*-*-*-*-*
What if Al Gore had won in 2000? Looking at the actual events since that election, and changing things not very much at all from the actual events, here’s how the world might have run:
2001
January 6 - The U.S. Congress, presided over by Vice President Al Gore as President of the Senate, certifies Gore’s controversial Electoral College victory, and thus as the winner of 2000 presidential election.
January 11 - The Federal Trade Commission approves the merger of AOL and Time Warner to form AOL Time Warner.
January 23-25 - UN war crimes prosecutor Del Ponte demands that Serbia hand over Slobodan Milošević.
February 9 - American submarine USS Greeneville accidentally strikes and sinks Japanese fishing vessel Ehime-Maru. President Gore personally apologizes and promises US reparations.
February 19 - A Oklahoma City bombing museum is dedicated at the Oklahoma City National Memorial. President Gore says America must clean its own house before looking to judge other nations about terrorism.
February 20 - FBI agent Robert Hanssen is arrested and charged with spying for Russia for 15 years.
April 1 - An EP-3E American spyplane collides with a Chinese fighter jet and is forced to make an emergency landing in Hainan, China. President Gore apologizes to the PRC and orders the U.S. Navy to pay half of a promised $75 Million penalty to the widow of Chinese pilot, Wang Wei. Gore also forbids US flights within 50 miles of the China coast without express exception. The government of Taiwan protests the action.
June 5 - Senator Jim Jeffords leaves the Republican party, an act which changes control of the United States Senate from the Republican party to the Democratic party
August 2 – Frank Lautenberg confirmed as the new FBI director.
September 6 - United States v. Microsoft: The United States Justice Department announces that it was adding additional charges, and will continue to seek harsh antitrust penalties.
September 11 - Around 3,000 killed in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and rural Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
September 17 - The New York Stock Exchange reopens following the terrorist attacks in New York.
September 18 - The 2001 anthrax attacks commence as anthrax letters are mailed from Princeton, New Jersey to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, the New York Post, and the National Enquirer.
October 4 - First case of anthrax in the US (attack) is announced by federal officials. President Gore orders the USPS shut down “until we can restore confidence in the mail.” The Dow plunges 600 points in one day on the news.
October 5 – Bill Clinton is appointed to be the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
November 12 - In New York City, American Airlines Flight 587 crashes minutes after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport, killing all 260 on-board. The FAA, reportedly on orders from the White House, suspends all civilian international flights for ten days.
November 12 – Terrorists bomb the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. President Gore is outraged, but orders no retaliation.
November 13 –President Gore submits the Islam Civil Rights Bill to Congress, demanding special protection for Muslims in the United States against “the rising threat of hate crimes”.
December 2 – Dynegy offers to buy out Enron for $5.6 Billion.
December 13 – President Gore announces he is sending a delegate to sign the Kyoto Emissions Treaty in Kobe, Japan.
December 22 - A Paris-Miami flight is destroyed in mid-air by a bomb carried aboard by a terrorist, later identified as Richard Reid.
December 27 - The People's Republic of China is granted permanent normal trade status with the United States.
2002
January 9 - The Dynegy/Enron deal falls through. Enron announces it has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. The United States Department of Justice announces it is going to pursue a criminal investigation of Enron.
January 16 – The Washington Times reveals that the White House was involved in negotiations between Dynegy and Enron, and pushed hard to make the deal go through.
January 16 - The UN Security Council unanimously establishes an arms embargo and the freezing of assets of Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, and the Taliban.
January 22 - AOL Time Warner brings a federal suit against Microsoft seeking damages. Kmart Corp becomes the largest retailer in American history to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
March 1 – China invades Pakistan, “for security of the people”. President Gore has no comment. Israel breaks relations with China
March 19 – China invades Afghanistan. France says it regrets the action. PM Tony Blair warns that NATO regards the action with “grave concern”.
May 12 - Former President Jimmy Carter arrives in Cuba for a five-day visit with Fidel Castro becoming the first President of the United States, in or out of office, to visit the island since Castro's 1959 revolution. President Gore jokes “I wish I could be there with you”
July 14 - During Bastille Day celebrations, Jacques Chirac is assassinated; his murderers appear to be Arab, but are not immediately identified.
July 21 - Telecommunications giant WorldCom files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the largest such filing in United States history. The Dow Jones Industrial Average falls below 6,000. The Fed warns that the recession is becoming steeper.
September 12 – An unconfirmed report links the Gore Administration with the Enron scandal. The Gore Admnistration denies the reports, which are finding attention on the web and in the New York Times.
September 22 - The German federal election leaves Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, his Social Democrats and the Greens in power
October 2 – Terrorists bomb the family residence in Riyadh, Suadi Arabia.
October 12 - Bali bombing: Terrorists detonate massive bombs in two nightclubs in Kuta, Bali, killing 202 and injuring over 300.
October 24 - The Beltway snipers are arrested. President Gore demands stronger gun control laws. The Gore Administration repeatedly refuses to discuss the growing Enron scandal, now gaining interest in the mainstream press.
November 5 - U.S. Elections: The Republican Party maintains control of the House of Representatives and regains control of the Senate by a wide margin. The House is now 75% Republican, and 58 seats in the Senate now belong to the GOP. The Dow rallies, at 5,300 points.
November 8 - Iraq conducts manuevers, shows previously unknown troop numbers and arms. Questions rise about how and where Iraq gained these arms. China warns of a Middle East crisis.
November 21 - NATO Summit in Prague - Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia invited to become NATO members.
November 25 - President Gore signs the Homeland Savings Act into law, scaling down existing military forces and promising to “end this insane arms race”.
2003
January 30 -The leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and the Czech Republic release a statement, the letter of the eight, demonstrating concern of Iraq’s intentions in the Middle East.
January 30 - The Turkish parliment signs a “working agreement” with China for cooperative military exercises.
March 12 - WHO issues a global alert on SARS.
March 15 - Hu Jintao becomes president of the People's Republic of China, replacing Jiang Zemin. President Gore immediately places a congratulatory call to the new president.
March 19 – For the third time in American History, the House of Representatives impeaches a President. President Gore is impeached for alleged personal involvement in Obstruction of Justice in the Enron Scandal.
May 12 – The Senate trial of President Gore begins.
May 17 – For the first time in American History, a sitting President of the United States is convicted in an Impeachment trial, and is dismissed from office. Former Vice President Joe Lieberman is sworn in as President, immediately afterwhich Chief Justice Rehquist resigns his seat on the U.S. Supreme Court in protest of Gore’s conviction. President Lieberman nominates Hillary Clinton to become Vice President.. Despite rancorous hearings, Clinton is confirmed as Vice President.
October 7 - 2003 California recall: Voters recall Governor Gray Davis from office and elect Arnold Schwarzenegger to succeed him.
October 15 - China launches Shenzhou 5, their first manned space mission.
November 15 - Two car bombs explode simultaneously in Istanbul, Turkey targeting two synagogues, killing at least 25 people and wounding more than 300; Al-Qaida claims responsibility.
December 26 - A massive earthquake devastates southeastern Iran. Over 40,000 people are reported to have been killed in the city of Bam.
December 28 – Iraq invades Iran. China mobilizes troops.
2004
February 10 - The French National Assembly votes to pass a law banning religious items and clothing from schools.
February 12 - Same sex marriage in the United States: The City and County of San Francisco begins issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as an act of civil disobedience. President Lieberman applauds the ruling.
February 20 – Iraq seizes Teheran. The Federation of Arab States (FAS) is announced, uniting Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon under Baath control.
March 2 – George W. Bush effectively clinches the U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination.
March 17 - Organized violence breaks out over two days in Kosovo. Nineteen people are killed, 139 Serbian homes are burned, schools and businesses are vandalized, and over 30 orthodox monasteries and churches are burned and destroyed. President Lieberman says he “deplores the violence”, but orders no retaliation.
March 29 - Largest expansion of NATO to date, allowing Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia into the organization.
April 17 - Israeli invades Lebanon. In a surprise, China commends the action, and warns Iraq against “imperialist ambitions”.
June 5 - Former President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, dies at age 93.
August 3 - Statue of Liberty reopens after security improvements.
August 6 - A United Nations report that blames the government of Sudan for crimes against humanity in Darfur is released.
August 21 – terrorist kill 43 athletes and coaches at the Olympics in Athens, in a bombing attack.
September 1 - Chechen rebels take between 1,000 and 1,500 people hostage, mostly children, in a school in Beslan, Northern Ossetia. The hostage-takers demand the release of Chechen rebels imprisoned in neighbouring Ingushetia and the independence of Chechnya from Russia.
September 2 - The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 1559 calling for the removal of all foreign troops from Lebanon. This measure is largely aimed at Syrian troops.
September 3 - Russian forces end the siege at a school in Beslan, Northern Ossetia. At least 335 people (among which at least 32 of the approximately 40 hostage-takers) have been killed and at least 700 people have been injured.
November 2 - U.S. presidential election: Republican George W. Bush defeats President Joe Lieberman. Republicans make more gains in the House and Senate, controlling nearly 82% of the House, and 74% of the Senate.
December 8 - The biggest Chinese PC producer Lenovo announces its plan to purchase IBM's global PC business, making it the third largest world PC maker after Dell and Hewlett-Packard.
December 11 - Tests show that Ukrainian opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with a large dose of dioxin.
December 13 - Software giants Oracle Corporation and PeopleSoft to merge in a $10.3 billion deal, creating the second largest maker of business applications software.
2005
January 20 - George W. Bush is inaugurated in Washington D.C. 45th President of the United States.
Some twists, but in the end, not that different. It’s not as though the events make the man, or that Americans can be fooled forever.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Disaster Response - The Basics
++++++++++++++
As various chattering make-up jobs on television and radio express their opinion of the job done to help the victims of Katrina, it is sadly obvious that meny don't understand how things are meant to work. Many TV anchors do not understand even the basic points, so I will mention it briefly here.
Disasters, in terms of relief, have five stages:
[] Preparation and planning
[] Pre-positioning
[] First responders and evacuation
[] Survival aid
[] Restoration and rebuilding
The first stage is critical. Every group which means to help must plan for what they will do, in advance. The people staffed, their assignment and authority, the tools and supplies provided, all need to planned ahead of time. In the case of Katrina, the basic levels of planning were at the LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL level. All three levels had to work to be effective.
As for pre-positioning, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, the authorities understood that the weather would reduce mobility as soon as the storm hit, so supplies and personnel had to put in place ahead of the storm, during the critical window between alert of the storm and its initial impact.
The first responders have two main duties; get people away from danger, and perform life-saving tasks. This falls again on three levels - the LOCAl authorities, who have the most people on-scene at the start and who know the terrain and conditions best; the STATE authorities, who have better equipment and supplies; and the FEDERAL authorities, who have specialized equipment for critical situations, but who must be told by local and state authorities what is needed, and where.
Survival aid is set up at aid stations, and the critical issue here is coordination between the on-scene authorities and the groups bringing aid.
And finally, federal aid in disasters after the initial rescues is generally focused on financial and administrative aid, which is much different from the short-term material needs, which are generally addressed by the on-scene local and state authorities.
People will have different views of how each group did its job, but these simple categories help illustrate what went right, what went wrong, and why.
As various chattering make-up jobs on television and radio express their opinion of the job done to help the victims of Katrina, it is sadly obvious that meny don't understand how things are meant to work. Many TV anchors do not understand even the basic points, so I will mention it briefly here.
Disasters, in terms of relief, have five stages:
[] Preparation and planning
[] Pre-positioning
[] First responders and evacuation
[] Survival aid
[] Restoration and rebuilding
The first stage is critical. Every group which means to help must plan for what they will do, in advance. The people staffed, their assignment and authority, the tools and supplies provided, all need to planned ahead of time. In the case of Katrina, the basic levels of planning were at the LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL level. All three levels had to work to be effective.
As for pre-positioning, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, the authorities understood that the weather would reduce mobility as soon as the storm hit, so supplies and personnel had to put in place ahead of the storm, during the critical window between alert of the storm and its initial impact.
The first responders have two main duties; get people away from danger, and perform life-saving tasks. This falls again on three levels - the LOCAl authorities, who have the most people on-scene at the start and who know the terrain and conditions best; the STATE authorities, who have better equipment and supplies; and the FEDERAL authorities, who have specialized equipment for critical situations, but who must be told by local and state authorities what is needed, and where.
Survival aid is set up at aid stations, and the critical issue here is coordination between the on-scene authorities and the groups bringing aid.
And finally, federal aid in disasters after the initial rescues is generally focused on financial and administrative aid, which is much different from the short-term material needs, which are generally addressed by the on-scene local and state authorities.
People will have different views of how each group did its job, but these simple categories help illustrate what went right, what went wrong, and why.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Should Louisiana Re-District?
[x]
Reader Jimmy Nix had an intriguing question:
“It would appear that there are many elected officials that no longer represent many voters in Louisiana. It seems likely that those voters will stay in whatever state they spend the next several months or years. Should Louisiana look at redistricting next year? The political and demographic makeup of Louisiana has truly changed overnight.”
Speaking for myself, I’d say ‘no’ in the immediate future. In the first place, because so many of the victims are in flux right now, and there’s no telling where a lot of folks will end up settling down. Also, with so many Louisianans coming to Texas, can you imagine the games certain Democrats would play with trying to get Texas redistricted, as well?
Reader Jimmy Nix had an intriguing question:
“It would appear that there are many elected officials that no longer represent many voters in Louisiana. It seems likely that those voters will stay in whatever state they spend the next several months or years. Should Louisiana look at redistricting next year? The political and demographic makeup of Louisiana has truly changed overnight.”
Speaking for myself, I’d say ‘no’ in the immediate future. In the first place, because so many of the victims are in flux right now, and there’s no telling where a lot of folks will end up settling down. Also, with so many Louisianans coming to Texas, can you imagine the games certain Democrats would play with trying to get Texas redistricted, as well?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
The Blame Game, Again
000
If you can’t say something nice about someone, well the Washington Post may want you to do their polling.
“A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last Friday illustrates the point vividly. Just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved. About two in three Republicans rated the federal government's response as good or excellent, while two in three Democrats rated it not so good or poor.”
What a shock, huh?
btw, notice the poll came out six days ago, long before Blanco and Nagin started letting slip the facts of the matter...
If you can’t say something nice about someone, well the Washington Post may want you to do their polling.
“A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last Friday illustrates the point vividly. Just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved. About two in three Republicans rated the federal government's response as good or excellent, while two in three Democrats rated it not so good or poor.”
What a shock, huh?
btw, notice the poll came out six days ago, long before Blanco and Nagin started letting slip the facts of the matter...
Lookie Here
\\\\\\\\
Anybody who likes to look up stuff has to love the Meta-Search. But these days it can get tiresome, trying to find relevant commentary on a topic. Well, have I got some words for you:
Technorati
Feedster
IceRocket
BlogPulse
These and several others are vying to be, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, the “Google of Blogs”.
Technology is my friend.
Anybody who likes to look up stuff has to love the Meta-Search. But these days it can get tiresome, trying to find relevant commentary on a topic. Well, have I got some words for you:
Technorati
Feedster
IceRocket
BlogPulse
These and several others are vying to be, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, the “Google of Blogs”.
Technology is my friend.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
An Insensitive Thought
-*-*-*-*-
OK, I will say in advance this is not a sensitive thing to say right now, but it's rolling around in my head and I have to post it to get it off my mind:
New Orleans had a lot of mediums and fortune tellers and psychics. Wouldn't you think, if they knew their business, they'd have been the first people out of town?
I guess, like Mayor Nagin, they just had other things on their mind that weekend.
OK, I will say in advance this is not a sensitive thing to say right now, but it's rolling around in my head and I have to post it to get it off my mind:
New Orleans had a lot of mediums and fortune tellers and psychics. Wouldn't you think, if they knew their business, they'd have been the first people out of town?
I guess, like Mayor Nagin, they just had other things on their mind that weekend.
Just The Facts
\~/\~/\~/\~/\~/\~/\~/
Readers may recall that I tried to put some perspective on Katrina with a timeline. A much better timeline, built on verifiable links, can be found here.
Rick Moran has done an outstanding job, and his evidence is absolutely compelling.
Readers may recall that I tried to put some perspective on Katrina with a timeline. A much better timeline, built on verifiable links, can be found here.
Rick Moran has done an outstanding job, and his evidence is absolutely compelling.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
The Rage of Fools
**********************
I’m tired, I admit it. The week past, with all the images of personal grief and loss has worn me out, and the finger-pointing by so many people, however predictable, has soured the flow of stories about giving and heroism I have heard from so many places. Thank God I live in Houston, where the evidence of kindness and hope is so profound, or I’d be screaming right now.
Which brings me to those catcalling malcontents. It occurs to me that they are, as usual, both missing a chance to rebuild some credibility, and missing the target they would like to stain with their bile. What I mean is, it is becoming clear that while it is puerile to point fingers at this stage, if one insists on doing so the available evidence indicates that President Bush and the Federal response was actually far swifter and appropriate than the actions taken on the State and Local levels. The people making all the noise could be working to call their own into accountability, but instead are chasing the President on nothing more than a paranoid fantasy.
And worse for the minions of name-calling, they have not realized that they have once again chosen the target which will do them the least good. Allowing for the moment the faint possibility that they can actually pin this on President Bush somehow (the private dream, I’m sure, of everyone at the CBS network), it won’t do them any good. President Bush, you see, is not running for office again, nor is Vice-President Cheney. No one from FEMA is running for Congress, the Senate, or the White House. So the sum effect of all this noise is like the poodle barking at the living room drapes in order to convince himself of his bravery. The other common factors are the bad odor and low standards of personal hygiene.
Ignore them. Give to the charities which best suit your ideals and look for the stories of hope and promise, but just ignore these fools, as you would any stupid animal with bad manners.
