{<>}
Readers may be aware that I am preparing, late in life, to pursue my Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree. Because of my work and family responsibilities, I am not in a position to move to another part of the country and spend full-time studies at a prestigious university, nor does my resume suggest that such a commitment would be significantly effective in improving my career. Like many Americans, my career needs documentation to advance, but my position does not afford the luxury of full-time study. As a result, I began to research part-time study and Distance Learning. A large number of schools offer graduate degrees with evening and/or weekend classes, and of course the Distance Learning courses were designed with working people in mind. But in addition to the need to measure the reputation of each school and program, the working student must also consider the stupidity, prejudice, and hidebound fear of progress present in many places, especially as ‘brick-and-mortar’ schools find themselves ill-equipped to address 21st-Century realities.
As a case in point, there is a blogger by the nomme de plume of “Dead Man Blogging” (his real name appears to be Dean Domenico, first name unknown, college unstated, credentials nonexistent judging from this little piece of work), which seems an awfully petty inference to such a serious issue, especially given that this fellow has not posted even one article on the Death Penalty, but I digress.
This fellow claims to be a Department Chairman at “a New England College’s Business School”. Certainly he has the arrogance to match the claim, as he tears into Distance Learning with absolutely nothing beyond his prejudice and fear of new technology to support his insults. Even so, his claims are worth examining, as they demonstrate not only the false assumptions of the Brickhead set, but also their emotional refusal to examine the matter in detail, which practice is often fatal in the business world. That is, when an executive makes important decisions on assumptions and prejudice, he is often going to discover his error in the General Ledger. For a department head of a college to make such a mistake in dismissing the value and credibility of alternative degree programs, is no less stupid than Ken Lay’s repeated imitation of Sergeant Schulz about what was going on at Enron.
“Dead Man”, as he wishes to be called, makes a series of blunders in his assertions, which should be considered in the light of reason, to which I humbly submit my efforts:
Dead Man: “Distance learning, where students essentially attend college online, seems to be a win-win for all concerned. Students get college credit from the comfort of their own home, and colleges have a high profit, high growth potential alternative revenue stream. Even make-believe colleges, like the University of Phoenix, can get in on the action in tapping into the large number of people looking for an easy degree and willing to buy the credential.”
So, beyond the obvious hatred for Distance Learning, what errors does Dead Man make here? First off, he implies that Online students are lazy and Online schools are greedy. The best refutation to that comes from the fact that the University of Phoenix is accredited, meaning that its practices and curriculum have been reviewed and approved by an authorized body of professionals. In UoP’s case, that would be the Higher Learning Commission, founded in 1895 and responsible for accrediting higher-learning schools in nineteen states. The HLC is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Phoenix is also a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of eleven major regional accrediting agencies in the United States. The United States has no national accrediting body, but does recognize several national associations in specialized degrees.
As a result, not only is the University of Phoenix recognized at regional and national levels as a fully-accredited school of higher learning, it is entirely possible that UoP has better accreditation than the college where “Dead Man” runs a department. I think it is patently obvious at this point, that referring to an accredited university with clear and strict degree requirements and course curricula as “make-believe” is not merely a baseless insult to the professors and students at the University of Phoenix, but demonstrates the low intellectual effort made by Dead Man to determine the school’s qualities. Claiming that Distance Learning is an “easy” degree or that students are trying to “buy the credential”, appears to my mind to be so false and prejudiced as to tread on an actionable offense.
Dead Man has therefore established an intellectual laziness on his part, with more than a whiff of dishonesty and malice. One difference, after all, between the in-school and online studies, is that the student attending school can sometimes hide in the back, “attending” the class but not participating if he is not prepared, while the online student is required to participate and contribute – the system records his comments and questions, so there is actually a higher standard of participation required for the online student. Dead Man is oblivious to this rather plain fact.
Next, we read this from Dead Man : “I see a lot of students, especially those returning after some time in the work force, that are just looking to get their ticket punched and seeking the easiest path to the sheepskin.”
Now see, only someone so immersed in Academia and its Elitism for Elitism’s Sake mantra, could possibly address professionals seeking an advanced degree with such obvious contempt. It seems that we working folks are somehow sullying the halls of his Ivory Tower to seek a degree which we can actually use, or to presume that years of professional work can add practical value to classroom discussion would somehow diminish the wisdom of such sages as “Dead Man”. I rather suspect that Dead Man fears that theories which are touted in the classroom would have reason to fear close examination by people experienced in the real world, and so he would prefer to keep out those who might prove him wrong, unaware that his own arguments demonstrate his error.
