their own power. The Captain has been reassigned during the investigation, as is customary in these cases, but regardless of any possible errors leading up to the event (and I've seen nothing so far to indicate there were any), his peformance in crisis was second to none. One thing that has always defined the submarine force is its brotherhood and cohesion. Chief among the reasons for this is the increadible interdependence of each crew member of every other. Too often when there is a casualty abord a submarine it is an all-hands evolution. While all submariners share the loss of MM2 Ashley, they also know how close San Fran came to going three section with Thresher and Scorpion.

Just Doing My Job Ma'am

2005-01-14T07:39:00.000-08:00

I tire of all the tales about the homophobic DoD hunting down and kicking out its finest just because they're gay, especially when it's not true. In the article by Deroy Murdock, Pentagon's ouster of valuable translators continues, a piece that received the attention of both Instapundit and Evan Coyne Maloney, the only specific case of discharge cited is described below (emphasis added):

"In November, after a year of increasing discomfort, he handed his commander, Capt. James Finnochiaro, a written statement of his homosexuality. Finkenbinder was honorably discharged last month."

OK, let me get this straight. Operating under the very well publicized and known policy that has come to be known as "don't ask - don't tell," Sgt. Finkenbinder decides to "tell" and is then outraged that the the Army responds as it is legally obliged to do. Yes, you read me right, legally obliged. You see, under federal law, it is still illegal for known homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces. Now before anyone says "see, I told you the DoD was homophobic" let me remind you of one key point. The DoD can set its policy, but only Congress can change the law.

While it may be true that many in the DoD and in the services themselves don't want to open the door wide to openly gay service members, some out of prejudice but most, I believe, out of sincere concern for good order, discipline and force effectiveness, if Congress changed the law tomorrow I have no doubt every branch would almost immediately form working groups to develop both training and programs to make it work. Because that's what the DoD and the Armed Services do, follow the orders of the civilian leadership in the government.

So why, then, whenever you read a story about poor Timmy who got booted out for violating the terms of his contract the disdain, outrage and indignation is always directed at the Army, Navy, DoD, etc? I think it's because of two main reasons. First, for many on the left end of the political perspective, the region most gay-rights activists call home, the "Military" represents all that is evil and scary in the US government. The power, the secrecy, the guns and killing, I mean, they must be the "bad guys," right? This then makes them the well spring from which all bad things politically must have their genesis. The second echoes back the truism I mentioned earlier: the DoD follows orders. As such, when the people they represent and serve hurl ad hominem attacks, they are more like to just take it and move on.

So, my recommendation to all who don't like the "don't ask - don't tell" policy is to stop wasting your time crying about members who do "tell" and then get what was promised when they signed up. And certainly stop trying to present it as if it were a witch hunt or pogram. If you really don't like it, dig in and fight the battle where it can be won, in the legislature. Because from where I stand, if you're not addressing the issue to someone who can do something about it you're just bitching.

Rathergate Report: Lacking Meat or Just the Facts?

2005-01-10T13:12:00.000-08:00

Well, there really is just one topic today, and if we were to witness the Second Coming, complete with CNN 24/7 coverage of the Whore of Babylon's arrival, at least half of the blogosphere wouldn't loose its step in pouring over and analyzing the (too) long anticipated report on Dan Rather's fateful 60 Minutes report.

Many blogs that tend to line up right of the line (or do so quite proudly) are left hungry for more striking findings from the report. For example, Hugh Hewitt uses the term "whitewash" and characterizes the language used as "an abdication by the Panel of the central question." Jim Geraghty (at the now anachronistically-named "Kerry Spot") concludes the investigation "did CBS and the readers of this report a disservice for not addressing [the political bias] issue a little tougher." Interestingly, while I do not regularly read more left-leaning blogs regularly, I did take a quick tour and the only mention I saw of the report was Oliver Willis' use of it to draw a (faulty) comparison between the four who lost their jobs at CBS over a "faulty report" and the fact the no one has lost their in the White House over "faulty intelligence." Go figure.

I'll admit on the front end that I haven't read the entire report, but the parts I've seen seem to be very focused on the facts uncovered. The checking and verification practices normally used to get a story like this to air that were not followed in this case constitute findings of facts. Why those practices weren't followed constitute opinion. I believe the clear decision to try and stick to facts was chosen not only to satisfy their employer (CBS) but also to try and create a document that was, in its conclusions, largely unassailable by both left and right. In short, I see this report not as the final word, but more as an agreed to framework within which all can begin discussion of opinion.

For example, while the report doesn't offer the red meat of a finding of political partisanship so strongly desired, it does offer sufficient agreed to facts that supporting such a claim with this document isn't that difficult. While not directly citing political bias, it does mention "a zealous belief in the truth of the segment [that] led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles." What, then could have been the cause for this zealous belief, a belief Dan Rather still has and expresses? Political bias is, of course, the most logical.

Do I think this report is the end-all, be-all wonder of the times? No, but I think it may be the best that could realistically have been hoped for. Personally, I would like nothing better than everyone in the entire CBS news organization that touched the story to be up in front of a grand jury answering for attempted election fraud, but I don't think there is such a crime, nor am I comfortable with a government that can do such a thing. It really is a no-win situation. That is not to say, however, that CBS doesn't loose too. Granted there are lots of people who base their news viewership upon who wears the nicest tie or has the best legs, and nothing that was ever to come from this report would have much affect upon them. But among the informed consumers of news, and especially network news and news programs, this report is just another reminder that these people can't be trusted.