I’m tired, I admit it. The week past, with all the images of personal grief and loss has worn me out, and the finger-pointing by so many people, however predictable, has soured the flow of stories about giving and heroism I have heard from so many places. Thank God I live in Houston, where the evidence of kindness and hope is so profound, or I’d be screaming right now.
Which brings me to those catcalling malcontents. It occurs to me that they are, as usual, both missing a chance to rebuild some credibility, and missing the target they would like to stain with their bile. What I mean is, it is becoming clear that while it is puerile to point fingers at this stage, if one insists on doing so the available evidence indicates that President Bush and the Federal response was actually far swifter and appropriate than the actions taken on the State and Local levels. The people making all the noise could be working to call their own into accountability, but instead are chasing the President on nothing more than a paranoid fantasy.
And worse for the minions of name-calling, they have not realized that they have once again chosen the target which will do them the least good. Allowing for the moment the faint possibility that they can actually pin this on President Bush somehow (the private dream, I’m sure, of everyone at the CBS network), it won’t do them any good. President Bush, you see, is not running for office again, nor is Vice-President Cheney. No one from FEMA is running for Congress, the Senate, or the White House. So the sum effect of all this noise is like the poodle barking at the living room drapes in order to convince himself of his bravery. The other common factors are the bad odor and low standards of personal hygiene.
Ignore them. Give to the charities which best suit your ideals and look for the stories of hope and promise, but just ignore these fools, as you would any stupid animal with bad manners.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Labor Day - Thanks and Respect
[]-[]-[]
Today is Labor Day. Like most holidays, the way Labor Day is celebrated, has often missed the reason for the holiday. I would humbly submit that for 2005, it would be only fitting to take a moment to say thanks for the hard work of the following groups, without whose superlative efforts and dedication far more people would be far worse off, or simply dead:
The United States Coast Guard - Right about now, the Coasties deserve at least as much praise and respect as anyone else in the uniform of the United States. Thousands of people quite literally would be dead right now, except that the Coast Guard came for them.
The Doctors, Nurses, and Paramedics who stayed behind to help - Roughly 60 doctors, nurses, and paramedics from New Orleans area hospitals lost everything they had, just like everyone else, and they too want to know where their family is, but chose to stay behind to help the patients who arrived after others were evacuated. For six days now, these people have worked with little rest or food, supplies almost exhausted, for no pay beyond the knowledge that they were the difference between life and death for countless people.
The National Guard - The most food, the most road clearing, and the only way to restore order. If not for these men, the gangs would still be running New Orleans.
The Salvation Army - First on the scene, as always. Not a word of self-praise from them, as always. Well worth your donation, as always.
Hilton's Furniture and Gallery Furniture - now that clothing and food needs are being met, these guys have provided hundreds of real beds for victims to sleep in, and are collecting supplies for longer-term needs in Houston.
Countless churches, as always, have been collecting supplies, taking in people who need a place to stay, and even making plans to help victims rebuild their lives.
And of course, the American Red Cross, who is coordinating most of the relief, and helping families find each other across the nation.
If you see a representative from any of these groups, please consider taking a moment to stop and tell them you appreciate all they’ve done. And if you see anyone from a television station, please feel free to remind them that pointing fingers and spurring on spite and hatred is the last thing the Gulf Coast needs right now.
Today is Labor Day. Like most holidays, the way Labor Day is celebrated, has often missed the reason for the holiday. I would humbly submit that for 2005, it would be only fitting to take a moment to say thanks for the hard work of the following groups, without whose superlative efforts and dedication far more people would be far worse off, or simply dead:
The United States Coast Guard - Right about now, the Coasties deserve at least as much praise and respect as anyone else in the uniform of the United States. Thousands of people quite literally would be dead right now, except that the Coast Guard came for them.
The Doctors, Nurses, and Paramedics who stayed behind to help - Roughly 60 doctors, nurses, and paramedics from New Orleans area hospitals lost everything they had, just like everyone else, and they too want to know where their family is, but chose to stay behind to help the patients who arrived after others were evacuated. For six days now, these people have worked with little rest or food, supplies almost exhausted, for no pay beyond the knowledge that they were the difference between life and death for countless people.
The National Guard - The most food, the most road clearing, and the only way to restore order. If not for these men, the gangs would still be running New Orleans.
The Salvation Army - First on the scene, as always. Not a word of self-praise from them, as always. Well worth your donation, as always.
Hilton's Furniture and Gallery Furniture - now that clothing and food needs are being met, these guys have provided hundreds of real beds for victims to sleep in, and are collecting supplies for longer-term needs in Houston.
Countless churches, as always, have been collecting supplies, taking in people who need a place to stay, and even making plans to help victims rebuild their lives.
And of course, the American Red Cross, who is coordinating most of the relief, and helping families find each other across the nation.
If you see a representative from any of these groups, please consider taking a moment to stop and tell them you appreciate all they’ve done. And if you see anyone from a television station, please feel free to remind them that pointing fingers and spurring on spite and hatred is the last thing the Gulf Coast needs right now.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Rebuilding
o-o-o-o-o
The question now comes down to what we do next. It will take a while to get to all the people in New Orleans, the rest of Louisiana, Mississippi, and the rest of the Gulf Coast hit so hard by the Hurricane, but the process is underway. Food and water and clothing are getting to people, and the distribution lines, though still crude, are getting the job done. The next step is getting long-time medical needs addressed. Texas has done a great job of addressing the needs of students, opening public schools to all the people fleeing Louisiana, and many colleges and universities across the country are accepting transfers from students at Tulane, LaSalle, and all the other Louisiana colleges and universities. The immediate needs of more than a million people hit by the devastation are being met.
The process moves on to what happens in the next half-year or so. Most of Katrina’s victims have not been able to sit down and consider what they want to do next, but the planning has to be in place. Fortunately, a number of corporations, churches, and groups experienced in long-term disaster relief have made preparations. Essentially, the people dislocated by the destruction will need jobs, transportation, and the structure of a routine; for many people, there is great emotional comfort in having things they can count on, including responsibility and duties, which enforce the personal sense of worth and identity. You are what you do.
The states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana will rebuild. For all the destruction, the basic infrastructure of the states is in place and can be re-established. The greatest costs will be the roads, power grid, and coastal industries, like fishing and the ports. The city of New Orleans is another matter. It is well-understood that the city lies below sea level, and its position relative to Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf makes this a critical risk. Insurance companies have already expressed serious reservations about insuring any new construction or rebuilt homes and businesses in the city. Unless the federal government chooses to private special insurance, it is doubtful that businesses and homes can be rebuilt and operate in New Orleans to the scale of the city before. Even the construction of a seawall like the one protecting Galveston Texas would be insufficient for New Orleans, because of the elevation concerns.
There is also the risk of fraud. Disasters bring out the best and worst qualities in people, and this is also true in the matter of fraud. When a home is destroyed, it is sometimes difficult to confirm what personal property was lost. How much more difficult is it, to confirm the losses of an entire city? While most people would not try to manipulate the system to take money so badly needed by real victims, it’s historically true that fraud is a real element in disaster relief. Given the scale of this event, unique security measures will be necessary in addressing the needs of New Orleans’ citizens. There is, despite the best intentions of charities and generous donors, a limit to how much relief will be available.
I would not be surprised, personally, to see the victims of Katrina given two general options. Most will be encouraged to restart in the town where they have been relocated, meaning that the visitors to Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and many other Texas cities will be likely to become citizens there. The option of returning to Louisiana will be there, but I expect that New Orleans will be, while rebuilt, much smaller in scale and much less centralized. The Corps of Engineers will have to examine the ground in the area, but it would be logical for new construction to be undertaken on ground with higher elevation and known to be stable, rather than trying to demolish the rubble in New Orleans, test the ground, reset everything from foundations up, and hope that the new buildings last. This has happened before, after all. In 1900, the city of Galveston Texas was a thriving center of commerce and culture. A Hurricane (no names were used for Hurricanes in 1900) estimated to be Category 4 in force, effectively destroyed the city, killing anywhere between eight and twelve thousand people (Census rolls were unclear, and many bodies had to be buried in mass graves or burned, to control the risk of disease. Like the New Orleans disaster, Galveston was isolated from contact, and so sending assistance was made impossible by the storm’s damage for a long time. In the end, the small town to Galveston’s north, Houston, was made the focus for rebuilding and relocation, and eventually became the far greater city. I could actually see the city of New Orleans out and out relocated about forty miles to the north of its old location, in a plan which would take more than ten years to happen, but which could capture the imagination and emotion of the state of Louisiana and the nation, a symbol of rebirth and a mix of old and new. The key would be the Port of New Orleans, which largely survived Katrina, and which would be the lifeblood of the newly built city, whether on the original land or in a new location with better stability.
But that’s just speculation, and will be driven by the feasibility of options yet to be confirmed. The rebuilding begins, as always, with examining and meeting long-term needs of the families. The Red Cross has begun to rejoin families, and to provide information on what has happened for victims to find out. As I mentioned above, job opportunities have been made available, and career counselors are preparing resources and building networks to help people not only find some job, but one fitted to their skills. The social assistance of churches and schools also helps the process, helping people to find a place of identity and acceptance, from which the sense of community grows.
The question now comes down to what we do next. It will take a while to get to all the people in New Orleans, the rest of Louisiana, Mississippi, and the rest of the Gulf Coast hit so hard by the Hurricane, but the process is underway. Food and water and clothing are getting to people, and the distribution lines, though still crude, are getting the job done. The next step is getting long-time medical needs addressed. Texas has done a great job of addressing the needs of students, opening public schools to all the people fleeing Louisiana, and many colleges and universities across the country are accepting transfers from students at Tulane, LaSalle, and all the other Louisiana colleges and universities. The immediate needs of more than a million people hit by the devastation are being met.
The process moves on to what happens in the next half-year or so. Most of Katrina’s victims have not been able to sit down and consider what they want to do next, but the planning has to be in place. Fortunately, a number of corporations, churches, and groups experienced in long-term disaster relief have made preparations. Essentially, the people dislocated by the destruction will need jobs, transportation, and the structure of a routine; for many people, there is great emotional comfort in having things they can count on, including responsibility and duties, which enforce the personal sense of worth and identity. You are what you do.
The states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana will rebuild. For all the destruction, the basic infrastructure of the states is in place and can be re-established. The greatest costs will be the roads, power grid, and coastal industries, like fishing and the ports. The city of New Orleans is another matter. It is well-understood that the city lies below sea level, and its position relative to Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf makes this a critical risk. Insurance companies have already expressed serious reservations about insuring any new construction or rebuilt homes and businesses in the city. Unless the federal government chooses to private special insurance, it is doubtful that businesses and homes can be rebuilt and operate in New Orleans to the scale of the city before. Even the construction of a seawall like the one protecting Galveston Texas would be insufficient for New Orleans, because of the elevation concerns.
There is also the risk of fraud. Disasters bring out the best and worst qualities in people, and this is also true in the matter of fraud. When a home is destroyed, it is sometimes difficult to confirm what personal property was lost. How much more difficult is it, to confirm the losses of an entire city? While most people would not try to manipulate the system to take money so badly needed by real victims, it’s historically true that fraud is a real element in disaster relief. Given the scale of this event, unique security measures will be necessary in addressing the needs of New Orleans’ citizens. There is, despite the best intentions of charities and generous donors, a limit to how much relief will be available.
I would not be surprised, personally, to see the victims of Katrina given two general options. Most will be encouraged to restart in the town where they have been relocated, meaning that the visitors to Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and many other Texas cities will be likely to become citizens there. The option of returning to Louisiana will be there, but I expect that New Orleans will be, while rebuilt, much smaller in scale and much less centralized. The Corps of Engineers will have to examine the ground in the area, but it would be logical for new construction to be undertaken on ground with higher elevation and known to be stable, rather than trying to demolish the rubble in New Orleans, test the ground, reset everything from foundations up, and hope that the new buildings last. This has happened before, after all. In 1900, the city of Galveston Texas was a thriving center of commerce and culture. A Hurricane (no names were used for Hurricanes in 1900) estimated to be Category 4 in force, effectively destroyed the city, killing anywhere between eight and twelve thousand people (Census rolls were unclear, and many bodies had to be buried in mass graves or burned, to control the risk of disease. Like the New Orleans disaster, Galveston was isolated from contact, and so sending assistance was made impossible by the storm’s damage for a long time. In the end, the small town to Galveston’s north, Houston, was made the focus for rebuilding and relocation, and eventually became the far greater city. I could actually see the city of New Orleans out and out relocated about forty miles to the north of its old location, in a plan which would take more than ten years to happen, but which could capture the imagination and emotion of the state of Louisiana and the nation, a symbol of rebirth and a mix of old and new. The key would be the Port of New Orleans, which largely survived Katrina, and which would be the lifeblood of the newly built city, whether on the original land or in a new location with better stability.
But that’s just speculation, and will be driven by the feasibility of options yet to be confirmed. The rebuilding begins, as always, with examining and meeting long-term needs of the families. The Red Cross has begun to rejoin families, and to provide information on what has happened for victims to find out. As I mentioned above, job opportunities have been made available, and career counselors are preparing resources and building networks to help people not only find some job, but one fitted to their skills. The social assistance of churches and schools also helps the process, helping people to find a place of identity and acceptance, from which the sense of community grows.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The Virtue of Force
<><><>
The media is running all sorts of shows about Hurricane Katrina. Sensing that people are growing tired of reports that focus only on suffering, the MSM has begun the predictable blame game, beginning as always with an attempt to blame President Bush for every failing, whether federal, state, local, or meteorilogical. I note that countless stories of heroism, self-sacrifice and hope have been ignored by the networks. No one seems to have noticed the hundreds of resue missions runs this week by each and every Coast Guard crew, saving thousands of people who otherwise would still be stranded on their roofs, or worse. No one seems to have mentioned that the hospital staffs, after seeing their children and crtical-care patients evacuated to Houston and Dallas hospitals, themselves chose to stay and help the injured, working without relief or adequate supplies and equipment for days on end. No one seems to have paid attention to hundreds of Louisiana and Texas citizens who took it on themeslves to drive down the major roads with chainsaws, chains and other equipment needed to clear the roads of major debris, so National Guard troops and relief supplies could make it to the victims. There are Emmy-class stories here, stories which would uplift and encourage people, if the networks would just bother to see them.
There’s been a lot of complaining this week, from the victims and from a lot of what Michelle Malkin calls “armchair first-responders”. Polipundit readers with experience have tried to explain how successful the actual effort has been, but the facts are competing against an entrenched desire to pursue a story which drives the emotions, and the emotions chosen by the media to build on, are anger and envy. Others try to avoid dwelling on the negatives, but are overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the disaster. The first task, reaching people to get them out, was complicated by the destruction of bridges and roads, and the flooding of New Orleans by Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf wave brought in by the Hurricane. The resistance by gangs and criminals to assitance has also cost lives and brought even more misery on the victims. And the local authorities charged with maintaining order and practicing the emergency plans, have for the most part deserted their duties in favor of taking care of themselves. It’s no coincidence that when the National Guard brought in significant numbers of armed force, the relief finally began to go where it should.
A lot of attention has been focused on New Orleans this week, and given the number of victims there, that’s right. But people might consider that Mississippi got hit just as hard as Louisiana, and Biloxi as hard as New Orleans, but there has not been the looting, the violence, and the selfishness in Biloxi that we have seen in New Orleans. Granted, the flooding in New Orleans has made things very bad in sanitary terms, but the plain fact is, that Biloxi has done a great deal that we would all hope to see in our own towns, if such a disaster were to hit us. For all the attention given to it, New Orleans is the exception, not the rule. I might be wrong, but a friend reminded me this week that in Mississippi, regular people have guns. In New Orleans, only the police and criminals do. It’s a fact that the Left will never admit out loud, but there is a virtue to Force, when it’s properly used.
The media is running all sorts of shows about Hurricane Katrina. Sensing that people are growing tired of reports that focus only on suffering, the MSM has begun the predictable blame game, beginning as always with an attempt to blame President Bush for every failing, whether federal, state, local, or meteorilogical. I note that countless stories of heroism, self-sacrifice and hope have been ignored by the networks. No one seems to have noticed the hundreds of resue missions runs this week by each and every Coast Guard crew, saving thousands of people who otherwise would still be stranded on their roofs, or worse. No one seems to have mentioned that the hospital staffs, after seeing their children and crtical-care patients evacuated to Houston and Dallas hospitals, themselves chose to stay and help the injured, working without relief or adequate supplies and equipment for days on end. No one seems to have paid attention to hundreds of Louisiana and Texas citizens who took it on themeslves to drive down the major roads with chainsaws, chains and other equipment needed to clear the roads of major debris, so National Guard troops and relief supplies could make it to the victims. There are Emmy-class stories here, stories which would uplift and encourage people, if the networks would just bother to see them.
There’s been a lot of complaining this week, from the victims and from a lot of what Michelle Malkin calls “armchair first-responders”. Polipundit readers with experience have tried to explain how successful the actual effort has been, but the facts are competing against an entrenched desire to pursue a story which drives the emotions, and the emotions chosen by the media to build on, are anger and envy. Others try to avoid dwelling on the negatives, but are overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the disaster. The first task, reaching people to get them out, was complicated by the destruction of bridges and roads, and the flooding of New Orleans by Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf wave brought in by the Hurricane. The resistance by gangs and criminals to assitance has also cost lives and brought even more misery on the victims. And the local authorities charged with maintaining order and practicing the emergency plans, have for the most part deserted their duties in favor of taking care of themselves. It’s no coincidence that when the National Guard brought in significant numbers of armed force, the relief finally began to go where it should.
A lot of attention has been focused on New Orleans this week, and given the number of victims there, that’s right. But people might consider that Mississippi got hit just as hard as Louisiana, and Biloxi as hard as New Orleans, but there has not been the looting, the violence, and the selfishness in Biloxi that we have seen in New Orleans. Granted, the flooding in New Orleans has made things very bad in sanitary terms, but the plain fact is, that Biloxi has done a great deal that we would all hope to see in our own towns, if such a disaster were to hit us. For all the attention given to it, New Orleans is the exception, not the rule. I might be wrong, but a friend reminded me this week that in Mississippi, regular people have guns. In New Orleans, only the police and criminals do. It’s a fact that the Left will never admit out loud, but there is a virtue to Force, when it’s properly used.