Dead Man did make one salient comment in his article: “The two important issues are whether the distance learning experience delivers a valuable education, and whether a distance learning degree delivers a valued credential.”
Unfortunately, this “Department Chairman” completely fails to answer the first question honestly, and so fails on accuracy as well. His article places the value on what Dead Man calls “traditional college educators” and “sophisticated employers”, never observing the false premise contained in those groups. First, a reasonable querant looks for objective responses to significant questions, not consensus among partisans. Dead Man apparently asked some people with backgrounds and environments similar to his own, and wonder of wonders, discovered that they share his prejudice. Dead Man reinforces this blunder by claiming, again on no evidence whatsoever, that Distance Learning means “low-level entrance requirements (which are essentially a pen and checkbook)” [the man simply cannot be bothered to go dig up the facts on this point], and “the lack of a classroom experience replete with interactions with instructors and other students”. This second statement is even more outrageous, when one considers real-world examples. I have already outlined the accreditation of Phoenix, but Dead Man also blows the point by failing to observe that a number of very fine traditional universities also offer Distance Learning graduate programs, including Arizona State University, Boston University, Colorado State University, Drexel University, Gonzaga University, the University of Iowa, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine University, Purdue University, Quinnipiac University, Syracuse University, Temple University, Tulane University, Villanova University, Wake Forest University, and the University of Washington. Dead Man manages to falsely insult over a hundred universities offering online degree, including many with AACSB accreditation – the highest tier of accrediting associations for business schools. Dead Man once again proves himself to be either exceptionally dense, or exceptionally malicious in addition to being recklessly stupid.
Dead man dismisses the online discussions as “canned”, which I find distinctly hypocritical and pretentious. I recall my undergraduate days at Baylor, in classes which sometimes exceeded a hundred students, so that asking the professor a question during class was simply impossible, and many professors were notorious for not being at their offices during posted hours. The online experience, on the other hand, is specifically engineered to create conversation including all students, where every student has access to the professor and classmates, and where questions and observations are not limited to a set schedule, but are posted and answered both in real time and as different individuals see the posting. This provides not only for more response, but better information and a deeper understanding of the material discussed. Once again, Dead Man’s prejudices blind him to perceiving the true state of things.
Dead Man sniffs at the very notion of Distance Learning, saying “This is not a defensive posture germinating from a desire to preserve our jobs and the status quo; quite the contrary, distance learning (and for some, even web-ct, i.e., distance learning lite), would make our jobs immensely easier. We are philosophically against it, and see it as a matter of ethics and efficacy.”
Having cited evidence that shows Dead Man is not only unaware of the educational advantages of the online classroom, clearly biased against fullly-employed students pursuing advanced degrees, and totally out of touch with not only the failings of old-style classrooms, but also the teaching gains to be had by using new technology, this statement is worse than self-serving – it is no better than denial, and once again falsely implies a lower standard to Distance Learning. Further, the exponential growth of Distance Learning degrees from schools ranked as among the very best for business degrees by such publications as Business Week and U.S. News and World Report, demonstrates a rank hypocrisy by Dead Man and his like-minded cronies. No, he and his ilk demean Distance Learning, even as some of the very best schools in the country pursue such options and excel in their results. Dead Man says “When we get applications from those with distance learning degrees, for instance, they are immediately discarded. Many of the employers we talk to have the same perspective, and in fact a distance learning degree is sometimes viewed as worse than having no degree at all.”
That is simply the hate speech of a delusional bigot, and at this point only reinforces the sad stupidity of this claimant. Dead Man demands that students “work in the right way and get the job done. A distance degree signals sloth with the faint scent of artifice, a desire to take the easy way out.”
I dare say sir, that a graduate from a school like Syracuse or Drexel with an online MBA is far more competent in his field than you can pretend, especially as your inability to support your claims with evidence, or even notice the explosion of quality programs, so coldly displays a refusal to do your homework or consider evidence from the real world. And speaking from my writing perspective, Dead Man is also a distinctly poor blogger.
My point in this denunciation of such recalcitrant hypocrisy, is not only to take apart this slander against a sector of the student population, whose work is equally as good as the old-style schools could claim, but to point out that a key responsibility for the modern commentator includes challenging the prejudices and old-world bias that still stain progress and injure honest people. Whether correcting the bias of Mainstream News or the malice in Hidebound Academia, we must pursue open discussion, correction, and redirection towards Reality, away from the assumptions and hypocrisy of the past.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Where’s Waldo? I Could Tell You, But Then I Would Have To Kill You
.* * * .