The report certainly isn't perfect, but then again what is?

Slight of Hand, Misdirection and the Art of Rebuttal

2005-01-06T13:58:00.000-08:00

Instapundit notes a recent LAT OpEd, in which Max Boot reviews Osama and Voices of Iraq and levels some well-earned scorn toward the Hollywood establishment that conveniently turns a blind eye toward anything outside of its preconceived model of consciousness or cool. Glenn shows his evenhandedness by also citing Matthew Yglasias' rebuttal, but the real point here is that Matt's argument is largely against a strawman, and not even very strong for having picked his own target.

Matt's direct response to the statement that Max didn't "recall a single Hollywood feminist expressing gratitude to the U.S. military or its commander in chief for the liberation of Afghan women" is to take two specific individuals Max uses as examples of Hollywood feminists (Streisand and Sarandon) and pull out two minor events from Dec 2001 as proof of their patriotism, a matter never even mentioned by Max. Besides, if the best example Yglasias can find of Barbara Streisand's patriotism is that she sang a song for 9/11 victims two months after the event and that she "removed anti-Bush remarks in the interests of 'national unity'" the following month, well, I really wouldn't put that at the top of my resumé. Likewise, noting that Susan Sarandon raised money for the women of Afghanistan, 9/11 victims or even cured the common cold still doesn't do anything to rebut the personal recollection of Mr. Boot when it comes to the chirping crickets heard from Hollywood feminists concerning the role the US and specifically the Armed Forces played in securing women's' rights in that country.

Another strawman set up by Matt is "[t]he notion that the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in order to help Afghan women," as this is a notion never presented nor even implied by Max's piece. In any event, even though the Allies in WWII did not go into Germany to free the Jews from the Concentration Camps none would deny that this noble event was a direct byproduct of Allied military action. Nor would they seem inclined to cast aspersion or scorn on the liberation simply because it was not the main purpose of the action. Why, then, is the bestowing of human rights upon the women of Afghanistan held differently?

Matt then continues his snipe hunt by defending feminists against yet another strawman argument, that Max somehow implied "feminists are or were unconcerned with the fate of Afghan women." Even if this was something Yglasias dealt with the the winter of 2001-2002, it seems completely irrelevant to Max's statement. Let's look, however, at where Matt directs us.

The Feminist Majority does indeed have articles and interest in the status and welfare of Afghan women prior to 2001. There is, however, a dramatic change in language that happens when they suddenly begin speaking of women's' roles in "post-Taliban" Afghanistan. Unbelievably, their page on forming Action Teams to Help Afghan Women discusses the "restoration of constitutional democracy in Afghanistan" and the "rebirth of a peaceful, stable, and democratic Afghanistan," (emphasis added) as if this was the natural order in that country before the Taliban mysteriously disappeared.

Looking at another prominent feminists group, NOW, shows their history on Afghan women to be equally disjointed. In March 1999 they had a call to action to stop the abuse of women and girls in Afghanistan, only to suddenly begin advocating helping women "rebuild Afghan democracy" in the post-Taliban government. There it is again, the mysterious disappearance of the Taliban with nary a public release or even milk carton marking its passing. In fact, NOW's latest concerning Afghanistan is a complaint that an organization it disagrees with, the Independent Woman's Forum (IWF), received a government grant to help educate Afghan women in democracy.

Matt does a mediocre job of setting up strawmen and throwing rocks at them, even if a few miss wide of the mark. What he does not do, however, is produce a single counter example to rebut Max's recollection.

Where Can We Get One of Those?

2005-01-06T11:45:00.000-08:00

Michael Munger recently wrote of Adrienne Clarkson, the Governor General of Canada, informing those of in the dark that she represents the "Queen's interests." Now, leaving aside for the moment that as far as I was aware Canada no longer owes alegience to the crown, I still was not clear on what practical function these "interests" assumed, so cruised over to the website for her stately manor and discovered the enumerated responsibilities include:

"[T]he Governor General is responsible for ensuring that Canada always has a Prime Minister" - Thank God for the GG, as we only have the Constitution and election law to make sure we have a President.
"After an election, the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers take the oath of office at Rideau Hall." - Heaven forbid they do it, perhaps, in the Parliament building.
"Before a diplomat can work in Canada, he or she must present his credentials to the Governor General in a formal ceremony in the ballroom of Rideau Hall." - OK, the GG serves as a sort of file clerk for keeping track of diplomats.
"The Governor General recognizes the achievements of outstanding Canadians with honours, decorations for bravery and service, and awards." - Which, considering their predominence on the world stage must keep the GG inordinately busy year-round.

The cited web page even conveniently asks the real question for us: "Many people wonder why Canada has both a Governor General (representing the head of state) and a Prime Minister (the head of government)." While letting us know that "[o]ne reason is that the Governor General can represent all Canadians as a neutral symbol removed from partisan concerns and the daily affairs of government," they never get around to providing any others.

So it seems the people of Canada get a representative that is appointed for them by a hereditary monarch from another country and to whom is given a large estate in which they formally perform the duties of a file clerk all for the small sum of $19M per annum. What a bargain!