Friday, September 02, 2005
How It Happened
-----
No one likes to see people suffering, so it’s not surprising that along with people stepping up to send aid and coordinate workers, there are others who can do nothing but complain and spew bile. It happens every time there’s a disaster which claims lives, and everyone realizes this is big.
There’s a lot of attention on the relief efforts, so I won’t go into them here, except to ask everyone to give what they can, and to remember that everything matters, especially right now. At the company I work for, hundreds of employees have been allowed paid time off to help work at the Astrodome. They came back to tell stories of people who now have absolutely nothing, not even a change of clothing. Their property is gone, their homes are gone, their workplaces are gone, the banks and schools and churches they went to, all are gone. In many cases they are separated from family, with no way to know if their relatives are even living or dead. It has been a very long time, since the United States of America had to address such a national emergency, a true crisis.
The jackals are already out in force. The looters in New Orleans are proving that the dregs will rise up whenever they have the opportunity, stealing, even raping and murdering innocent. That is why we are sending 40,000 additional troops to New Orleans. The bitter partisans are also already sniping at the relief effort, doing nothing for the victims while standing in the way of the people trying to get the job done. That is why I am writing this article, in my own small way trying to answer reasonable questions and explain how things got to this point.
The first reasonable question for anyone to ask is, why was Katrina so different from other storms? That really comes down to timing, the course of the storm, the history of disaster management, and the scale of the whole thing. Most people forget that there is a sort of fatigue factor in Hurricane seasons. Katrina was the twelfth named storm of the season.
Tropical Storm Arlene started up June 8, but did little more than dump rain for a few days.
Tropical Storm Bret began June 28, and petered out over Southeast Mexico.
Tropical Storm Cindy began July 3, made landfall near New Orleans on July 5, and settled into a Tropical Depression over Mississippi on July 6.
Hurricane Dennis began July 4, reaching wind speeds of 150 mph, making it a Category 4 Hurricane. Ominously, the National Weather Service notes that Dennis is the earliest (in the season) Category 4 storm in the Caribbean on record. Twenty-four people died in the Hurricane, which ravaged Haiti and Cuba before smashing into Florida. Yet news reports at the time remarked that the damage and death toll was less than expected, setting an expectation which would prove dangerous later. Dennis dwindled out on July 12, indicating that a major storm could last more than a few days during this season.
Hurricane Emily began July 11, reaching wind speeds of 155 mph, a deadly Category 3 storm as it ravaged Venezuela and moving up to Category 4 as it headed through Jamaica. Emily killed two people as it moved along the Yucatan peninsula, and finally stalled over Mexico and Texas. Vicente Fox credits the low loss of life to early evacuation efforts along Mexico’s northern coast.
Tropical Storm Franklin began July21, but while it reached wind speeds of 70 mph, Franklin stayed away from land and died off the Northeast U.S. coast, well off-shore.
Tropical Storm Gert began July 23, making landfall over south Mexico on the 24th. The importance of Gert, was it was the record fifth named-storm in July.
Tropical Storm Harvey began August 3, dumped a lot of rain on the Bahamas, but did little else, as it headed out to the mid-Atlantic.
Hurricane Irene began August 4, reaching top wind speeds of 100 mph. Irene made a long trek from about 735 miles off the coast of Africa, all the way across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, alternately weakening and gaining strength as it approached. On August 14, Irene became a Hurricane but was already moving away from land. Irene fell apart over the cold north Atlantic waters as she moved away from Bermuda towards Nova Scotia.
And Tropical Storm Jose began August 22, dying less than a day later in the Southwestern Gulf of Mexico.
So, because there were eleven storms in the Caribbean during 2005 before Katrina, there was a kind of fatigue, a 'been there, done that’ assumption. Also, since the three August storms before Katrina were less dangerous than expected, a false optimism prevailed.
Now, look at the biography of Katrina:
August 24: Tropical Storm Katrina forms from a Tropical Depression crated just one day earlier, gaining strength faster than most storms do.
August 25: Katrina kicked in the door to say hello to Florida, killing 3 and knocking out power to more than a million people. This, as a Category 1 Hurricane. Katrina swept out west to the Gulf of Mexico.
August 26: Media breathe a sigh of relief as Katrina appears to weaken slightly, and is expected to turn North and make landfall as a Tropical Storm over Florida’s Panhandle.
August 26, 5 PM: The National Hurricane Center (NHC) announced a shift in the projected path of Katrina. Now at risk are the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, and states upland from its path.
August 27: Against expectations, Katrina is upgraded to Category 3, and appears to be homing in on the Louisiana-Mississippi coastline. New Orleans is predicted to receive about eleven inches of rain from Katrina. The Mayor of New Orleans suggests a voluntary evacuation of the city, but the recommendation is largely ignored, according to the press. USA Today quotes Fred Wilson, who said “"The only dangerous hurricanes so far are the ones we've been drinking," President Bush also ordered a state of emergency for Louisiana in anticipation of the need for Federal assistance, and ordering FEMA to be prepared to assist.
August 28: Katrina reaches Category 5 strength, about 250 miles South of the mouth of the Mississippi River, with sustained wind speeds of 175 mph. The Mayor of New Orleans orders a mandatory evacuation of the city. Mississippi emergency authorities track the storm, but order no evacuations.
August 29, 630 AM: Katrina made landfall in Plaquemines Parish Louisiana, just South of Buras, as a Category 4 storm with 140 mph winds. A wall of water approximately 20 feet high crushes the Gulf Coast along a line more than two hundred miles broad.
August 30: Katrina weakens to a Tropical Depression near Clarksville, Tennessee.
USA Today published an interesting story, noting that New Orleans has been hit many times by major storms. In 1998, New Orleans was ordered evacuated, and the Superdome was used to house refugees, just as it was this time.
The response was, contrary to media reports, immediate and direct. The biggest obstacles were apparent immediately; distribution and communication. Many people have asked why the rescuers could not get to New Orleans since the media did, but the media went in ahead of time and simply camped out there. When the storm hit, it wiped out access to sea and airports, as well as most roads, including I-10.
Katrina came up faster than expected, did not go where expected, and hit harder than expected, taking out the infrastructure which is generally used by emergency services. The plans in place for refugee housing did not include provisions for the total collapse of the levies and the number of victims. It should be noted that no exercise in disaster management is possible for this scale of disaster, nor has anyone responded to a disaster on this scale in less than a week (in the days following the Tsunami disaster in 2004, the first ten days were devoted entirely to removing people by ship and helicopter, a task which was never fully completed, and providing water and food to the refugees, which began to take effect only a week later. The Red Cross reports that the death toll reached 120,000 before any relief arrived) .
The first responders, as always, were local. In this case, however, the fire and police stations had generally been destroyed as well, so that resources were unavailable even to the people trained to be the first providers of relief. With the roads impassable, county and even state agencies were crippled. With no radar or tower communications, aircraft in the area were limited to helicopters and line-of-sight search procedures, which were used extensively during this first week of rescue. The response has been significant, apparently ignored by the media in preference of driving a story of outrage rather than hope. As an example, here in Houston Mayor Bill White took charge of opening the Astrodome to refugees and coordinating the necessary procedures to open vacant apartments for refugees. The Medical Center sent effectively all of its LifeFlight and other medical aircraft to Louisiana to move critically injured patients, including more than a hundred infants and critical-care patients in the first two days after Katrina struck. All Texas schools have opened their doors to the children of refugees, and dozens of local churches have set up shelters, provided clothing and food and showers, and in two specific cases I know, are already planning for long-term relocation and/or rebuilding of homes and businesses. Almost thirty thousand victims from Katrina are already in Houston, and local businesses have begun drives to collect supplies and employment opportunities for hurricane victims. This in less than a week, and Houston is hardly the only city doing this. Not that you will hear it from the MSM.
There's more to say, but for now that's quite enough.
No one likes to see people suffering, so it’s not surprising that along with people stepping up to send aid and coordinate workers, there are others who can do nothing but complain and spew bile. It happens every time there’s a disaster which claims lives, and everyone realizes this is big.
There’s a lot of attention on the relief efforts, so I won’t go into them here, except to ask everyone to give what they can, and to remember that everything matters, especially right now. At the company I work for, hundreds of employees have been allowed paid time off to help work at the Astrodome. They came back to tell stories of people who now have absolutely nothing, not even a change of clothing. Their property is gone, their homes are gone, their workplaces are gone, the banks and schools and churches they went to, all are gone. In many cases they are separated from family, with no way to know if their relatives are even living or dead. It has been a very long time, since the United States of America had to address such a national emergency, a true crisis.
The jackals are already out in force. The looters in New Orleans are proving that the dregs will rise up whenever they have the opportunity, stealing, even raping and murdering innocent. That is why we are sending 40,000 additional troops to New Orleans. The bitter partisans are also already sniping at the relief effort, doing nothing for the victims while standing in the way of the people trying to get the job done. That is why I am writing this article, in my own small way trying to answer reasonable questions and explain how things got to this point.
The first reasonable question for anyone to ask is, why was Katrina so different from other storms? That really comes down to timing, the course of the storm, the history of disaster management, and the scale of the whole thing. Most people forget that there is a sort of fatigue factor in Hurricane seasons. Katrina was the twelfth named storm of the season.
Tropical Storm Arlene started up June 8, but did little more than dump rain for a few days.
Tropical Storm Bret began June 28, and petered out over Southeast Mexico.
Tropical Storm Cindy began July 3, made landfall near New Orleans on July 5, and settled into a Tropical Depression over Mississippi on July 6.
Hurricane Dennis began July 4, reaching wind speeds of 150 mph, making it a Category 4 Hurricane. Ominously, the National Weather Service notes that Dennis is the earliest (in the season) Category 4 storm in the Caribbean on record. Twenty-four people died in the Hurricane, which ravaged Haiti and Cuba before smashing into Florida. Yet news reports at the time remarked that the damage and death toll was less than expected, setting an expectation which would prove dangerous later. Dennis dwindled out on July 12, indicating that a major storm could last more than a few days during this season.
Hurricane Emily began July 11, reaching wind speeds of 155 mph, a deadly Category 3 storm as it ravaged Venezuela and moving up to Category 4 as it headed through Jamaica. Emily killed two people as it moved along the Yucatan peninsula, and finally stalled over Mexico and Texas. Vicente Fox credits the low loss of life to early evacuation efforts along Mexico’s northern coast.
Tropical Storm Franklin began July21, but while it reached wind speeds of 70 mph, Franklin stayed away from land and died off the Northeast U.S. coast, well off-shore.
Tropical Storm Gert began July 23, making landfall over south Mexico on the 24th. The importance of Gert, was it was the record fifth named-storm in July.
Tropical Storm Harvey began August 3, dumped a lot of rain on the Bahamas, but did little else, as it headed out to the mid-Atlantic.
Hurricane Irene began August 4, reaching top wind speeds of 100 mph. Irene made a long trek from about 735 miles off the coast of Africa, all the way across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, alternately weakening and gaining strength as it approached. On August 14, Irene became a Hurricane but was already moving away from land. Irene fell apart over the cold north Atlantic waters as she moved away from Bermuda towards Nova Scotia.
And Tropical Storm Jose began August 22, dying less than a day later in the Southwestern Gulf of Mexico.
So, because there were eleven storms in the Caribbean during 2005 before Katrina, there was a kind of fatigue, a 'been there, done that’ assumption. Also, since the three August storms before Katrina were less dangerous than expected, a false optimism prevailed.
Now, look at the biography of Katrina:
August 24: Tropical Storm Katrina forms from a Tropical Depression crated just one day earlier, gaining strength faster than most storms do.
August 25: Katrina kicked in the door to say hello to Florida, killing 3 and knocking out power to more than a million people. This, as a Category 1 Hurricane. Katrina swept out west to the Gulf of Mexico.
August 26: Media breathe a sigh of relief as Katrina appears to weaken slightly, and is expected to turn North and make landfall as a Tropical Storm over Florida’s Panhandle.
August 26, 5 PM: The National Hurricane Center (NHC) announced a shift in the projected path of Katrina. Now at risk are the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, and states upland from its path.
August 27: Against expectations, Katrina is upgraded to Category 3, and appears to be homing in on the Louisiana-Mississippi coastline. New Orleans is predicted to receive about eleven inches of rain from Katrina. The Mayor of New Orleans suggests a voluntary evacuation of the city, but the recommendation is largely ignored, according to the press. USA Today quotes Fred Wilson, who said “"The only dangerous hurricanes so far are the ones we've been drinking," President Bush also ordered a state of emergency for Louisiana in anticipation of the need for Federal assistance, and ordering FEMA to be prepared to assist.
August 28: Katrina reaches Category 5 strength, about 250 miles South of the mouth of the Mississippi River, with sustained wind speeds of 175 mph. The Mayor of New Orleans orders a mandatory evacuation of the city. Mississippi emergency authorities track the storm, but order no evacuations.
August 29, 630 AM: Katrina made landfall in Plaquemines Parish Louisiana, just South of Buras, as a Category 4 storm with 140 mph winds. A wall of water approximately 20 feet high crushes the Gulf Coast along a line more than two hundred miles broad.
August 30: Katrina weakens to a Tropical Depression near Clarksville, Tennessee.
USA Today published an interesting story, noting that New Orleans has been hit many times by major storms. In 1998, New Orleans was ordered evacuated, and the Superdome was used to house refugees, just as it was this time.
The response was, contrary to media reports, immediate and direct. The biggest obstacles were apparent immediately; distribution and communication. Many people have asked why the rescuers could not get to New Orleans since the media did, but the media went in ahead of time and simply camped out there. When the storm hit, it wiped out access to sea and airports, as well as most roads, including I-10.
Katrina came up faster than expected, did not go where expected, and hit harder than expected, taking out the infrastructure which is generally used by emergency services. The plans in place for refugee housing did not include provisions for the total collapse of the levies and the number of victims. It should be noted that no exercise in disaster management is possible for this scale of disaster, nor has anyone responded to a disaster on this scale in less than a week (in the days following the Tsunami disaster in 2004, the first ten days were devoted entirely to removing people by ship and helicopter, a task which was never fully completed, and providing water and food to the refugees, which began to take effect only a week later. The Red Cross reports that the death toll reached 120,000 before any relief arrived) .
The first responders, as always, were local. In this case, however, the fire and police stations had generally been destroyed as well, so that resources were unavailable even to the people trained to be the first providers of relief. With the roads impassable, county and even state agencies were crippled. With no radar or tower communications, aircraft in the area were limited to helicopters and line-of-sight search procedures, which were used extensively during this first week of rescue. The response has been significant, apparently ignored by the media in preference of driving a story of outrage rather than hope. As an example, here in Houston Mayor Bill White took charge of opening the Astrodome to refugees and coordinating the necessary procedures to open vacant apartments for refugees. The Medical Center sent effectively all of its LifeFlight and other medical aircraft to Louisiana to move critically injured patients, including more than a hundred infants and critical-care patients in the first two days after Katrina struck. All Texas schools have opened their doors to the children of refugees, and dozens of local churches have set up shelters, provided clothing and food and showers, and in two specific cases I know, are already planning for long-term relocation and/or rebuilding of homes and businesses. Almost thirty thousand victims from Katrina are already in Houston, and local businesses have begun drives to collect supplies and employment opportunities for hurricane victims. This in less than a week, and Houston is hardly the only city doing this. Not that you will hear it from the MSM.
There's more to say, but for now that's quite enough.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Back In The Saddle Again
*************
I was watching MSNBC today (along with all the other news networks; it’s kind of a blur when you try to watch five news stations more or less simultaneously), and I saw an interesting interview.
Folks may remember the effort last year to raise money for Tsunami Relief in Asia. Former Presidents Bush and Clinton worked hard and long to raise awareness and money, and they did a bang-up job.
Well, as of today they’re doing the same thing to help raise money to help the victims of Katrina. Whatever one thinks of the politics or policies of Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush, their assistance in this effort is a class effort and and shows the kind of cooperation and common goals this nation best displays.
Thank you, Misters President.
I was watching MSNBC today (along with all the other news networks; it’s kind of a blur when you try to watch five news stations more or less simultaneously), and I saw an interesting interview.
Folks may remember the effort last year to raise money for Tsunami Relief in Asia. Former Presidents Bush and Clinton worked hard and long to raise awareness and money, and they did a bang-up job.
Well, as of today they’re doing the same thing to help raise money to help the victims of Katrina. Whatever one thinks of the politics or policies of Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush, their assistance in this effort is a class effort and and shows the kind of cooperation and common goals this nation best displays.
Thank you, Misters President.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Carrier? Casino? Boo-Boo? The Strange Tale of the Varyag
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
During discussions about what happened to submarines from the old Soviet navy, the talk turned to the fate of the Varyag, a CTOL (Conventional Take Off/Landing) aircraft carrier built by the Soviets just before the regime fell down and went splat. The Varyag was a follow-up to the Kuznetsov, and neither was exactly a rousing success.
This was due to a number of factors, including sharp declines in military spending and the inability of Soviet pilots to land on the deck while underway. When studies were finally done to apply the carriers to Soviet Naval Doctrine, it was discovered that the carriers could neither operate alone, nor could sufficient ships be allocated to create carrier groups. With the replacement of Admiral Gorshkov by the far less influential Chernavin, surface ships were dropped to second-tier attention and submarines took the lion’s share of development resources.