Yes, it’s me again, “shilling” for the Intelligence Community, or more accurately explaining some of the roles of and distinctions between the different agencies and offices in the Intelligence Community (IC). The Aluminati will claim it’s all conspiracy of course, but the actual separation of duties and roles for each agency is important to seeing the mosaic which is U.S. National Security. I have already discussed the CIA, NSA, and FBI, although barely touching the surface of each. Today, I examine one of the more obscure agencies, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
From its name, one would suspect that the DIA performs a military version of the functions done by the CIA, but that is not exactly correct. The DIA is a manager of information for the military, but where the CIA uses its agents to collect information and analyzes that for decisions by the Executive Branch, the DIA receives military intelligence and disseminates it to the men in the field.
The DIA was created in 1961, and enjoys the distinction of being the first agency to conclusively determine the existence of Soviet missile launch pads on the island of Cuba in 1962.
This parsing of information may seem small matters to people obsessed with our collection efforts, but analysis is the key to making use of any information. As important as it is to gain the clues to what our enemies intend, we must have capable analysts who can not only determine the likely intentions of our foes, but offer useful information to the men who must prevent those intentions.
Yes, it’s me again, “shilling” for the Intelligence Community, or more accurately explaining some of the roles of and distinctions between the different agencies and offices in the Intelligence Community (IC). The Aluminati will claim it’s all conspiracy of course, but the actual separation of duties and roles for each agency is important to seeing the mosaic which is U.S. National Security. I have already discussed the CIA, NSA, and FBI, although barely touching the surface of each. Today, I examine one of the more obscure agencies, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
From its name, one would suspect that the DIA performs a military version of the functions done by the CIA, but that is not exactly correct. The DIA is a manager of information for the military, but where the CIA uses its agents to collect information and analyzes that for decisions by the Executive Branch, the DIA receives military intelligence and disseminates it to the men in the field.
The DIA was created in 1961, and enjoys the distinction of being the first agency to conclusively determine the existence of Soviet missile launch pads on the island of Cuba in 1962.
This parsing of information may seem small matters to people obsessed with our collection efforts, but analysis is the key to making use of any information. As important as it is to gain the clues to what our enemies intend, we must have capable analysts who can not only determine the likely intentions of our foes, but offer useful information to the men who must prevent those intentions.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Malcolm In The Middle, SCOTUS Style
{+++}
As the Senate Judiciary Committee bumbles through predictable questions, predictable statements, and heads towards what certainly appears to be the predictable confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, there seems to be little attention paid yet to the man whose stock rises the most in this new balance of influence; Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It looks pretty likely that Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the high court, and it’s pretty clear that Alito will be, as much as we can be sure, more to the liking of Conservatives than Liberals. He will join the likes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and of course Chief Justice Roberts as champions of that paradigm.
On the other side, of course, are the existing voices which have sung a chorus more to the Liberal tune: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. That matches up four from the Right, against four from the Left. The tipping point on controversial issues, then, will be Justice Kennedy.
In theory, Kennedy is a little bit more to the Right than to the Left. But there is reason for concern in his opinions. As an example, regarding the rights and authority of the President under Article II of the Constitution, which bears directly on the present conflict, we may find reason for concern from Kennedy’s comments in CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004), where Kennedy wrote the opinion, saying “Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances”, meaning that the Court may claim the right to review Presidential authority. In the case before the court, Kennedy and the majority reasoned that the “Court’s analysis of whether mandamus relief is appropriate should itself be constrained by principles similar to those we have outlined, supra, at 9—11, that limit the Court of Appeals’ use of the remedy. The panel majority, however, failed to ask this question. Instead, it labored under the mistaken assumption that the assertion of executive privilege is a necessary precondition to the Government’s separation-of-powers objections.” A mixed bag, confirming the President’s authority, while claiming the right to review that authority.
Also of interest would be Kennedy’s concurrence in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (00-1293) 535 U.S. 564 (2002), where Kennedy sided with arguments defeating the Child Online Protection Act, placing the freedoms of pornographers ahead of the safety of children. Kennedy made the same decision again in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (03-218) 542 U.S. 656 (2004), even to the point of arguing that because foreign pornography could still be seen with the COPA filters in place, that this constituted unfair treatment of American pornographers, since it suppressed their expression but not foreign expression.