The problem for the Soviets was, they had committed to two CTOL carriers; the Kuznetsov (originally dubbed the 'Leonid Breshnev', then the 'Tbilisi') and the Varyag. The long-term planning, once considered a trump card in USSR strategy, prevented the use of the resources for anything else, and there was precious little alternative use for a carrier. By the time the decision was made to not pursue the full deployment of the carriers, both were more than half-done, and there was no choice but to continue to a point where the vessels might be either deployed if they caught the favor of a future Kremlin, or else sold for badly-needed revenue. To conceal the lack of completion, both ships were regularly covered in tarps and netting as if protecting a valued asset. The Russians handed over the Varyag to Ukraine in 1992, and decided that for the Kuznetsov, the best hope for a good price was to create an image of an effective capital ship. The Kuznetsov was deployed to the Mediterranean in 1995, where it had a nasty habit of running into its escorts, and the Kuznetsov was brought back to port in 1996.
The ruse worked at first. China and India engaged in a bidding war for the Kuznetsov, which India won in 1998 with a bid of $700 million US, the estimated price for completing the necessary work on the Kuznetsov. For a ship appraised at $2.4 Billion US, this seemed like a bargain. As the Indians inspected their prize, however, they found reason to doubt their purchase. The engines already needed replacement, and the Russian attempts to develop a working catapult system produced a system which failed often, and the rudders were insufficient for the ship’s mass. India renamed the ship the INS Vikramaditya, and plans to launch it into service in 2008. Rumors of extensive and expensive refits surround the delay from the initial planned deployment.
There is a site devoted specifically to the adventures of the Varyag, but they mostly focus on history and photos. It appears that the Chinese used French commercial satellites to get a better look at the Varyag, and so understood the condition before buying the ship. The Chinese bought the Varyag for the equivalent of $20 Million US, then towed the Varyag to a dockyard at Dalian, where there have been all manner of rumors, but little work on the ship. China collected the Russian STOL carriers Minsk and Kiev as well, which were sailed into Chinese waters and used for a variety of purposes before being permanently docked as attractions in coastal amusement parks in 2004.
The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) does not consider Dalian to be a true naval base, and if the pace of work is any indicator (to say nothing of the fact that the shipyard is making no effort to hide the 'Varyag' from satellites), the Chinese do not really know what to do with it. The Varyag started construction in 1985, with something less than top-priority given to its work. The work stopped completely in 1992, when Russia turned the carrier over to Ukraine, who immediately began trying to sell the thing. The fact that the Varyag was incomplete, and that the installed electronics were stripped by the Russians before handing over to the Ukraine, was kept hidden from the outside world.
Robert Karniol, the Asia/Pacific editor at Jane's Information Group (subscription), told United Press International on June 17 that "The Varyag is not capable of being turned into a viable aircraft carrier; it'll end up as scrap or a tourist attraction somewhere."
So, what is the fate of the Varyag? Given the fate of the Melbourne, Kiev, and Minsk before it, the lack of repairs to the ship, and the complete lack of interest in building the necessary escort vessels for it, I suspect the Chinese will study the Varyag intently for some time, after which it was be, as promised, made into a casino for Shanghai. What the Chinese can learn from the Varyag remains to be seen.
During discussions about what happened to submarines from the old Soviet navy, the talk turned to the fate of the Varyag, a CTOL (Conventional Take Off/Landing) aircraft carrier built by the Soviets just before the regime fell down and went splat. The Varyag was a follow-up to the Kuznetsov, and neither was exactly a rousing success.
This was due to a number of factors, including sharp declines in military spending and the inability of Soviet pilots to land on the deck while underway. When studies were finally done to apply the carriers to Soviet Naval Doctrine, it was discovered that the carriers could neither operate alone, nor could sufficient ships be allocated to create carrier groups. With the replacement of Admiral Gorshkov by the far less influential Chernavin, surface ships were dropped to second-tier attention and submarines took the lion’s share of development resources.
The problem for the Soviets was, they had committed to two CTOL carriers; the Kuznetsov (originally dubbed the 'Leonid Breshnev', then the 'Tbilisi') and the Varyag. The long-term planning, once considered a trump card in USSR strategy, prevented the use of the resources for anything else, and there was precious little alternative use for a carrier. By the time the decision was made to not pursue the full deployment of the carriers, both were more than half-done, and there was no choice but to continue to a point where the vessels might be either deployed if they caught the favor of a future Kremlin, or else sold for badly-needed revenue. To conceal the lack of completion, both ships were regularly covered in tarps and netting as if protecting a valued asset. The Russians handed over the Varyag to Ukraine in 1992, and decided that for the Kuznetsov, the best hope for a good price was to create an image of an effective capital ship. The Kuznetsov was deployed to the Mediterranean in 1995, where it had a nasty habit of running into its escorts, and the Kuznetsov was brought back to port in 1996.
The ruse worked at first. China and India engaged in a bidding war for the Kuznetsov, which India won in 1998 with a bid of $700 million US, the estimated price for completing the necessary work on the Kuznetsov. For a ship appraised at $2.4 Billion US, this seemed like a bargain. As the Indians inspected their prize, however, they found reason to doubt their purchase. The engines already needed replacement, and the Russian attempts to develop a working catapult system produced a system which failed often, and the rudders were insufficient for the ship’s mass. India renamed the ship the INS Vikramaditya, and plans to launch it into service in 2008. Rumors of extensive and expensive refits surround the delay from the initial planned deployment.
There is a site devoted specifically to the adventures of the Varyag, but they mostly focus on history and photos. It appears that the Chinese used French commercial satellites to get a better look at the Varyag, and so understood the condition before buying the ship. The Chinese bought the Varyag for the equivalent of $20 Million US, then towed the Varyag to a dockyard at Dalian, where there have been all manner of rumors, but little work on the ship. China collected the Russian STOL carriers Minsk and Kiev as well, which were sailed into Chinese waters and used for a variety of purposes before being permanently docked as attractions in coastal amusement parks in 2004.
The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) does not consider Dalian to be a true naval base, and if the pace of work is any indicator (to say nothing of the fact that the shipyard is making no effort to hide the 'Varyag' from satellites), the Chinese do not really know what to do with it. The Varyag started construction in 1985, with something less than top-priority given to its work. The work stopped completely in 1992, when Russia turned the carrier over to Ukraine, who immediately began trying to sell the thing. The fact that the Varyag was incomplete, and that the installed electronics were stripped by the Russians before handing over to the Ukraine, was kept hidden from the outside world.
Robert Karniol, the Asia/Pacific editor at Jane's Information Group (subscription), told United Press International on June 17 that "The Varyag is not capable of being turned into a viable aircraft carrier; it'll end up as scrap or a tourist attraction somewhere."
So, what is the fate of the Varyag? Given the fate of the Melbourne, Kiev, and Minsk before it, the lack of repairs to the ship, and the complete lack of interest in building the necessary escort vessels for it, I suspect the Chinese will study the Varyag intently for some time, after which it was be, as promised, made into a casino for Shanghai. What the Chinese can learn from the Varyag remains to be seen.
Monday, August 29, 2005
The Soviet Subs: Where Are They Now?
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Remember the Soviet Navy? Ever wonder what happened to all those ships and submarines? Well, the Russians have converted a lot of the ships to commercial freight, and dry-docked most of the rest, but I wondered about those subs, especially the missile boats.
Richard Lugar, who is Chairman of the Senate Foreign relations Committee, wrote an editorial this week for the International Herald Tribune, observing:
As Lugar observes, this is a good start, but there is a strong need for vigilance. The tragic loss of life in the Kursk disaster in 2000 highlights the risk which Russian sailors accept in even normal operations. Also, a quick count of the handling shows that seven submarines “retired” by the Soviets have not been accounted for. This is a concern, when one considers that countries purchasing submarines from Russia, or making offers since 1995 include China, Egypt, India, Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Even if the old boomers are not to be had, any of these countries would gain a strategic dimension to their fleet by adding an Akula-class or Pantera-class to their fleet, and several of those nations would strongly desire the threat to American Aircraft Carriers which these hunter submarines represent. Where the old Soviet Union was cautious because of fear they might provoke a war by attacking a carrier, starting a war by sinking a carrier would be a lofty goal for some of these nations.
So, chalk that up to one more thing the Bush Administration has gotten right so far, although there’s clearly work still to be done, and caution must be applied to the optimism. Somehow, I don’t think we would have seen a President Gore, Kerry, or Clinton paying heed to the danger here the way Dubya has.
Remember the Soviet Navy? Ever wonder what happened to all those ships and submarines? Well, the Russians have converted a lot of the ships to commercial freight, and dry-docked most of the rest, but I wondered about those subs, especially the missile boats.
Richard Lugar, who is Chairman of the Senate Foreign relations Committee, wrote an editorial this week for the International Herald Tribune, observing:
“The United States has been working for more than a decade to dismantle these missile submarines through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Operating largely out of view, the program has dismantled 28 missile submarines carrying 543 missiles capable of hitting America with thousands of warheads. The program plans to destroy another 12 submarines with 169 missiles in the years ahead. At the moment, two Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarines are being dismantled. The Typhoon, the largest submarine ever built, can carry 20 missiles, each with 10 independently targeted warheads. Just one submarine was capable of striking 200 targets with a total explosive force greater than all the bombs dropped in World War II.”
“While the United States has been concentrating on ballistic missile submarines, its allies have tackled the general-purpose submarines that Russia has retired but cannot afford to dismantle. Although unable to fire ballistic missiles, these subs pose serious environmental and proliferation concerns because of their nuclear reactors, the possibility of conventional weaponry remaining on board, and the risk of sinking. The nuclear material could be used in a "dirty bomb," and a nuclear accident could have devastating effects on energy development, food supplies, ocean habitat and indigenous peoples.”
“Of the 193 strategic-missile and general-purpose nuclear submarines retired by Russia, 94 have already been dismantled. Of those awaiting destruction, 55 boats remain floating at the docks or moored off shore.”
“Norway, Britain, France, Germany and Japan are currently dismantling 37 submarines at locations throughout Northwest Russia and in the Far East.”
As Lugar observes, this is a good start, but there is a strong need for vigilance. The tragic loss of life in the Kursk disaster in 2000 highlights the risk which Russian sailors accept in even normal operations. Also, a quick count of the handling shows that seven submarines “retired” by the Soviets have not been accounted for. This is a concern, when one considers that countries purchasing submarines from Russia, or making offers since 1995 include China, Egypt, India, Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Even if the old boomers are not to be had, any of these countries would gain a strategic dimension to their fleet by adding an Akula-class or Pantera-class to their fleet, and several of those nations would strongly desire the threat to American Aircraft Carriers which these hunter submarines represent. Where the old Soviet Union was cautious because of fear they might provoke a war by attacking a carrier, starting a war by sinking a carrier would be a lofty goal for some of these nations.
So, chalk that up to one more thing the Bush Administration has gotten right so far, although there’s clearly work still to be done, and caution must be applied to the optimism. Somehow, I don’t think we would have seen a President Gore, Kerry, or Clinton paying heed to the danger here the way Dubya has.
A Great Game
<><><><>
Imagine this situation: You’re Naeem Lourens, brought in to pitch in a bases-loaded, no-out jam. You’ve never pitched at this level before, and your first game at this championship is with television cameras and reporters from all over the world watching you. You don’t sweat the pressure, but strike out the first batter, get the second to pop up, then strike out the third batter swinging to end the threat.
How about this one? You’re Jurickson Profar, and as you return to third on a throw coming to home, you see your teammate is running there from second. One of you is likely to get tagged, so you both back off from 3rd, forcing the fielder to decide whom to go after, so at least it’s harder for them. When they try to tag you coming home, you slide under the tag and give your team the lead.
Or, how about this? You’re Ty Turpak, and your team is down by three runs in the last regulation inning. With men on second and third, you drop a perfect bunt and the runner beats the tag at home to score the first run in what becomes a game-tying rally.
Or how about this? You’re Michael Memea, coming up in the extra inning after your team came back from 3-1 and 6-3 deficits to tie the game. You figure on a fastball, you’re right, and you drive the ball into the stands for a game-winning walkoff Home Run to win the game.
That’s pretty good baseball, right? Now add this factor: None of the players I mentioned has finished Middle School yet. Yes, I’m talking about the Little League World Series Championship Game, which the U.S. Northwest Team, from Ewa Beach, Hawaii, won 7-6 over the Caribbean Team, from Willemstad, Curagao (Netherlands Antilles).
None of the players, coaches, or officials in the Little League World Series receives a salary or prize money for the Championship (although sponsors do give the players prizes like games, school tools, and scholarships), so we’re talking an especially pure version of Baseball, the kind all too many of us forget about. Also, this is only the second LLWS Championship game to go extra innings, and the first to be won with a walk-off Home Run.
Way to go, both teams. Great game.
Imagine this situation: You’re Naeem Lourens, brought in to pitch in a bases-loaded, no-out jam. You’ve never pitched at this level before, and your first game at this championship is with television cameras and reporters from all over the world watching you. You don’t sweat the pressure, but strike out the first batter, get the second to pop up, then strike out the third batter swinging to end the threat.
How about this one? You’re Jurickson Profar, and as you return to third on a throw coming to home, you see your teammate is running there from second. One of you is likely to get tagged, so you both back off from 3rd, forcing the fielder to decide whom to go after, so at least it’s harder for them. When they try to tag you coming home, you slide under the tag and give your team the lead.
Or, how about this? You’re Ty Turpak, and your team is down by three runs in the last regulation inning. With men on second and third, you drop a perfect bunt and the runner beats the tag at home to score the first run in what becomes a game-tying rally.
Or how about this? You’re Michael Memea, coming up in the extra inning after your team came back from 3-1 and 6-3 deficits to tie the game. You figure on a fastball, you’re right, and you drive the ball into the stands for a game-winning walkoff Home Run to win the game.
That’s pretty good baseball, right? Now add this factor: None of the players I mentioned has finished Middle School yet. Yes, I’m talking about the Little League World Series Championship Game, which the U.S. Northwest Team, from Ewa Beach, Hawaii, won 7-6 over the Caribbean Team, from Willemstad, Curagao (Netherlands Antilles).
None of the players, coaches, or officials in the Little League World Series receives a salary or prize money for the Championship (although sponsors do give the players prizes like games, school tools, and scholarships), so we’re talking an especially pure version of Baseball, the kind all too many of us forget about. Also, this is only the second LLWS Championship game to go extra innings, and the first to be won with a walk-off Home Run.
Way to go, both teams. Great game.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
A Lingering Question
[--]-[--]-[--]-[--]
I've been reading up on the old Soviet Union, and I've noticed a few things. In short order, the USSR basically put up the 'Change in Management' sign in 1989, and a few years later (particularly after the first Gulf War). Along the way there, however, the USSR had collected a lot of toys, the kind that totalitarian regimes like to get. Besides tanks and planes and lots and lots of guns, and naturally the world's largest collection of nuclear warheads, the Soviet Union put a lot of rubles into their navy. Subs, in particular. No less than six new classes of nuclear submarines were put into production during the 1980s, to say nothing of the twelve classes introduced in the 1970s.
The USSR basically did three things with its materials: They negotiated with the USA and England to get rid of the worst of their nuke stockpile, they tried to convert their industry to commercial use, and they sold a lot of the rest. The continuing attempt in particular to find a buyer for their first CTOL carrier, the Kuznetsov, is both funny and tragic. But I've hit a real wall trying to find out what happened to all their nuke subs.
This is more important than it might appear at first. While the more modern subs would be likely to stay in the navy, and the nuclear weapons would be removed, there's still the question about dozens of fast, agile submarines which could even now be in the service of North Korea, Iran, or half a dozen other countries.
I wonder who one asks to find out...
I've been reading up on the old Soviet Union, and I've noticed a few things. In short order, the USSR basically put up the 'Change in Management' sign in 1989, and a few years later (particularly after the first Gulf War). Along the way there, however, the USSR had collected a lot of toys, the kind that totalitarian regimes like to get. Besides tanks and planes and lots and lots of guns, and naturally the world's largest collection of nuclear warheads, the Soviet Union put a lot of rubles into their navy. Subs, in particular. No less than six new classes of nuclear submarines were put into production during the 1980s, to say nothing of the twelve classes introduced in the 1970s.
The USSR basically did three things with its materials: They negotiated with the USA and England to get rid of the worst of their nuke stockpile, they tried to convert their industry to commercial use, and they sold a lot of the rest. The continuing attempt in particular to find a buyer for their first CTOL carrier, the Kuznetsov, is both funny and tragic. But I've hit a real wall trying to find out what happened to all their nuke subs.
This is more important than it might appear at first. While the more modern subs would be likely to stay in the navy, and the nuclear weapons would be removed, there's still the question about dozens of fast, agile submarines which could even now be in the service of North Korea, Iran, or half a dozen other countries.
I wonder who one asks to find out...
Saturday, August 27, 2005
CAUTION: Watching Out For Error In the Ruffini Straw Poll
||||||||||||||
I have said several times that I found the Presidential Candidate poll being run by Patrick Ruffini to be invalid. There are a number of reasons for this, and now that Mr. Ruffini has begun to announce “results” , it’s important to go into the matter in order to avoid mistakes.
People like polls. It’s the combination of hinting at the future, and giving people a say in the call. The media picked up on these points a long time ago, and that’s paid a lot of paychecks for Polling Groups. I have done autopsies on a number of polls since last year’s campaign, showing elements of concern about methodology, weighting, and the ubiquitous bias gremlin. It’s a serious issue for even the most professional pollster. I like Patrick Ruffini and find his thinking generally sound, but he’s allowed his enthusiasm for his own poll to overlook some mistakes, and I must warn the reader that those mistakes can invalidate a lot of the conclusions reached.
The first mistake is the biggest one. Ruffini calls his poll for Giuliani, but Rudy, as much as I like him, only pulls 30.0%. That’s not a win, folks. John Kerry cleared more than 30% last year, and Al Gore cleared over 30% of the Electoral Vote. While certain Aluminati may claim otherwise, neither “Magic Hat” John nor Mr. Internet has signed any bills into law. Giuliani took the most votes in an informal, non-binding, non-scientific poll, with no ramifications beyond providing points for discussion.
The poll itself should not be confused in the slightest with any sort of election or primary contest. The people who took part in the poll, for instance, did not have to register, nor show up at a polling place, and there were fewer security measures taken to prevent repeat votes than in downtown Chicago. Also, the slate of candidates in this poll were selected by a committee of one - Patrick Ruffini. None of the conditions unique to the early primary states was applied to establish a more realistic venue. In that light, Mr. Ruffini’s attempts to project how the slate would do in a real primary seems specious to me. For instance, the early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire have a much larger slate of candidates than the later ones, but they do not generally serve well as indicators of the eventual winner. As for the later polls, candidates drop out for financial and political reasons, and the winner of these primaries generally has a much more focused message, and voters have a clearer choice among fewer (and distinct) options.
Patrick called his poll “statistically valid", simply because he got a lot of participation. Sorry Patrick, but that just isn’t so. For one thing, as I observed before, you did not consider the likelihood of multiple votes, or the poll’s inabiliy to catch cheaters. As an example, I could have voted from my home computer, or any of several computers at work, and you’d have no way of knowing it, much less correcting for it. And I am hardly unique in that capability.
But more to the point, Ruffini’s poll was not weighted. In polling history, one of the most famous blown calls was the 1936 Presidential Election, in which the Literary Digest, a prominent national magazine, called the race for Alf Landon in a blowout. With more than two million people taking part in the LD poll, it seemed like a strong indicator. In the actual election, however, FDR rolled along with ease. The mistakes made by the editors at LD came from failing to understand the demographic balance and address it. And Ruffini makes the same mistake. His poll made no attempt to compensate, for example, for gender or race. Also, there was no weighting for geographic location, a crucial error given the fact that people in different parts of the country naturally find different candidates and different qualities which appeal to them. Taken as a scientific poll, this doesn’t meet even minimal standards.
I also take issue with a trick played by Ruffini in the poll. Ruffini chose not to include several qualified candidates in the poll as main choices, but threw them up as “fantasy” candidates. This is significantly invalid as a polling practice, as it simultaneously denies those individuals an equal place on the ballot, but also draws a connection between the “serious” candidates and the “fantasy” candidates on no more than the whim of Mr. Ruffini. It shows a basic lack of understanding of poll method, and basely insults the candidates demoted to second-class status. Count them on the SAME ballot, Mr. Ruffini, and let the voters decide.
At best, this poll was meaningless, because of the myriad errors in its development. At worst, it was a cheap shot at qualified candidates. That’s too bad, because the poll could have been run to some good effect. If, for example, Ruffini had paid less attention to meaningless statistics, but asked his voters to detail what made their candidate qualified, he could have helped draw out what voters are looking for in the next President. By asking them to specify what worried them about candidates they didn’t choose, Ruffini could have helped these candidates address those concerns early on. It’s just too bad that Ruffini chose a poll which has no effective meaning for the campaigns ahead, and that a false image was created this early. After all, at one time when people didn’t look too deep, a lot of people thought Howard Dean looked Presidential.
I have said several times that I found the Presidential Candidate poll being run by Patrick Ruffini to be invalid. There are a number of reasons for this, and now that Mr. Ruffini has begun to announce “results” , it’s important to go into the matter in order to avoid mistakes.
People like polls. It’s the combination of hinting at the future, and giving people a say in the call. The media picked up on these points a long time ago, and that’s paid a lot of paychecks for Polling Groups. I have done autopsies on a number of polls since last year’s campaign, showing elements of concern about methodology, weighting, and the ubiquitous bias gremlin. It’s a serious issue for even the most professional pollster. I like Patrick Ruffini and find his thinking generally sound, but he’s allowed his enthusiasm for his own poll to overlook some mistakes, and I must warn the reader that those mistakes can invalidate a lot of the conclusions reached.
The first mistake is the biggest one. Ruffini calls his poll for Giuliani, but Rudy, as much as I like him, only pulls 30.0%. That’s not a win, folks. John Kerry cleared more than 30% last year, and Al Gore cleared over 30% of the Electoral Vote. While certain Aluminati may claim otherwise, neither “Magic Hat” John nor Mr. Internet has signed any bills into law. Giuliani took the most votes in an informal, non-binding, non-scientific poll, with no ramifications beyond providing points for discussion.
The poll itself should not be confused in the slightest with any sort of election or primary contest. The people who took part in the poll, for instance, did not have to register, nor show up at a polling place, and there were fewer security measures taken to prevent repeat votes than in downtown Chicago. Also, the slate of candidates in this poll were selected by a committee of one - Patrick Ruffini. None of the conditions unique to the early primary states was applied to establish a more realistic venue. In that light, Mr. Ruffini’s attempts to project how the slate would do in a real primary seems specious to me. For instance, the early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire have a much larger slate of candidates than the later ones, but they do not generally serve well as indicators of the eventual winner. As for the later polls, candidates drop out for financial and political reasons, and the winner of these primaries generally has a much more focused message, and voters have a clearer choice among fewer (and distinct) options.
Patrick called his poll “statistically valid", simply because he got a lot of participation. Sorry Patrick, but that just isn’t so. For one thing, as I observed before, you did not consider the likelihood of multiple votes, or the poll’s inabiliy to catch cheaters. As an example, I could have voted from my home computer, or any of several computers at work, and you’d have no way of knowing it, much less correcting for it. And I am hardly unique in that capability.
But more to the point, Ruffini’s poll was not weighted. In polling history, one of the most famous blown calls was the 1936 Presidential Election, in which the Literary Digest, a prominent national magazine, called the race for Alf Landon in a blowout. With more than two million people taking part in the LD poll, it seemed like a strong indicator. In the actual election, however, FDR rolled along with ease. The mistakes made by the editors at LD came from failing to understand the demographic balance and address it. And Ruffini makes the same mistake. His poll made no attempt to compensate, for example, for gender or race. Also, there was no weighting for geographic location, a crucial error given the fact that people in different parts of the country naturally find different candidates and different qualities which appeal to them. Taken as a scientific poll, this doesn’t meet even minimal standards.
I also take issue with a trick played by Ruffini in the poll. Ruffini chose not to include several qualified candidates in the poll as main choices, but threw them up as “fantasy” candidates. This is significantly invalid as a polling practice, as it simultaneously denies those individuals an equal place on the ballot, but also draws a connection between the “serious” candidates and the “fantasy” candidates on no more than the whim of Mr. Ruffini. It shows a basic lack of understanding of poll method, and basely insults the candidates demoted to second-class status. Count them on the SAME ballot, Mr. Ruffini, and let the voters decide.
At best, this poll was meaningless, because of the myriad errors in its development. At worst, it was a cheap shot at qualified candidates. That’s too bad, because the poll could have been run to some good effect. If, for example, Ruffini had paid less attention to meaningless statistics, but asked his voters to detail what made their candidate qualified, he could have helped draw out what voters are looking for in the next President. By asking them to specify what worried them about candidates they didn’t choose, Ruffini could have helped these candidates address those concerns early on. It’s just too bad that Ruffini chose a poll which has no effective meaning for the campaigns ahead, and that a false image was created this early. After all, at one time when people didn’t look too deep, a lot of people thought Howard Dean looked Presidential.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Evangelizing
[+][+][+]
Over on Beliefnet, I was involved in a discussion about evangelizing, and telling about the Gospel. I thought it might be worth posting here, what I wrote there:
There was a time when I was rigid and frankly hostile to challenges, especially from non-Christians. And yes, I will agree that some people do like to ridicule our faith and the people who profess it. However, in the main people are often skeptical of a faith which makes the outrageous claims that Christ did, and what’s more, some of the people who carried the name had none of Christ’s love in their deeds, so that many more people have been hurt by Christians, and so have strong reason to mistrust the claims of someone else telling them they must embrace what for them was a cruel enemy.
Now then, I have been through many things in my life, and one thing which has always struck me as important, is that every person is different. Consider Christ’s example. Did He speak to the temple merchants the same way He did to Matthew? Did He treat Caiaphas the way He did Joseph of Arimathea? This difference is not at all to say that Jesus was unfair or prejudiced, but that He recognized the different natures of different people, and treated them according to their heart. Unfortunately, we cannot use the same perfect discernment as our Lord, but we do well to keep in mind the different characters of the people we meet. In time and with experience, we learn what each person is about, and how they think. For better or worse, most people here have a pretty good idea of what I am about in mind and person.
So, how to tell the Gospel? I won’t pretend that I have all the answers, but it really does seem obvious to me, that the Gospel is Good News, and should be delivered in a way which carries the joy and hope God intends for us to receive. There have been many fine evangelists over the years, but also many who have chased people away by their manner and aggressive tactics. It helps, I think, to remember that we are only instruments, and not the force which makes any difference. If someone chooses Christ, it will be because of the Holy Spirit, not because I ‘sold’ the Gospel well. So, I choose to be a witness by making sure, first, that I am living as well as I can the love of Christ. If I am not loving, then I am an hypocrite, have far more serious things to address than whether I am increasing the church membership. But if I live by love, then I may hope to share what I know with anyone interested in receiving it. It is never right to force my beliefs on others, or to demand they agree that I am right. Jesus Himself did not do so, and I am in no way his equal by right. It may seem to be defeatist to not press on in preaching the Gospel after a rejection, but we cannot know the path another person may walk, or what they may choose later on. In any case, Grace is not a thing which may be compelled, so if it is not accepted, then we receive our peace back to ourselves. Anything else comes of the self and bitterness, and would spoil the fruit.
Further, there are those Christians who treat the Gospel as if it were a product to be merchandised, and conversions a goal to be scored. I have no way of knowing, honestly, whether the people I speak with have truly accepted Christ, nor would I wish to know. I have been told that I have helped some to see Christ in a loving way, and if so that would be good, but it is not right that I should presume that I hold any right to pride or a claim to accomplishment; at my best I am only pointing out to someone a great gift which I myself received freely, and if I take airs of importance to myself, it would lead me to sin and hurt the very people I believed I was helping. One member, made a point earlier that she does not keep track of the good things she does, and I applaud that spirit. If you do not dwell on the good or evil in the past, you are free to do good and receive joy in the future. If you focus on the love and hope granted to us by God, rather than on the petty measures we humans so often fall prey to, you can more easily share that love and hope with other people. Consider the Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable. By doctrine, the Samaritans do not understand the true LORD, but are mistaken in their beliefs. For all of that however, when the man was robbed and left for dead in the road, it was not the Priest or the Pharisee who was his neighbor, but the Samaritan who stopped and gave the aid he needed. And the Samaritan, though he gave freely of his time, effort, and money, did not speak a word of dogma to the man he helped; his focus was on the love for his neighbor in need. Shall we then, when we see a need, focus on a point of religion and doctrine, or shall we help with no thought beyond doing what is needed?
Consider also the thief on the cross. If there was ever a man I’d like to have lunch and a long conversation with, it would be this man. In all His life, Jesus was never at true need but once. For all His poverty, Jesus never complained of want. For all the humiliation of preaching the true Gospel directly to people, as Immanuel and Messiah Himself, only to be rejected by men unwilling to part with their pettiness and self-sold bitterness, Jesus never condemned the towns and cities which laughed at Him. Even Jerusalem, when they cried out for His blood, He did not curse, but mourned for. But there came a time, when (having taken the whole world’s sin throughout all time on Himself), it was required that the perfect Father reject His own Son on the cross, and Jesus cried out in despair. In that instant, Satan had his cruelest opportunity, but this thief simply asked Jesus to remember him ,when Christ came into His kingdom. It was the one moment when God in the flesh had need of something from Man, and this one time a man delivered, speaking in faith words so simple they are often missed, yet in consequence they carried the same faith and hope which Christ Himself had so often offered to all men. A lifetime of hearing only ridicule and rejection was made good in one sentence in faith. If our Lord could bear that, we should be careful to take whatever we receive in good grace.
It falls to each believer to carry his/her burden as it is appointed to them, but it seems to me that sharing the Gospel is a happy thing, not a chore but a pleasurable privilege. It also seems to me that we ought to consider how it delivered. Many years ago in school, I was being taunted by a group of thugs at school, and I told them that I would pray for them. That earned me a nasty beating, as it gave them the accurate impression that I considered myself to be their better, and their reaction was the predictable anger one sees in a person who considers themselves to have been deliberately provoked. On other occasions, I missed opportunities to share the Gospel, instead choosing to talk down to the person I was addressing, conveying contempt for their person instead of truly trying to meet their needs. After all, when Jesus met people, He often began the conversation on surprisingly mundane things. He did not require people to become His disciple in order to help or heal them, but gave His service freely. Remember when Jesus healed ten lepers, and only one came back to thank Him? Jesus did not then curse the other nine, nor did He deny His help wherever He was able. We are charged then, not to fling the Gospel in the face of someone who is not a Christian, but to seek people out and help as we can, and only offer the Gospel if and when the person is open to receiving it. When the person is clearly not interested, it will accomplish no good to press.
Now, here at Beliefnet it is reasonable to believe that people are open to exchanging perspectives and opinions, especially here at the Debate boards. It is normal practice here for opinions to be presented but also challenged, for perspectives to be considered but also sometimes missed. In five years, precious few have changed their beliefs on a major level (though it does happen), but many have re-examined their beliefs because of an experience with someone. I am happy to say that quite a few people have reconsidered old assumptions about what a fundamentalist Christian is, because of some enlightening conversations we have shared with each other. But a large part of that comes from understanding that I also respect other people’s beliefs. I will never be a Pagan or a Muslim, but that does not prevent me from accepting the truths such believers have learned from God, nor from respecting the person for their heart and mind. I have encountered the love of God in many people who do not call themselves Christian, and it reminds me that I do not know all His ways. What does not make sense to me now, I trust to His care and direction. I tell of my faith and why I hold it, and do my best to speak with reason and respect. You will do as you think best, of course, but I hope these thoughts will be of some value.
Over on Beliefnet, I was involved in a discussion about evangelizing, and telling about the Gospel. I thought it might be worth posting here, what I wrote there:
There was a time when I was rigid and frankly hostile to challenges, especially from non-Christians. And yes, I will agree that some people do like to ridicule our faith and the people who profess it. However, in the main people are often skeptical of a faith which makes the outrageous claims that Christ did, and what’s more, some of the people who carried the name had none of Christ’s love in their deeds, so that many more people have been hurt by Christians, and so have strong reason to mistrust the claims of someone else telling them they must embrace what for them was a cruel enemy.
Now then, I have been through many things in my life, and one thing which has always struck me as important, is that every person is different. Consider Christ’s example. Did He speak to the temple merchants the same way He did to Matthew? Did He treat Caiaphas the way He did Joseph of Arimathea? This difference is not at all to say that Jesus was unfair or prejudiced, but that He recognized the different natures of different people, and treated them according to their heart. Unfortunately, we cannot use the same perfect discernment as our Lord, but we do well to keep in mind the different characters of the people we meet. In time and with experience, we learn what each person is about, and how they think. For better or worse, most people here have a pretty good idea of what I am about in mind and person.
So, how to tell the Gospel? I won’t pretend that I have all the answers, but it really does seem obvious to me, that the Gospel is Good News, and should be delivered in a way which carries the joy and hope God intends for us to receive. There have been many fine evangelists over the years, but also many who have chased people away by their manner and aggressive tactics. It helps, I think, to remember that we are only instruments, and not the force which makes any difference. If someone chooses Christ, it will be because of the Holy Spirit, not because I ‘sold’ the Gospel well. So, I choose to be a witness by making sure, first, that I am living as well as I can the love of Christ. If I am not loving, then I am an hypocrite, have far more serious things to address than whether I am increasing the church membership. But if I live by love, then I may hope to share what I know with anyone interested in receiving it. It is never right to force my beliefs on others, or to demand they agree that I am right. Jesus Himself did not do so, and I am in no way his equal by right. It may seem to be defeatist to not press on in preaching the Gospel after a rejection, but we cannot know the path another person may walk, or what they may choose later on. In any case, Grace is not a thing which may be compelled, so if it is not accepted, then we receive our peace back to ourselves. Anything else comes of the self and bitterness, and would spoil the fruit.
Further, there are those Christians who treat the Gospel as if it were a product to be merchandised, and conversions a goal to be scored. I have no way of knowing, honestly, whether the people I speak with have truly accepted Christ, nor would I wish to know. I have been told that I have helped some to see Christ in a loving way, and if so that would be good, but it is not right that I should presume that I hold any right to pride or a claim to accomplishment; at my best I am only pointing out to someone a great gift which I myself received freely, and if I take airs of importance to myself, it would lead me to sin and hurt the very people I believed I was helping. One member, made a point earlier that she does not keep track of the good things she does, and I applaud that spirit. If you do not dwell on the good or evil in the past, you are free to do good and receive joy in the future. If you focus on the love and hope granted to us by God, rather than on the petty measures we humans so often fall prey to, you can more easily share that love and hope with other people. Consider the Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable. By doctrine, the Samaritans do not understand the true LORD, but are mistaken in their beliefs. For all of that however, when the man was robbed and left for dead in the road, it was not the Priest or the Pharisee who was his neighbor, but the Samaritan who stopped and gave the aid he needed. And the Samaritan, though he gave freely of his time, effort, and money, did not speak a word of dogma to the man he helped; his focus was on the love for his neighbor in need. Shall we then, when we see a need, focus on a point of religion and doctrine, or shall we help with no thought beyond doing what is needed?