Another indicator of the mind Of Kennedy would be the Kelo decision. In Kennedy’s concurrence of the near abolition of private property rights, Kennedy changed the meaning of the law to put all the weight on proving malice on the part of the homeowner, creating a government "right" to seize private property unless malice was proven. Kennedy sniffed “while there may be categories of cases in which the transfers are so suspicious, or the procedures employed so prone to abuse, or the purported benefits are so trivial or implausible, that courts should presume an impermissible private purpose, no such circumstances are present in this case.” One wonders if Kennedy has ever seen things from the eye of the common man.
So, while the coming confirmation of Alito is a good sign, we still need to gain a sound mind to put the Court right. I worry that the celebrity of being courted by both sides will give Kennedy an arrogance worthy of his surname.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee bumbles through predictable questions, predictable statements, and heads towards what certainly appears to be the predictable confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, there seems to be little attention paid yet to the man whose stock rises the most in this new balance of influence; Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It looks pretty likely that Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the high court, and it’s pretty clear that Alito will be, as much as we can be sure, more to the liking of Conservatives than Liberals. He will join the likes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and of course Chief Justice Roberts as champions of that paradigm.
On the other side, of course, are the existing voices which have sung a chorus more to the Liberal tune: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. That matches up four from the Right, against four from the Left. The tipping point on controversial issues, then, will be Justice Kennedy.
In theory, Kennedy is a little bit more to the Right than to the Left. But there is reason for concern in his opinions. As an example, regarding the rights and authority of the President under Article II of the Constitution, which bears directly on the present conflict, we may find reason for concern from Kennedy’s comments in CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004), where Kennedy wrote the opinion, saying “Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances”, meaning that the Court may claim the right to review Presidential authority. In the case before the court, Kennedy and the majority reasoned that the “Court’s analysis of whether mandamus relief is appropriate should itself be constrained by principles similar to those we have outlined, supra, at 9—11, that limit the Court of Appeals’ use of the remedy. The panel majority, however, failed to ask this question. Instead, it labored under the mistaken assumption that the assertion of executive privilege is a necessary precondition to the Government’s separation-of-powers objections.” A mixed bag, confirming the President’s authority, while claiming the right to review that authority.
Also of interest would be Kennedy’s concurrence in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (00-1293) 535 U.S. 564 (2002), where Kennedy sided with arguments defeating the Child Online Protection Act, placing the freedoms of pornographers ahead of the safety of children. Kennedy made the same decision again in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (03-218) 542 U.S. 656 (2004), even to the point of arguing that because foreign pornography could still be seen with the COPA filters in place, that this constituted unfair treatment of American pornographers, since it suppressed their expression but not foreign expression.
Another indicator of the mind Of Kennedy would be the Kelo decision. In Kennedy’s concurrence of the near abolition of private property rights, Kennedy changed the meaning of the law to put all the weight on proving malice on the part of the homeowner, creating a government "right" to seize private property unless malice was proven. Kennedy sniffed “while there may be categories of cases in which the transfers are so suspicious, or the procedures employed so prone to abuse, or the purported benefits are so trivial or implausible, that courts should presume an impermissible private purpose, no such circumstances are present in this case.” One wonders if Kennedy has ever seen things from the eye of the common man.
So, while the coming confirmation of Alito is a good sign, we still need to gain a sound mind to put the Court right. I worry that the celebrity of being courted by both sides will give Kennedy an arrogance worthy of his surname.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Hokey Pokey
...
My books from Ebay finally arrived. What’s interesting is, the tracking number at USPS.com still shows them in Dallas. The lack of detail in their tracking system is obvious; they show the initial pickup in Seattle, travel to Federal Way that same day, then nothing until January 5th, when the books were located in Dallas. And no movement in the tracking number through today, even though the books have actually been delivered. Apparently, it requires a manual notice added to the account to update the location, which not only delays the notice of movement, but creates a real potential for error. Compared to UPS, the Postal Service really is still in the Stone Age, and their recent rate hike is not likely to fix that.
I am not saying that UPS is perfect, by any means. A couple years ago, a UPS delivery ended up on my door, even though it
A - was for a house on a completely different street; and
B - was supposed to be signed for on delivery.