Consider also the thief on the cross. If there was ever a man I’d like to have lunch and a long conversation with, it would be this man. In all His life, Jesus was never at true need but once. For all His poverty, Jesus never complained of want. For all the humiliation of preaching the true Gospel directly to people, as Immanuel and Messiah Himself, only to be rejected by men unwilling to part with their pettiness and self-sold bitterness, Jesus never condemned the towns and cities which laughed at Him. Even Jerusalem, when they cried out for His blood, He did not curse, but mourned for. But there came a time, when (having taken the whole world’s sin throughout all time on Himself), it was required that the perfect Father reject His own Son on the cross, and Jesus cried out in despair. In that instant, Satan had his cruelest opportunity, but this thief simply asked Jesus to remember him ,when Christ came into His kingdom. It was the one moment when God in the flesh had need of something from Man, and this one time a man delivered, speaking in faith words so simple they are often missed, yet in consequence they carried the same faith and hope which Christ Himself had so often offered to all men. A lifetime of hearing only ridicule and rejection was made good in one sentence in faith. If our Lord could bear that, we should be careful to take whatever we receive in good grace.
It falls to each believer to carry his/her burden as it is appointed to them, but it seems to me that sharing the Gospel is a happy thing, not a chore but a pleasurable privilege. It also seems to me that we ought to consider how it delivered. Many years ago in school, I was being taunted by a group of thugs at school, and I told them that I would pray for them. That earned me a nasty beating, as it gave them the accurate impression that I considered myself to be their better, and their reaction was the predictable anger one sees in a person who considers themselves to have been deliberately provoked. On other occasions, I missed opportunities to share the Gospel, instead choosing to talk down to the person I was addressing, conveying contempt for their person instead of truly trying to meet their needs. After all, when Jesus met people, He often began the conversation on surprisingly mundane things. He did not require people to become His disciple in order to help or heal them, but gave His service freely. Remember when Jesus healed ten lepers, and only one came back to thank Him? Jesus did not then curse the other nine, nor did He deny His help wherever He was able. We are charged then, not to fling the Gospel in the face of someone who is not a Christian, but to seek people out and help as we can, and only offer the Gospel if and when the person is open to receiving it. When the person is clearly not interested, it will accomplish no good to press.
Now, here at Beliefnet it is reasonable to believe that people are open to exchanging perspectives and opinions, especially here at the Debate boards. It is normal practice here for opinions to be presented but also challenged, for perspectives to be considered but also sometimes missed. In five years, precious few have changed their beliefs on a major level (though it does happen), but many have re-examined their beliefs because of an experience with someone. I am happy to say that quite a few people have reconsidered old assumptions about what a fundamentalist Christian is, because of some enlightening conversations we have shared with each other. But a large part of that comes from understanding that I also respect other people’s beliefs. I will never be a Pagan or a Muslim, but that does not prevent me from accepting the truths such believers have learned from God, nor from respecting the person for their heart and mind. I have encountered the love of God in many people who do not call themselves Christian, and it reminds me that I do not know all His ways. What does not make sense to me now, I trust to His care and direction. I tell of my faith and why I hold it, and do my best to speak with reason and respect. You will do as you think best, of course, but I hope these thoughts will be of some value.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Harry Potter and the Center for National Threat Response
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
As you will know from reading the earlier articles, I have been enjoying the Harry Potter stories immensely. One theme that runs through all the stories is one we all should recognize, and many call our own – Harry doesn’t really want to be famous or powerful, he just wants to live his life without someone trying to kill him, or, almost as bad, expecting him to do some heroic deed that will make everything all right. But life being what it is (and poor Harry suffering as the protagonist in the merciless clutches of the novelist), Harry does what he has to do, and it generally works out for the best, though not without cost. There is a parallel in that to the role the United States is continually expected to play. The U.S. is cursed and reviled for its power and resources, yet it is the Americans who are called on first to meet the crises of our time; the bigger the crisis the more absolute it is that the Americans must take it on.
I have been reading through some old papers on the Soviet threat during the 1980s (the Reagan years), and with those dark days in mind, I find it ludicrous in the extreme that the MainPain Media and the Paranoid cry out in such cowardice when a few thuggish brutes are able to kill a number of others as they snuff out their own existence. That does not mean that I am insensitive to the pain of the victims; we must end terrorism as a common practice in the world. This does not mean that I am cavalier about the dead soldiers in Iraq; a soldier to me is a higher form of personage, and the loss of such men is grievous. But the plain fact is, these monsters cannot win by their method. A coward may flee them, and the morally weak may give in to them, but our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, are nothing like the losses we accepted while winning World War 2, nor are we propping up a corrupt government as we did in Vietnam. So long as men of steadfast heart and mind make the decisions, we will prevail, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have already seen the spread of excitement for Democracy sweep through the region, chasing Syrian occupiers from Lebanon, and forcing Libya to renounce the WMD it was building (funny, how those people who would love to taunt W on the claim that there were no WMD in Iraq, not only ignore the evidence of those programs, but turn their backs on real anti-proliferation progress made in Libya, Syria, and even Iran, specifically because of the American presence). The American presence is having a good effect in everything it touches, and this not only degrades the threats to U.S. National Security on a number of levels, but also builds the foundation for positive relationships with many nations.
We are winning, and that is good news, not only for many millions now, but for their children to come.
As you will know from reading the earlier articles, I have been enjoying the Harry Potter stories immensely. One theme that runs through all the stories is one we all should recognize, and many call our own – Harry doesn’t really want to be famous or powerful, he just wants to live his life without someone trying to kill him, or, almost as bad, expecting him to do some heroic deed that will make everything all right. But life being what it is (and poor Harry suffering as the protagonist in the merciless clutches of the novelist), Harry does what he has to do, and it generally works out for the best, though not without cost. There is a parallel in that to the role the United States is continually expected to play. The U.S. is cursed and reviled for its power and resources, yet it is the Americans who are called on first to meet the crises of our time; the bigger the crisis the more absolute it is that the Americans must take it on.
I have been reading through some old papers on the Soviet threat during the 1980s (the Reagan years), and with those dark days in mind, I find it ludicrous in the extreme that the MainPain Media and the Paranoid cry out in such cowardice when a few thuggish brutes are able to kill a number of others as they snuff out their own existence. That does not mean that I am insensitive to the pain of the victims; we must end terrorism as a common practice in the world. This does not mean that I am cavalier about the dead soldiers in Iraq; a soldier to me is a higher form of personage, and the loss of such men is grievous. But the plain fact is, these monsters cannot win by their method. A coward may flee them, and the morally weak may give in to them, but our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, are nothing like the losses we accepted while winning World War 2, nor are we propping up a corrupt government as we did in Vietnam. So long as men of steadfast heart and mind make the decisions, we will prevail, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have already seen the spread of excitement for Democracy sweep through the region, chasing Syrian occupiers from Lebanon, and forcing Libya to renounce the WMD it was building (funny, how those people who would love to taunt W on the claim that there were no WMD in Iraq, not only ignore the evidence of those programs, but turn their backs on real anti-proliferation progress made in Libya, Syria, and even Iran, specifically because of the American presence). The American presence is having a good effect in everything it touches, and this not only degrades the threats to U.S. National Security on a number of levels, but also builds the foundation for positive relationships with many nations.
We are winning, and that is good news, not only for many millions now, but for their children to come.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
China: The Present Threat
&&&&&&&
China will not use nuclear weapons on the United States. That, by itself, displays a major difference between the Cold War conflict between the USA and the USSR, and the present rivalry between the U.S. and the P.R.C. As I observed in yesterday’s article, Communist China walked a different road to get here than the one involving Lenin, Stalin, and the KGB. That’s hardly to say that the Ministry of State Security (MSS) is a kind and understanding establishment, but the threat is of a different order.
First, the military plane. If the Soviet Union was a Rottweiler, the Red Army of China is a bad-tempered Shih Tzu. The Chinese defense forces are formidable, so it’s not a case of insulting their structure and planning, but there is, by modern American standards, essentially no offensive capability. The PRC can invade a second-tier country, which gives them ambitions towards Taiwan if the U.S. could be persuaded to ignore the rape of that island, but in a major conflict against U.S. forces, China has no hope of mounting a successful offensive. They have no long-range bombers, no deep-water navy beyond a few missile cruisers, certainly no operational aircraft carriers (though China has been trying to acquire some of the old Russian STOL carriers, and even contracted to refit a conventional-wing carrier). They have relatively few nuclear missiles, certainly not enough for a functional first-strike. But most of all, China has never been in a multi-theater conflict, as an all-out war with the United States would be (because the Russians and other Pacific nations would join in, if for no reason beyond their self-interest to prevent a Chinese hegemony). Fortunately, the Chinese Politburo understand this basic fact very well.
This, among other things, is a factor in the Politburo’s concern about dissidence. While many people are aware of the 1989 uprising which led to the brutal response at Tienamen Square, most do not reaize that it was preceded by uprisings to various degrees in 1976, 1979, and 1986. In each case, Chinese citizens simply demanded rights and reforms; there was no demand to overthrow the government, but to improve it. The repression came from the simple need by the Politburo to assert control. That Chairman Deng pursued many of the requested reforms later, in the guise of his own initiative, is a move which should not be misunderstood. The Politburo will do things on its own terms, no matter what.
The Chinese do not understand the United States. This is hardly surprising, given the fluid nature of American culture, but the Chinese also make the mistake that many nations do, of assuming that what makes sense to them will be what we do. As a result, the American rebuilding of Japan was originally seen as a military strategy by China, and the NATO/SEATO alliances were seen as posturing for a future conquest. The Gulf War in 1990-1991 and the present War in Afghanistan and Iraq, are generally considered by China to be reasonable attempts to secure control of the distribution of oil from the Middle East; the notion that we are there for moral reasons is laughed at by the Chinese, and so the success enjoyed in most of the ventures has stunned the Chinese. The Chinese Politburo for the most part believes that George W. Bush has concealed his motives and intentions well. The Chinese have no idea at all, what Dubya plans next.
The United States has had considerable difficulty penetrating the Chinese structure for intelligence purposes, but the Chinese are in a worse position. This is, in large part, due to the fact that not only are far more Chinese coming to the United States as immigrants than there are Americans going to China, the Chinese often assimilate, to such degree that Chinese Intelligence agents are deliberately misled by Chinese living in the United States.
An area where China has enjoyed far greater success, is in espionage. This is partly due to poor decisions regarding sensitive metals and technology during the Clinton Administration, allowing China to make gains their own research would have taken decades to claim. But also, China has been able to take advantage of cover companies, to glean knowledge from American companies, especially communications and aeronautic firms. As a result, while Chinese fighter jets are no match for American fighter jets, Chinese industry is rapidly closing in cellular technology, automotive and commercial aircraft production. The Chinese are even learning 3rd-Wave inventory tactics, allowing start-up firms to compete immediately in international commerce.
Fortunately, the best efforts of China to compete as a peer in business and technology also work to make Communism less appealing than market forces. The special conditions allowed to the Autonomous regions in Hong Kong and Macau demonstrate the need China has discovered, to copy Western practices where there is no Communist equivalent. However, in the end the contrast between Communism and Success will force the modern Chinese citizen to think about the course of his nation, and the force of History suggests that while the new world in Asia will not be American in flavor, it may well be American in character.
China will not use nuclear weapons on the United States. That, by itself, displays a major difference between the Cold War conflict between the USA and the USSR, and the present rivalry between the U.S. and the P.R.C. As I observed in yesterday’s article, Communist China walked a different road to get here than the one involving Lenin, Stalin, and the KGB. That’s hardly to say that the Ministry of State Security (MSS) is a kind and understanding establishment, but the threat is of a different order.
First, the military plane. If the Soviet Union was a Rottweiler, the Red Army of China is a bad-tempered Shih Tzu. The Chinese defense forces are formidable, so it’s not a case of insulting their structure and planning, but there is, by modern American standards, essentially no offensive capability. The PRC can invade a second-tier country, which gives them ambitions towards Taiwan if the U.S. could be persuaded to ignore the rape of that island, but in a major conflict against U.S. forces, China has no hope of mounting a successful offensive. They have no long-range bombers, no deep-water navy beyond a few missile cruisers, certainly no operational aircraft carriers (though China has been trying to acquire some of the old Russian STOL carriers, and even contracted to refit a conventional-wing carrier). They have relatively few nuclear missiles, certainly not enough for a functional first-strike. But most of all, China has never been in a multi-theater conflict, as an all-out war with the United States would be (because the Russians and other Pacific nations would join in, if for no reason beyond their self-interest to prevent a Chinese hegemony). Fortunately, the Chinese Politburo understand this basic fact very well.
This, among other things, is a factor in the Politburo’s concern about dissidence. While many people are aware of the 1989 uprising which led to the brutal response at Tienamen Square, most do not reaize that it was preceded by uprisings to various degrees in 1976, 1979, and 1986. In each case, Chinese citizens simply demanded rights and reforms; there was no demand to overthrow the government, but to improve it. The repression came from the simple need by the Politburo to assert control. That Chairman Deng pursued many of the requested reforms later, in the guise of his own initiative, is a move which should not be misunderstood. The Politburo will do things on its own terms, no matter what.
The Chinese do not understand the United States. This is hardly surprising, given the fluid nature of American culture, but the Chinese also make the mistake that many nations do, of assuming that what makes sense to them will be what we do. As a result, the American rebuilding of Japan was originally seen as a military strategy by China, and the NATO/SEATO alliances were seen as posturing for a future conquest. The Gulf War in 1990-1991 and the present War in Afghanistan and Iraq, are generally considered by China to be reasonable attempts to secure control of the distribution of oil from the Middle East; the notion that we are there for moral reasons is laughed at by the Chinese, and so the success enjoyed in most of the ventures has stunned the Chinese. The Chinese Politburo for the most part believes that George W. Bush has concealed his motives and intentions well. The Chinese have no idea at all, what Dubya plans next.
The United States has had considerable difficulty penetrating the Chinese structure for intelligence purposes, but the Chinese are in a worse position. This is, in large part, due to the fact that not only are far more Chinese coming to the United States as immigrants than there are Americans going to China, the Chinese often assimilate, to such degree that Chinese Intelligence agents are deliberately misled by Chinese living in the United States.
An area where China has enjoyed far greater success, is in espionage. This is partly due to poor decisions regarding sensitive metals and technology during the Clinton Administration, allowing China to make gains their own research would have taken decades to claim. But also, China has been able to take advantage of cover companies, to glean knowledge from American companies, especially communications and aeronautic firms. As a result, while Chinese fighter jets are no match for American fighter jets, Chinese industry is rapidly closing in cellular technology, automotive and commercial aircraft production. The Chinese are even learning 3rd-Wave inventory tactics, allowing start-up firms to compete immediately in international commerce.
Fortunately, the best efforts of China to compete as a peer in business and technology also work to make Communism less appealing than market forces. The special conditions allowed to the Autonomous regions in Hong Kong and Macau demonstrate the need China has discovered, to copy Western practices where there is no Communist equivalent. However, in the end the contrast between Communism and Success will force the modern Chinese citizen to think about the course of his nation, and the force of History suggests that while the new world in Asia will not be American in flavor, it may well be American in character.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Focus on China
[[]][[]][[]]
A lot of people look at Communist China, and see the Soviet Union, only with worse clothes and better cuisine. In actual fact, there are substantial differences between the two flavors of Communism, and as the 21st Century unfolds, it is vital to understand the character and ambitions of America’s chief rival for the Pacific.
Communism, as we know, began as the ill-considered musings of Karl Marx, a self-possessed man far greater in pretension than ability. The bastard child of Utopian fantasy and bloody-handed revolution found a father in Vladimir Lenin, who used his organizational and propagandist talents to usurp a new republic with the totalitarian Communists. The series of skirmishes and counter-revolution during the next decade insured that the Soviet Union’s foundation would be based on fear. The rise of Josef Stalin was to be expected, as was the evolution of the cruel but disorganized Cheka into the much more lethal NKVD, and the largest and cruelest secret police agency known to history, the KGB.
In contrast, the road of China to Communism, though it also led from Empire through a brief republic into Communism, did so with a good deal more popular support. By the end of the Second World War, the Communists had made a name for themselves by attacking the Japanese through rebellion, while the Kuomintang was often accused of collaborating with the Occupying forces in China. Like Lenin, Mao was crafty with propaganda, as there is now significant evidence that the Communists were cooperating with the same Triads and gangs that the Kuomintang was, but without any appearance of collaboration with Japan. Also, Mao correctly surmised that following the long war, most Chinese were disinclined to pursue a long fight, and since the Communists appeared stronger and better-organized by the Kuomintang by 1948, Mao was able to suggest that a Communist victory would be a shorter conflict. Worse for the Kuomintang, their connection to the American and European governments made them appear to be dealing with outsiders, which played into an extant xenophobia in China.
After Nixon’s breakthrough trip to China in 1972, a counterforce was put into play in China, as Politburo members who wished to cultivate a relationship with the U.S. saw their stock rise, especially as the Soviet Union became less willing to treat with China as an equal partner.
The terrible atrocities committed during the “Great Leap Forward”, the brutal invasion of Tibet, and the Tienamen Square massacre may appear, at first glance, to match the brutality of the Soviet regime, but they were actually reactions, almost in panic, to demands for reform. In some respects the Chinese regime is more stable than the Soviet one, since it is based on a more responsive structure to public demand, but in other ways the Chinese Politburo is less durable than the Kremlin; if a significant movement to replace the Communists takes hold, it may well overthrow the regime. This is not necessarily a good thing; CIA assessments since 2000 have observed that the replacement regime is likely to be weaker against criminal and reactionary elements.
All of this is not meant as an apology for the Communist government of China, but to note the distinctions which may well affect their decisions politically, militarily, and in economic decisions. The acquisition of Macau and Hong Kong were primarily economic measures, and the decisions made regarding those new territories has been with a clear interest in financial stability and gain. The cooperation between the United States and China since the 2001 incident where a Chinese fighter jet collided with an American P-3 reconnaissance aircraft over International waters, is subtle but distinct, as is the character of Chinese maneuvers regarding Taiwan. One would be a fool to believe the mainland has given up the chase for Taiwan, but the nature and tone of the relationship has certainly evolved; not enough to be naïve but enough to encourage China to take further steps towards regional leadership.