I looked up the right street and delivered the package myself. I wondered at the time, and wonder again now, what sort of disciplinary measures UPS uses when a delivery guy makes this kind of error. In any case, it reminds me that any company is going to have a certain amount of lost or delayed deliveries. But it also reminds me that the mindset at any given company is trained, and avoidable mistakes happen in places where the perspective is not in line with the real world. On every level, the Postal Service does its best, but cannot claim a standard of excellence. Lines are shorter at private companies, their rates go up less often, the private companies’ tracking process is more effective and accurate, and deliveries can be guaranteed to a more precise degree. The Postal Service, for example, offers guaranteed delivery within two business days, but FedEx can guarantee delivery within a twelve-hour window, in some cases within a four-hour window. That reflects not only the limitations of a massive government-style bureacracy, but also an attitude which is not primarily focused on the customer. Not to pick on the USPS, but I have observed periods where the carrier simply chose not to complete a route, where deliveries were missed for two or three days at a location, simply because the delivery person was not motivated to go to all their assigned stops. This speaks to Accountability, and to Apathy.
The reader may well wonder why I am rehashing something I brought up last week, but in this case I am thinking about how the USPS reflects the shortcomings of another large government body with a problem focusing on Accountability or personal responsibility - the U.S. Senate. As you read this article, somewhere in a committee room a Senator is either asking a question for no purpose beyond grandstanding, laying a foundation for his or her political campaigns in the fall, or some Senate aide is looking past the larger evidence of Alito’s mind and character, in search of some small piece of paper which can be employed, no matter how out of context, as an attack on him or the President who nominated him. As I was driving home yesterday, I heard Hugh Hewitt discuss the Alito record with another lawyer, who mentioned the sheer hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy, for suggesting that Alito is racist because of his ruling in one case, even though there were more than a dozen major cases where Alito’s opinion was in strong favor of the minority plaintiff. I did not have a way to write down the names or cases at the time, but the point was not only clear, but also sadly familiar. We are all aware that politics takes precedence over things most of us would count greater. The United States Senate seems to consider themselves above the accountability they demand of most public servants. Indeed, I suspect most of them only think of the very word “servants” as people they employ, rather than a description of their own office and duties. More than a few Senators have made comments this winter which suggest they plan to wait out President Bush, knowing he will not run for a third term (since such limits are applied to Presidents but not Senators), and wait for a more malleable Chief Executive. Small wonder that the rumor mill is pressing the names of McCain and Clinton, members of “The Club” themselves, for the party nominations, even if the average American would be poorly served by either one as President.
My books from Ebay finally arrived. What’s interesting is, the tracking number at USPS.com still shows them in Dallas. The lack of detail in their tracking system is obvious; they show the initial pickup in Seattle, travel to Federal Way that same day, then nothing until January 5th, when the books were located in Dallas. And no movement in the tracking number through today, even though the books have actually been delivered. Apparently, it requires a manual notice added to the account to update the location, which not only delays the notice of movement, but creates a real potential for error. Compared to UPS, the Postal Service really is still in the Stone Age, and their recent rate hike is not likely to fix that.
I am not saying that UPS is perfect, by any means. A couple years ago, a UPS delivery ended up on my door, even though it
A - was for a house on a completely different street; and
B - was supposed to be signed for on delivery.
I looked up the right street and delivered the package myself. I wondered at the time, and wonder again now, what sort of disciplinary measures UPS uses when a delivery guy makes this kind of error. In any case, it reminds me that any company is going to have a certain amount of lost or delayed deliveries. But it also reminds me that the mindset at any given company is trained, and avoidable mistakes happen in places where the perspective is not in line with the real world. On every level, the Postal Service does its best, but cannot claim a standard of excellence. Lines are shorter at private companies, their rates go up less often, the private companies’ tracking process is more effective and accurate, and deliveries can be guaranteed to a more precise degree. The Postal Service, for example, offers guaranteed delivery within two business days, but FedEx can guarantee delivery within a twelve-hour window, in some cases within a four-hour window. That reflects not only the limitations of a massive government-style bureacracy, but also an attitude which is not primarily focused on the customer. Not to pick on the USPS, but I have observed periods where the carrier simply chose not to complete a route, where deliveries were missed for two or three days at a location, simply because the delivery person was not motivated to go to all their assigned stops. This speaks to Accountability, and to Apathy.
The reader may well wonder why I am rehashing something I brought up last week, but in this case I am thinking about how the USPS reflects the shortcomings of another large government body with a problem focusing on Accountability or personal responsibility - the U.S. Senate. As you read this article, somewhere in a committee room a Senator is either asking a question for no purpose beyond grandstanding, laying a foundation for his or her political campaigns in the fall, or some Senate aide is looking past the larger evidence of Alito’s mind and character, in search of some small piece of paper which can be employed, no matter how out of context, as an attack on him or the President who nominated him. As I was driving home yesterday, I heard Hugh Hewitt discuss the Alito record with another lawyer, who mentioned the sheer hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy, for suggesting that Alito is racist because of his ruling in one case, even though there were more than a dozen major cases where Alito’s opinion was in strong favor of the minority plaintiff. I did not have a way to write down the names or cases at the time, but the point was not only clear, but also sadly familiar. We are all aware that politics takes precedence over things most of us would count greater. The United States Senate seems to consider themselves above the accountability they demand of most public servants. Indeed, I suspect most of them only think of the very word “servants” as people they employ, rather than a description of their own office and duties. More than a few Senators have made comments this winter which suggest they plan to wait out President Bush, knowing he will not run for a third term (since such limits are applied to Presidents but not Senators), and wait for a more malleable Chief Executive. Small wonder that the rumor mill is pressing the names of McCain and Clinton, members of “The Club” themselves, for the party nominations, even if the average American would be poorly served by either one as President.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Spies With Nice Ties – The FBI
[ .*.*. ]
Well, the fire is burning nicely, I can see. The previous discussions about the CIA and the NSA have enjoyed a fair amount of discussion, but I find myself amused by the confusion on the Left’s part. Not so much that they still continue to ignore the legality of the electronic intercepts, which they insist on miscalling “wiretaps”, but the fact that liberals continue to obsess on foreign intelligence agencies possibly trampling on their civil rights, when in actual fact the only intelligence agency known to have any history of abusing citizens’ rights, of committing violence against splinter groups, and using force to remove an asylum-seeker from his mother on U.S. soil, is also the primary intelligence agency authorized to conduct domestic surveillance on American citizens – the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI began with a series of events not unlike the present need to match agencies with the needs they faced. In 1908, the Justice Department, tired of having to request help from the Treasury Department when in need of detectives, pressed for the creation of a detective service for the DoJ. On July 26 1908, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte hired nine detectives, thirteen civil rights investigators, and twelve accountants to take on a range of cases deemed important to the Department of Justice. In World War One, the Bureau acquired responsibility for enforcing the Espionage, Selective Service, and Sabotage Acts. From there on, the FBI was the principal government arm for investigating domestic threats to National Security.
In its present identity, the FBI is the agency which most implements the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. If someone flashes a badge and asks your boss about you, it will most likely be the FBI. If someone goes through your trash or follows you on your way to work if you live in the United States, it’s the FBI looking over your shoulder. And its’ the FBI who make the most use of the FISA warrants; because the FBI is a dual-purpose agency, who is at long last allowed to tell intelligence agencies information of value to National Security, but who also has a keen interest in making arrests when a citizen goes dirty.
The FBI also has a very different idea of profile. The CIA hides as someone else, and the NSA simply won’t be seen. The G-men, on the other hand, work up a high profile, very sharp and smooth. Look on television, and you will see no less than a half-dozen major shows where an FBI agent is the hero. Even “The X-Files” foilhead agent Mulder made the Bureau look cool. This is no coincidence. Even from the start, the FBI kept strict rules about dress and appearance, and whatever else was important to J. Edgar Hoover, the man understood public image, and never ceased to boost the profile of the clean-cut government agent as hero.
The Bureau has had more documented cases of abuse than virtually all the other intelligence agencies combined. Yet the FBI also stands out as an efficient and respected group of agents. In addition to hundreds of U.S. offices, the FBI also maintains a number of offices in foreign nations, called Legates. These agents act as a sort of consultant to other nations and to U.S. agencies abroad, providing access to the FBI’s cutting-edge forensics laboratories and analysis facilities. And the FBI has always maintained strong relations with the military – it’s hardly a coincidence that the main FBI training grounds are a Quantico.
Also, it’s worth noting that many intelligence agents join the FBI when they leave the field, and the FBI works in an advisory capacity with many intelligence agencies. Now that’s dressing for success!
Well, the fire is burning nicely, I can see. The previous discussions about the CIA and the NSA have enjoyed a fair amount of discussion, but I find myself amused by the confusion on the Left’s part. Not so much that they still continue to ignore the legality of the electronic intercepts, which they insist on miscalling “wiretaps”, but the fact that liberals continue to obsess on foreign intelligence agencies possibly trampling on their civil rights, when in actual fact the only intelligence agency known to have any history of abusing citizens’ rights, of committing violence against splinter groups, and using force to remove an asylum-seeker from his mother on U.S. soil, is also the primary intelligence agency authorized to conduct domestic surveillance on American citizens – the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI began with a series of events not unlike the present need to match agencies with the needs they faced. In 1908, the Justice Department, tired of having to request help from the Treasury Department when in need of detectives, pressed for the creation of a detective service for the DoJ. On July 26 1908, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte hired nine detectives, thirteen civil rights investigators, and twelve accountants to take on a range of cases deemed important to the Department of Justice. In World War One, the Bureau acquired responsibility for enforcing the Espionage, Selective Service, and Sabotage Acts. From there on, the FBI was the principal government arm for investigating domestic threats to National Security.