A lot of people look at Communist China, and see the Soviet Union, only with worse clothes and better cuisine. In actual fact, there are substantial differences between the two flavors of Communism, and as the 21st Century unfolds, it is vital to understand the character and ambitions of America’s chief rival for the Pacific.
Communism, as we know, began as the ill-considered musings of Karl Marx, a self-possessed man far greater in pretension than ability. The bastard child of Utopian fantasy and bloody-handed revolution found a father in Vladimir Lenin, who used his organizational and propagandist talents to usurp a new republic with the totalitarian Communists. The series of skirmishes and counter-revolution during the next decade insured that the Soviet Union’s foundation would be based on fear. The rise of Josef Stalin was to be expected, as was the evolution of the cruel but disorganized Cheka into the much more lethal NKVD, and the largest and cruelest secret police agency known to history, the KGB.
In contrast, the road of China to Communism, though it also led from Empire through a brief republic into Communism, did so with a good deal more popular support. By the end of the Second World War, the Communists had made a name for themselves by attacking the Japanese through rebellion, while the Kuomintang was often accused of collaborating with the Occupying forces in China. Like Lenin, Mao was crafty with propaganda, as there is now significant evidence that the Communists were cooperating with the same Triads and gangs that the Kuomintang was, but without any appearance of collaboration with Japan. Also, Mao correctly surmised that following the long war, most Chinese were disinclined to pursue a long fight, and since the Communists appeared stronger and better-organized by the Kuomintang by 1948, Mao was able to suggest that a Communist victory would be a shorter conflict. Worse for the Kuomintang, their connection to the American and European governments made them appear to be dealing with outsiders, which played into an extant xenophobia in China.
After Nixon’s breakthrough trip to China in 1972, a counterforce was put into play in China, as Politburo members who wished to cultivate a relationship with the U.S. saw their stock rise, especially as the Soviet Union became less willing to treat with China as an equal partner.
The terrible atrocities committed during the “Great Leap Forward”, the brutal invasion of Tibet, and the Tienamen Square massacre may appear, at first glance, to match the brutality of the Soviet regime, but they were actually reactions, almost in panic, to demands for reform. In some respects the Chinese regime is more stable than the Soviet one, since it is based on a more responsive structure to public demand, but in other ways the Chinese Politburo is less durable than the Kremlin; if a significant movement to replace the Communists takes hold, it may well overthrow the regime. This is not necessarily a good thing; CIA assessments since 2000 have observed that the replacement regime is likely to be weaker against criminal and reactionary elements.
All of this is not meant as an apology for the Communist government of China, but to note the distinctions which may well affect their decisions politically, militarily, and in economic decisions. The acquisition of Macau and Hong Kong were primarily economic measures, and the decisions made regarding those new territories has been with a clear interest in financial stability and gain. The cooperation between the United States and China since the 2001 incident where a Chinese fighter jet collided with an American P-3 reconnaissance aircraft over International waters, is subtle but distinct, as is the character of Chinese maneuvers regarding Taiwan. One would be a fool to believe the mainland has given up the chase for Taiwan, but the nature and tone of the relationship has certainly evolved; not enough to be naïve but enough to encourage China to take further steps towards regional leadership.
Monday, August 22, 2005
South Border Thoughts
[]-[]-[]-[]-[]
A couple days ago, I opened a discussion on the question of Border Security in the United States. I actually should have put up a different title, as the discussion, even with my own thoughts, reflected only the issues dealing with the border along Mexico’s frontier, and with the problems concerning illegal residency by Latins in the United States. The fact there have been verified attempts by terrorists to enter by Canada over the past few years is worth noting, indeed deserves its own post in the general question of border security apart from illegal residency.
There have been, as of noon Monday, 129 responses to the thread, but not much in the way of direct answers to my specific questions. To continue this important discussion then, I am presenting the questions again, along with the specific answers received, some comments on the issue worth considering and my own thoughts on these questions:
Question 1: Employers have faced increasingly strict measures for knowingly hiring illegals. However, the Congress has refused to pass some laws which would have put real teeth into the prevention of hiring illegal aliens. Why, do you think, has this been the case?
Knightowl77 said “I think it is because Business interests actually run the country. Not we the voters. Politicians of both parties including the president are more interested in what is good for business instead of what is good for the country”
Terrye suggests “I would say do a better job at the border and require ID here so that it will be harder to pass. And try to force them to become legal, so that if they come here they do it the right way”
Oak Leaf suggests “I would propose that every employer, right down to the family that wants a nanny, should be required to pay an annual “undocumented worker tax” in the amount of $10,000.00. For every worker that is “documented” this tax would not apply”
FreeKeys suggests: “Guest worker permits for 2 years; 3 years max. Every permit says: no welfare, no non-emergency health care, no food stamps, no schooling, no tuition, NO VOTING. At the end of the term: escort to the border.”
JINX suggested “Why shouldn’t the law enforcement agency that finds an illegal alien in the employ of someone not be entitled to the proceeds, a bit like the parking fine system. That would provide the most compelling public sector motivation known to man - easily earned and assesed public fines. Maybe this idea could even be pepped up, like in saying, that any asset used in the activity of employing undocumented workers could be seized/confiscated by the law enforcement agency that apprends the undocumented worker in question, where said asset would become the property of the apprehending agency, not unlike the procedure already in place for assets used in the commission of drug related crime. agency That would certainy sharpen the appetite of our without any doubt most idealistic officers of the law, and induce a vertiable frency of enforcement activity in this field of endeavour.”
Dtlc had a 3-part response: “(A) free markets : (i)
— Mexicans or (others) can travel to the USA and perform work (agricultural, construction, babysitting, etc);
—- Some Americans will lose their jobs. However, overall, this will cut down the costs of business and increase the standard of living for the majority.
(ii) abolishing the welfare state, OR
(iii) The illegal immigrants cannot get
— free education, whether elementary, secondary, college, etc. (i.e. taxpayer funded)
— free health care (i.e. taxpayer funded);
— free subsidies (through mortgages, which are insured through FDIC and our taxes)
(B) open, but regulated, borders :
— there is no need to sneak into the USA. Anyone can enter through checkpoints. However, anyone crossing the border illegally gets shot (or arrested and next time they can’t enter the country anymore);
—- the immigrants must pass a thorough background checks. For example, anyone who has criminal history or mental illness or some contagious disease does not come in. Anyone who is even suspected of having a terrorist link is turned away or is arrested. Anyone who does not cooperate, is sent back. Yes, yes, this creates logistical difficulties, but it could be worked out.
—- a security wall is build across the border (just like Israel is doing)
© Citizenship Must Be Earned
—– there is no automatic citizenship for illegal immigrants just because you were lucky enough to be born on this side of the border.
—- you live in the USA for 15 years and if say 5 or 10 neighbors and co-workers vouch for you, then you (and your family) become US resident (Green card) and after another 5 years you become a citizens
(I believe Switzerland does that)."
All interesting answers. I would suggest this for my own answer:
The Congress of the United States is more fragmented than the public mood, which is one large reason the Congress doesn’t often do what the public demands. Besides the divide between Republicans and Democrats, there is also the fact that the Senate continues to demand it be treated differently (which is to say, with greater deference) than the House of Representatives. Then there is the regional nature of the body, with each of the five major coasts (Gulf, South, Northeast, Northwest and West) and the three heartlands (Bread Belt, Rust Belt, and the ‘Midwest’) all voting by a regional consensus more than anything else. Add to that the unfortunate fact that Job One for anyone in Congress is to get re-elected, and it becomes apparent that unless and until Illegal Residency is a national priority, Congress is not going to do anything at all except vaguely promise some action in the future. You may recall that the top questions in the poll I sent to every member of Congress in January/February included the following:
“1. Should photo ID cards be required in order to vote?
2. What will you do to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and/or terrorists?”
I would suggest we turn the heat up and keep it up, especially whenever a related event shows the danger.
Question 2: Mexico is not cooperating with the United States. Instead, they have taken such actions as to provide Consular Identification Cards for Mexican nationals in the U.S., without verifying that they are here legally. Also, there are indications that Mexico’s own borders are very porous, especially to anyone heading North into the U.S. What actions could the United States take to change this condition, bearing in mind that Mexico is a sovereign state, and in some years past hostility between the U.S. and Mexican governments over the border issue has led to additional conflict?
Gs suggested “One solution is a high level of legal immigration. Bring ‘em in, assimilate them as Americans (not as grievance-nursing multicultural victims), encourage their upward mobility, and let the future unfold”
Russ noticed “Yet there is something called, sanctuary cities which I’m guessing is most run by liberals”
I would suggest, for my answer, that the United States tie specific and significant incentives and penalties to border enforcement. I would further create a series of consular conferences between the United States and Mexico to discuss the welfare of Mexican nationals in the United States, as well as planned joint initiatives to curb border-running. This should include joint law enforcement exercises and missions of high visibility and value to the Mexican government. And the United States must have statements given by State Department employees in Spanish; the value of this action cannot be over-estimated.
Question 3: The greatest danger of illegal entry into the United States, is that someone practiced in border-running, often known as a “coyote”, will bring in terrorists. The law at present is relatively light against border-runners. What definition, legally, should be established to create a legal class for professional border-runners, and what legal actions should be taken against repeated border-runners to discourage the profession?
Repeated border-running must be made a felony, with mandatory sentences of 10+ years. The offense must be classed as a national security risk, which will allow for prisons to be created specifically for this class of offender. The cases must be highly publicized, and the practice made unappealing as a money-making scheme. Individuals might be pardoned as a means to improve diplomatic relations, but especially severe sentences must be handed down to anyone who transports a wanted felon or fugitive across a border.
The seizure of a business which has more than 5% undocumented workers would be a good start for improving attention to the simple need for valid I-9 forms, which any business manager can fill out and maintain. As for national ID’s, I would say we are not at that point, for the reason that the public still reacts poorly to the notion, but a national minimum standard for Driver’s Licenses and/or State Identification cards is long overdue. Also, there can be no question but that the Green Card system must be overhauled to class people into various categories, with a computerized warning for the last known location of anyone about to expire, and a Federal Law prohibiting anyone remaining at large whose residency has expired or been revoked.
That would be a good starting point for the needed reforms. That, and a lot of noise to let Congress know this is not going away, or a small issue.
A couple days ago, I opened a discussion on the question of Border Security in the United States. I actually should have put up a different title, as the discussion, even with my own thoughts, reflected only the issues dealing with the border along Mexico’s frontier, and with the problems concerning illegal residency by Latins in the United States. The fact there have been verified attempts by terrorists to enter by Canada over the past few years is worth noting, indeed deserves its own post in the general question of border security apart from illegal residency.
There have been, as of noon Monday, 129 responses to the thread, but not much in the way of direct answers to my specific questions. To continue this important discussion then, I am presenting the questions again, along with the specific answers received, some comments on the issue worth considering and my own thoughts on these questions:
Question 1: Employers have faced increasingly strict measures for knowingly hiring illegals. However, the Congress has refused to pass some laws which would have put real teeth into the prevention of hiring illegal aliens. Why, do you think, has this been the case?
Knightowl77 said “I think it is because Business interests actually run the country. Not we the voters. Politicians of both parties including the president are more interested in what is good for business instead of what is good for the country”
Terrye suggests “I would say do a better job at the border and require ID here so that it will be harder to pass. And try to force them to become legal, so that if they come here they do it the right way”
Oak Leaf suggests “I would propose that every employer, right down to the family that wants a nanny, should be required to pay an annual “undocumented worker tax” in the amount of $10,000.00. For every worker that is “documented” this tax would not apply”
FreeKeys suggests: “Guest worker permits for 2 years; 3 years max. Every permit says: no welfare, no non-emergency health care, no food stamps, no schooling, no tuition, NO VOTING. At the end of the term: escort to the border.”
JINX suggested “Why shouldn’t the law enforcement agency that finds an illegal alien in the employ of someone not be entitled to the proceeds, a bit like the parking fine system. That would provide the most compelling public sector motivation known to man - easily earned and assesed public fines. Maybe this idea could even be pepped up, like in saying, that any asset used in the activity of employing undocumented workers could be seized/confiscated by the law enforcement agency that apprends the undocumented worker in question, where said asset would become the property of the apprehending agency, not unlike the procedure already in place for assets used in the commission of drug related crime. agency That would certainy sharpen the appetite of our without any doubt most idealistic officers of the law, and induce a vertiable frency of enforcement activity in this field of endeavour.”
Dtlc had a 3-part response: “(A) free markets : (i)
— Mexicans or (others) can travel to the USA and perform work (agricultural, construction, babysitting, etc);
—- Some Americans will lose their jobs. However, overall, this will cut down the costs of business and increase the standard of living for the majority.
(ii) abolishing the welfare state, OR
(iii) The illegal immigrants cannot get
— free education, whether elementary, secondary, college, etc. (i.e. taxpayer funded)
— free health care (i.e. taxpayer funded);
— free subsidies (through mortgages, which are insured through FDIC and our taxes)
(B) open, but regulated, borders :
— there is no need to sneak into the USA. Anyone can enter through checkpoints. However, anyone crossing the border illegally gets shot (or arrested and next time they can’t enter the country anymore);
—- the immigrants must pass a thorough background checks. For example, anyone who has criminal history or mental illness or some contagious disease does not come in. Anyone who is even suspected of having a terrorist link is turned away or is arrested. Anyone who does not cooperate, is sent back. Yes, yes, this creates logistical difficulties, but it could be worked out.
—- a security wall is build across the border (just like Israel is doing)
© Citizenship Must Be Earned
—– there is no automatic citizenship for illegal immigrants just because you were lucky enough to be born on this side of the border.
—- you live in the USA for 15 years and if say 5 or 10 neighbors and co-workers vouch for you, then you (and your family) become US resident (Green card) and after another 5 years you become a citizens
(I believe Switzerland does that)."
All interesting answers. I would suggest this for my own answer:
The Congress of the United States is more fragmented than the public mood, which is one large reason the Congress doesn’t often do what the public demands. Besides the divide between Republicans and Democrats, there is also the fact that the Senate continues to demand it be treated differently (which is to say, with greater deference) than the House of Representatives. Then there is the regional nature of the body, with each of the five major coasts (Gulf, South, Northeast, Northwest and West) and the three heartlands (Bread Belt, Rust Belt, and the ‘Midwest’) all voting by a regional consensus more than anything else. Add to that the unfortunate fact that Job One for anyone in Congress is to get re-elected, and it becomes apparent that unless and until Illegal Residency is a national priority, Congress is not going to do anything at all except vaguely promise some action in the future. You may recall that the top questions in the poll I sent to every member of Congress in January/February included the following:
“1. Should photo ID cards be required in order to vote?
2. What will you do to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and/or terrorists?”
I would suggest we turn the heat up and keep it up, especially whenever a related event shows the danger.
Question 2: Mexico is not cooperating with the United States. Instead, they have taken such actions as to provide Consular Identification Cards for Mexican nationals in the U.S., without verifying that they are here legally. Also, there are indications that Mexico’s own borders are very porous, especially to anyone heading North into the U.S. What actions could the United States take to change this condition, bearing in mind that Mexico is a sovereign state, and in some years past hostility between the U.S. and Mexican governments over the border issue has led to additional conflict?
Gs suggested “One solution is a high level of legal immigration. Bring ‘em in, assimilate them as Americans (not as grievance-nursing multicultural victims), encourage their upward mobility, and let the future unfold”
Russ noticed “Yet there is something called, sanctuary cities which I’m guessing is most run by liberals”
I would suggest, for my answer, that the United States tie specific and significant incentives and penalties to border enforcement. I would further create a series of consular conferences between the United States and Mexico to discuss the welfare of Mexican nationals in the United States, as well as planned joint initiatives to curb border-running. This should include joint law enforcement exercises and missions of high visibility and value to the Mexican government. And the United States must have statements given by State Department employees in Spanish; the value of this action cannot be over-estimated.
Question 3: The greatest danger of illegal entry into the United States, is that someone practiced in border-running, often known as a “coyote”, will bring in terrorists. The law at present is relatively light against border-runners. What definition, legally, should be established to create a legal class for professional border-runners, and what legal actions should be taken against repeated border-runners to discourage the profession?
Repeated border-running must be made a felony, with mandatory sentences of 10+ years. The offense must be classed as a national security risk, which will allow for prisons to be created specifically for this class of offender. The cases must be highly publicized, and the practice made unappealing as a money-making scheme. Individuals might be pardoned as a means to improve diplomatic relations, but especially severe sentences must be handed down to anyone who transports a wanted felon or fugitive across a border.
The seizure of a business which has more than 5% undocumented workers would be a good start for improving attention to the simple need for valid I-9 forms, which any business manager can fill out and maintain. As for national ID’s, I would say we are not at that point, for the reason that the public still reacts poorly to the notion, but a national minimum standard for Driver’s Licenses and/or State Identification cards is long overdue. Also, there can be no question but that the Green Card system must be overhauled to class people into various categories, with a computerized warning for the last known location of anyone about to expire, and a Federal Law prohibiting anyone remaining at large whose residency has expired or been revoked.
That would be a good starting point for the needed reforms. That, and a lot of noise to let Congress know this is not going away, or a small issue.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Spooks on Demand
||||||||||||||||||||||||
In his latest novel, author Michael Crichton has a major character who flashes a badge whenever he needs legal authority. The office he works for? The "National Security Intelligence Agency".
So far as I know, the NSIA does not exist as a government entity; Crichton appears to have created the agency purely for his story. But that does not mean there are not more than a dozen agencies, which are largely unknown to the population.
There are fifteen official government agencies which are classed as intelligence agencies. Many more perform intelligence-gathering tasks or analysis, but are not considered intelligence agencies by nature. Then there are the "black" agencies, which are never publically recognized. And that does not go into the private groups, created to perform tasks for foundations and corporations, and also for those tasks the government does not wish to have connections revealed.
Sometime in the next week, I will examine this phenomenon in greater detail.
In his latest novel, author Michael Crichton has a major character who flashes a badge whenever he needs legal authority. The office he works for? The "National Security Intelligence Agency".