In its present identity, the FBI is the agency which most implements the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. If someone flashes a badge and asks your boss about you, it will most likely be the FBI. If someone goes through your trash or follows you on your way to work if you live in the United States, it’s the FBI looking over your shoulder. And its’ the FBI who make the most use of the FISA warrants; because the FBI is a dual-purpose agency, who is at long last allowed to tell intelligence agencies information of value to National Security, but who also has a keen interest in making arrests when a citizen goes dirty.
The FBI also has a very different idea of profile. The CIA hides as someone else, and the NSA simply won’t be seen. The G-men, on the other hand, work up a high profile, very sharp and smooth. Look on television, and you will see no less than a half-dozen major shows where an FBI agent is the hero. Even “The X-Files” foilhead agent Mulder made the Bureau look cool. This is no coincidence. Even from the start, the FBI kept strict rules about dress and appearance, and whatever else was important to J. Edgar Hoover, the man understood public image, and never ceased to boost the profile of the clean-cut government agent as hero.
The Bureau has had more documented cases of abuse than virtually all the other intelligence agencies combined. Yet the FBI also stands out as an efficient and respected group of agents. In addition to hundreds of U.S. offices, the FBI also maintains a number of offices in foreign nations, called Legates. These agents act as a sort of consultant to other nations and to U.S. agencies abroad, providing access to the FBI’s cutting-edge forensics laboratories and analysis facilities. And the FBI has always maintained strong relations with the military – it’s hardly a coincidence that the main FBI training grounds are a Quantico.
Also, it’s worth noting that many intelligence agents join the FBI when they leave the field, and the FBI works in an advisory capacity with many intelligence agencies. Now that’s dressing for success!
Sunday, January 08, 2006
No Such Agency
[*--**-}
If you make a phone call to someone in another country, and use any of a certain lexicon of words, especially in certain combinations, odds are that your conversation has been professionally recorded and analyzed to determine whether or not you represent a threat to the National Security of the United States. Not just in the past few years either, but anytime in the past couple decades. The stories are actually far behind the technology, and the technology is still chasing the need. In case you are curious about who has been listening in on your calls, I can’t give you specific names, but I can assure that the eavesdroppers work for the National Security Agency (NSA).
In true American tradition, and paying homage to the need to advertise everything these days, the NSA has a web site, complete with virtual tour. If you go there, you will note that the NSA site is also linked to something called “Central Security Service” (this is tied to cryptology in specific, and that’s really as far as the NSA/CSS will go about them) . While the site is interesting and attractive, it actual has quite a bit of detail to it, which is a surprise. It’s a savvy place, which not only details the history of the NSA and what it does (officially, anyway), it includes a plan for declassifying historically significant information, and even includes a cartoon character named “T.Top”, a hip hop turtle with a goatee and a team of cartoon friends dubbed “CryptoKids: America’s Future Codemakers and Codebreakers” - it’s a way to get kids interested in the mathematics of cryptology and ciphers, and to give the NSA an idea who’s interested. Hey, it’s no worse than the cookies embedded in the Nickelodeon site. It also shows that the NSA is quite a bit further along in figuring out how to sell themselves to the country, and how to keep silent what they want to protect. As an example, when the story broke (illegally, by the way) about the NSA plan to monitor international electronic communications involving suspected terrorist plans and activities, many Americans accused the CIA of conducting the operations, even though the NSA was specifically named. Even though the NSA is actually as old as the CIA, is far larger in terms of budget, staffing, and allotted resources, it remains largely unknown to most Americans, and even when Hollywood goes after the NSA as a stock villain (a common practice, actually) , the average viewer often does not realize that such an agency really does exist. And unlike the CIA, the NSA is fully authorized, within certain limits, to conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.