So far as I know, the NSIA does not exist as a government entity; Crichton appears to have created the agency purely for his story. But that does not mean there are not more than a dozen agencies, which are largely unknown to the population.
There are fifteen official government agencies which are classed as intelligence agencies. Many more perform intelligence-gathering tasks or analysis, but are not considered intelligence agencies by nature. Then there are the "black" agencies, which are never publically recognized. And that does not go into the private groups, created to perform tasks for foundations and corporations, and also for those tasks the government does not wish to have connections revealed.
Sometime in the next week, I will examine this phenomenon in greater detail.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Harry Potter and the Seventh Book: A Guess or Two
*-*-*-*-*-*
Here at the start of this column, I should warn the reader that if you are that particular individual who is reading the “Harry Potter” series (or plans to), but have not gotten through Book 6 yet, this may be a little bit of a spoiler for you, so keep that in mind. As it happens, though, I read a number of “spoiler” essays and articles before I read even the first of the “Harry Potter” stories, and for me there was no disappointment. I’m writing this particular column, for those readers who believe their taste in literature and discussion is a bit like my own. As a result, I am amusing myself with a few guesses about what we will see happen in the last book of the “Harry Potter” saga.
There’s always a risk in predicting what will happen in a book that has yet to be written; it could even be, that if a certain thought becomes popular, Ms. Rowling might decide to avoid precisely that, simply because she wants a surprise or four in the last book. But I believe the claim that Ms. Rowling has already planned out the framework of her story, and there are certain basic presumptions which have been established in the first six books/years.
Obviously, a lot of readers are doing the same thing I am; looking at the story as it has come to its present position, and trying to chart the course to come. The reasons that I think my guess might be closer, is because of two points I have observed. First, Rowling is not perfect, not describing a real place with real events which can be corroborated. She has made some mistakes in consistency and veracity, as often happens when an author creates a complex world for a story, and must maintain it for a long time. This is, actually, to Rowling’s credit, as this is one of the qualities which makes her stories compelling. But it also provides a clue to Rowling’s own priorities, because Rowling will naturally have made sure to keep the story consistent on those points and details that she considers essential to the plot. The second point, is simply that sometimes people see what they expect to see, whether or not it’s really there. I will try to avoid that mistake here, but it’s important to recognize that this happens.
So, what are these priorities to Ms. Rowling? A look through the six books already done shows the following elements:
1. Harry is always in danger, but is never critically or permanently injured, although he does get hurt.
2. Voldemort is successful in his plots, except for any of them which involve Potter.
3. Voldemort trusts no one, and has no friends. In contrast, Harry has several close friends, is close to them and depends on them. Harry also considers his friends’ feelings, and is even open to considering the feelings of his enemies, at times even feeling pity for enemies like Snape and Malfoy.
4. The significant action always takes place at or in relation to Hogwarts.
5. Harry has done a number of actions which, Dumbledore has reminded Harry, create a kind of power for which Voldemort has no answer, such as mercy for Wormtail.
6. Voldemort is acting out of his own lust for power. Harry is acting as he feels he is required to do, and has no desire for personal glory or power (again, as Dumbledore reminded Harry when discussing the Sorceror’s Stone)
7. There are other players in this conflict, of whom Voldemort may well have no knowledge. The mysterious “R.A.B.” who appears in book 6, the question of whether the people killed by Voldemort might not come back in some form (remember in the duel between Voldemort and Potter, Voldemort’s victims come back to help Harry escape), and of course the question of what role people like Neville Longbottom, Ron Weasley, and of course Severus Snape may play. And I have a hunch we may see Fleur and Viktor come into play, as well.
So, let’s put this together and see what looks like the direction. First off, we will see Bill and Fleur’s wedding in the first part of the book. I notice that Rowling likes to mix happy and sad events in the early story of each book. Since Harry is not at all happy at the end of ‘Half-Blood Prince’, that tells me Rowling will try to brighten the mood a bit. I will honestly say that I cannot be sure that Hogwarts will open again that year; on the one hand, Hogwarts has always been a center of action and focus in the story, but with Dumbledore’s death (and Snape’s exit) it becomes a bit difficult to see who would be the face of Hogwarts. The fact that book 6 ends without a House Cup awarded suggests that major changes are happening.
I think I will ponder things a bit further before making the whole prediction, but two things strike me about the conflict between Voldemort and Potter, which actually bode well for Harry’s victory and survival. First is the fact that Voldemort fared rather badly the first time he and Harry crossed paths, and the tearing of his own soul into 7 parts seems representative that he can never be whole, itself an apparent reason to say Voldemort cannot win. Harry, in contrast, has been growing end developing, at the end of each year stronger in character and ability. Voldemort has enjoyed some successes, but always at a cost he has not truly seen in effect, while Harry is setting up a condition which indicates he is owed a moral debt by a great many people.
Then there is the simple fact, that Chapter 1 of the first book may have said it plainly: Harry Potter is described by Rowling herself as “The Boy Who Lived”. It would only be consistent that Harry also gets to live as a man.
Here at the start of this column, I should warn the reader that if you are that particular individual who is reading the “Harry Potter” series (or plans to), but have not gotten through Book 6 yet, this may be a little bit of a spoiler for you, so keep that in mind. As it happens, though, I read a number of “spoiler” essays and articles before I read even the first of the “Harry Potter” stories, and for me there was no disappointment. I’m writing this particular column, for those readers who believe their taste in literature and discussion is a bit like my own. As a result, I am amusing myself with a few guesses about what we will see happen in the last book of the “Harry Potter” saga.
There’s always a risk in predicting what will happen in a book that has yet to be written; it could even be, that if a certain thought becomes popular, Ms. Rowling might decide to avoid precisely that, simply because she wants a surprise or four in the last book. But I believe the claim that Ms. Rowling has already planned out the framework of her story, and there are certain basic presumptions which have been established in the first six books/years.
Obviously, a lot of readers are doing the same thing I am; looking at the story as it has come to its present position, and trying to chart the course to come. The reasons that I think my guess might be closer, is because of two points I have observed. First, Rowling is not perfect, not describing a real place with real events which can be corroborated. She has made some mistakes in consistency and veracity, as often happens when an author creates a complex world for a story, and must maintain it for a long time. This is, actually, to Rowling’s credit, as this is one of the qualities which makes her stories compelling. But it also provides a clue to Rowling’s own priorities, because Rowling will naturally have made sure to keep the story consistent on those points and details that she considers essential to the plot. The second point, is simply that sometimes people see what they expect to see, whether or not it’s really there. I will try to avoid that mistake here, but it’s important to recognize that this happens.
So, what are these priorities to Ms. Rowling? A look through the six books already done shows the following elements:
1. Harry is always in danger, but is never critically or permanently injured, although he does get hurt.
2. Voldemort is successful in his plots, except for any of them which involve Potter.
3. Voldemort trusts no one, and has no friends. In contrast, Harry has several close friends, is close to them and depends on them. Harry also considers his friends’ feelings, and is even open to considering the feelings of his enemies, at times even feeling pity for enemies like Snape and Malfoy.
4. The significant action always takes place at or in relation to Hogwarts.
5. Harry has done a number of actions which, Dumbledore has reminded Harry, create a kind of power for which Voldemort has no answer, such as mercy for Wormtail.
6. Voldemort is acting out of his own lust for power. Harry is acting as he feels he is required to do, and has no desire for personal glory or power (again, as Dumbledore reminded Harry when discussing the Sorceror’s Stone)
7. There are other players in this conflict, of whom Voldemort may well have no knowledge. The mysterious “R.A.B.” who appears in book 6, the question of whether the people killed by Voldemort might not come back in some form (remember in the duel between Voldemort and Potter, Voldemort’s victims come back to help Harry escape), and of course the question of what role people like Neville Longbottom, Ron Weasley, and of course Severus Snape may play. And I have a hunch we may see Fleur and Viktor come into play, as well.
So, let’s put this together and see what looks like the direction. First off, we will see Bill and Fleur’s wedding in the first part of the book. I notice that Rowling likes to mix happy and sad events in the early story of each book. Since Harry is not at all happy at the end of ‘Half-Blood Prince’, that tells me Rowling will try to brighten the mood a bit. I will honestly say that I cannot be sure that Hogwarts will open again that year; on the one hand, Hogwarts has always been a center of action and focus in the story, but with Dumbledore’s death (and Snape’s exit) it becomes a bit difficult to see who would be the face of Hogwarts. The fact that book 6 ends without a House Cup awarded suggests that major changes are happening.
I think I will ponder things a bit further before making the whole prediction, but two things strike me about the conflict between Voldemort and Potter, which actually bode well for Harry’s victory and survival. First is the fact that Voldemort fared rather badly the first time he and Harry crossed paths, and the tearing of his own soul into 7 parts seems representative that he can never be whole, itself an apparent reason to say Voldemort cannot win. Harry, in contrast, has been growing end developing, at the end of each year stronger in character and ability. Voldemort has enjoyed some successes, but always at a cost he has not truly seen in effect, while Harry is setting up a condition which indicates he is owed a moral debt by a great many people.
Then there is the simple fact, that Chapter 1 of the first book may have said it plainly: Harry Potter is described by Rowling herself as “The Boy Who Lived”. It would only be consistent that Harry also gets to live as a man.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Professor Snape, SIR
S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S
To begin with, anyone who wants a well-done analysis of Severus Snape, needs to go read Dave Kopel's essay, "Severus Snape: the Unlikely Hero of Harry Potter Book 7". It was this essay that convinced me to buy the series and read it, and I must confess it shaped my early thoughts.
Reading in so compact a fashion has a certain effect, and I have some definite ideas about what to expect for Book 7. Now, about Snape, one thing I think is obvious about Snape, is that he definitely is not 100% with Voldemoldy. Early in the book, he pretends to Narcissa, that he is privy to the plan involving Draco, yet later Draco's words make it clear that Severus did not know the plan. Also, there is the matter of his confrontation with Potter at the school. Despite his shout to the Death Eaters that Voldemort has commanded that Potter be left to him, there is no reason why they could not have attempted to capture or at least wound Potter - this is a strong indicator that Snape does not want Potter attacked. See also how Snape pulls his punches, not even using spells which could easily and quickly have frozen Potter and put him in immense pain. This is consistent with the whole 6-year history; Snape insulted and demeaned Potter, yet his specific actions were never personally attacking. Consider, for example, the difference between Snape's idea of detention (filling out index cards by hand) and that of Professor Umbridge, who tortured Harry by forcing him to write lines into his own hand, with his own blood, leaving scars visible a year later. And Snape never took advantage of many opportunities to interrogate Potter at length, or physically hurt him at all. I can only surmise that this means there was a force compelling Snape to not only not hurt Potter physically, but even to protect him. It is also obvious to me, that Snape despised this compulsion, whatever it is.
Before going further, it is important to also recognize that Severus Snape truly loathes Potter; it is not at all an act, especially since Snape mocks and belittles Potter at every chance, far more than would be necessary just to play the part of Volemoron's minion.So, it is very unlikely that Snape is totally on one side or the other.
So, with these opposing points in mind, what to make of Severus Snape? I would say, return to the constant elements of Snape, which are the following:
Jealousy,
Envy,
Inferiority, and
Revenge
We see these elements over and over again. It's not hard to see how Snape became a Death Eater in the first place. VoldeOopsy would have noted how Snape was an outsider, and played that to his advantage. It also bears noting, that Snape's early talents and interests were to the Dark Arts, plainly in hopes of exacting revenge on all the people who were better-looking and more popular than him, who always had friends and money at hand, and who looked at Snape as an object, not a person. I would go so far as to say MoldyWart trusted Snape a bit more than other Death Eaters, because he saw some of the same emotions in Snape that he had experienced when he was that age, and believed he would know if Snape changed his mind and heart.I take Dumbledore at his word, when he said (repeatedly) that he trusted Snape, and despite appearances, I believe there was a solid reason underneath it all, but Dumbledore never shared it with anyone, because he knew that the secret reason was what kept Snape alive; if Dumbledore told anyone why he knew he could trust Snape, that knowledge would eventually make its way back to the Dark Lord, and that would be the very gruesome end of Severus Snape.I think what happened, was that Snape's relationship with James and Lily Potter changed after school. Snape never came to like Potter, but as time passed his rage faded somewhat, and the effect of Lily on James was to change the man for the better, and soften Snape's mind, not to the point of forgiveness, but to the point of withholding deliberate harm. That was one of Snape's secrets, you see, he knew how to really hurt someone, even kill them, yet he never did so, always holding back his worst weapons so he could tell himself he did the noble thing, he the 'Half-Blood Prince'. But when he told VoMo the bit of the prophecy he heard, thinking to ingratiate himself with the Dark Lord, he unwittingly sent James and Lily Potter to their deaths, and in Snape's mind that created a debt, one which could only be repaid by protecting Harry. Also, Snape came to realize that VultureMortis had no intention of rewarding him for his loyalty, indeed that his half-breed lineage would forever keep him out of the inner circle, and that VoicedeMonkey would never allow anyone to share his power to any degree, that tore it; in Snape's mind VoMo had violated a point of honor, one which changed Snape's course forever.
So, I would suggest that in book 7, Snape will betray Voldemort, picking his time for the best opportunity. It will likely be near the end of the story, but will include protection for Harry, and likely even provide him a weapon of some sort to use against VoMo. Given Harry's mistrust of Snape, he will not realize the gift for some time after it's offered to him, which may likely cost Snape his life. It would be fair turnabout for Snape to give Harry a gift in repayment for letting his parents be killed, and Harry use it in repayment for Snape dying to get it to him.
To begin with, anyone who wants a well-done analysis of Severus Snape, needs to go read Dave Kopel's essay, "Severus Snape: the Unlikely Hero of Harry Potter Book 7". It was this essay that convinced me to buy the series and read it, and I must confess it shaped my early thoughts.
Reading in so compact a fashion has a certain effect, and I have some definite ideas about what to expect for Book 7. Now, about Snape, one thing I think is obvious about Snape, is that he definitely is not 100% with Voldemoldy. Early in the book, he pretends to Narcissa, that he is privy to the plan involving Draco, yet later Draco's words make it clear that Severus did not know the plan. Also, there is the matter of his confrontation with Potter at the school. Despite his shout to the Death Eaters that Voldemort has commanded that Potter be left to him, there is no reason why they could not have attempted to capture or at least wound Potter - this is a strong indicator that Snape does not want Potter attacked. See also how Snape pulls his punches, not even using spells which could easily and quickly have frozen Potter and put him in immense pain. This is consistent with the whole 6-year history; Snape insulted and demeaned Potter, yet his specific actions were never personally attacking. Consider, for example, the difference between Snape's idea of detention (filling out index cards by hand) and that of Professor Umbridge, who tortured Harry by forcing him to write lines into his own hand, with his own blood, leaving scars visible a year later. And Snape never took advantage of many opportunities to interrogate Potter at length, or physically hurt him at all. I can only surmise that this means there was a force compelling Snape to not only not hurt Potter physically, but even to protect him. It is also obvious to me, that Snape despised this compulsion, whatever it is.
Before going further, it is important to also recognize that Severus Snape truly loathes Potter; it is not at all an act, especially since Snape mocks and belittles Potter at every chance, far more than would be necessary just to play the part of Volemoron's minion.So, it is very unlikely that Snape is totally on one side or the other.
So, with these opposing points in mind, what to make of Severus Snape? I would say, return to the constant elements of Snape, which are the following:
Jealousy,
Envy,
Inferiority, and
Revenge
We see these elements over and over again. It's not hard to see how Snape became a Death Eater in the first place. VoldeOopsy would have noted how Snape was an outsider, and played that to his advantage. It also bears noting, that Snape's early talents and interests were to the Dark Arts, plainly in hopes of exacting revenge on all the people who were better-looking and more popular than him, who always had friends and money at hand, and who looked at Snape as an object, not a person. I would go so far as to say MoldyWart trusted Snape a bit more than other Death Eaters, because he saw some of the same emotions in Snape that he had experienced when he was that age, and believed he would know if Snape changed his mind and heart.I take Dumbledore at his word, when he said (repeatedly) that he trusted Snape, and despite appearances, I believe there was a solid reason underneath it all, but Dumbledore never shared it with anyone, because he knew that the secret reason was what kept Snape alive; if Dumbledore told anyone why he knew he could trust Snape, that knowledge would eventually make its way back to the Dark Lord, and that would be the very gruesome end of Severus Snape.I think what happened, was that Snape's relationship with James and Lily Potter changed after school. Snape never came to like Potter, but as time passed his rage faded somewhat, and the effect of Lily on James was to change the man for the better, and soften Snape's mind, not to the point of forgiveness, but to the point of withholding deliberate harm. That was one of Snape's secrets, you see, he knew how to really hurt someone, even kill them, yet he never did so, always holding back his worst weapons so he could tell himself he did the noble thing, he the 'Half-Blood Prince'. But when he told VoMo the bit of the prophecy he heard, thinking to ingratiate himself with the Dark Lord, he unwittingly sent James and Lily Potter to their deaths, and in Snape's mind that created a debt, one which could only be repaid by protecting Harry. Also, Snape came to realize that VultureMortis had no intention of rewarding him for his loyalty, indeed that his half-breed lineage would forever keep him out of the inner circle, and that VoicedeMonkey would never allow anyone to share his power to any degree, that tore it; in Snape's mind VoMo had violated a point of honor, one which changed Snape's course forever.
So, I would suggest that in book 7, Snape will betray Voldemort, picking his time for the best opportunity. It will likely be near the end of the story, but will include protection for Harry, and likely even provide him a weapon of some sort to use against VoMo. Given Harry's mistrust of Snape, he will not realize the gift for some time after it's offered to him, which may likely cost Snape his life. It would be fair turnabout for Snape to give Harry a gift in repayment for letting his parents be killed, and Harry use it in repayment for Snape dying to get it to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