But while the NSA is intensely interested in monitoring communications of likely interest, it is even more intent on maintaining something called Information Assurance (IA). To put it in simpler terms, the USA has long held a commanding lead in electronic surveillance and secure communications. This means that our enemies and rivals have been working hard not just to catch up, but to find ways to destabilize our secure communications. Viruses, worms, trojan horses and the like, are not only malicious pranks created by individuals with perverse senses of humor, but are also major programs planned and coordinated with the intent of finding a fatal flaw in our infrastructure. Criminals understand that it’s possible to steal thousands of dollars each from victims, by gaining access to their credit card accounts; governments understand that it is theoretically possible to destablize a government by wrecking confidence in its financial structure, through malicious destruction or corruption of, say, the trade records at the New York Stock Exchange, or the wire transfer protocols of Chase Bank, or any of hundreds of similar scenarios. You may not think that National Security depends on your ability to trust the security of an online purchase or bill pay, but the NSA believes so.
Just something to think about.
If you make a phone call to someone in another country, and use any of a certain lexicon of words, especially in certain combinations, odds are that your conversation has been professionally recorded and analyzed to determine whether or not you represent a threat to the National Security of the United States. Not just in the past few years either, but anytime in the past couple decades. The stories are actually far behind the technology, and the technology is still chasing the need. In case you are curious about who has been listening in on your calls, I can’t give you specific names, but I can assure that the eavesdroppers work for the National Security Agency (NSA).
In true American tradition, and paying homage to the need to advertise everything these days, the NSA has a web site, complete with virtual tour. If you go there, you will note that the NSA site is also linked to something called “Central Security Service” (this is tied to cryptology in specific, and that’s really as far as the NSA/CSS will go about them) . While the site is interesting and attractive, it actual has quite a bit of detail to it, which is a surprise. It’s a savvy place, which not only details the history of the NSA and what it does (officially, anyway), it includes a plan for declassifying historically significant information, and even includes a cartoon character named “T.Top”, a hip hop turtle with a goatee and a team of cartoon friends dubbed “CryptoKids: America’s Future Codemakers and Codebreakers” - it’s a way to get kids interested in the mathematics of cryptology and ciphers, and to give the NSA an idea who’s interested. Hey, it’s no worse than the cookies embedded in the Nickelodeon site. It also shows that the NSA is quite a bit further along in figuring out how to sell themselves to the country, and how to keep silent what they want to protect. As an example, when the story broke (illegally, by the way) about the NSA plan to monitor international electronic communications involving suspected terrorist plans and activities, many Americans accused the CIA of conducting the operations, even though the NSA was specifically named. Even though the NSA is actually as old as the CIA, is far larger in terms of budget, staffing, and allotted resources, it remains largely unknown to most Americans, and even when Hollywood goes after the NSA as a stock villain (a common practice, actually) , the average viewer often does not realize that such an agency really does exist. And unlike the CIA, the NSA is fully authorized, within certain limits, to conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.
But while the NSA is intensely interested in monitoring communications of likely interest, it is even more intent on maintaining something called Information Assurance (IA). To put it in simpler terms, the USA has long held a commanding lead in electronic surveillance and secure communications. This means that our enemies and rivals have been working hard not just to catch up, but to find ways to destabilize our secure communications. Viruses, worms, trojan horses and the like, are not only malicious pranks created by individuals with perverse senses of humor, but are also major programs planned and coordinated with the intent of finding a fatal flaw in our infrastructure. Criminals understand that it’s possible to steal thousands of dollars each from victims, by gaining access to their credit card accounts; governments understand that it is theoretically possible to destablize a government by wrecking confidence in its financial structure, through malicious destruction or corruption of, say, the trade records at the New York Stock Exchange, or the wire transfer protocols of Chase Bank, or any of hundreds of similar scenarios. You may not think that National Security depends on your ability to trust the security of an online purchase or bill pay, but the NSA believes so.
Just something to think about.
PFL Wild Card Round
[<>]
American ConferenceTeddy Roosevelt (16-0) -bye-
Reagan (16-0) -bye-
Washington (16-1) 31, Polk (12-5) 17
Monroe (14-3) 30, Grant (14-3) 6
National ConferenceGeorge W. Bush (16-0) -bye-
Eisenhower (15-1) -bye-
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) 27, Kennedy (11-6) 9
Jefferson (14-3) 24, Truman (13-4) 15
Next Week:
Monroe (14-3) at Teddy Roosevelt (16-0)
Washington (16-1) at Reagan (16-0)
Jefferson (14-3) at George W. Bush (16-0)
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) at Eisenhower (15-1)
American ConferenceTeddy Roosevelt (16-0) -bye-
Reagan (16-0) -bye-
Washington (16-1) 31, Polk (12-5) 17
Monroe (14-3) 30, Grant (14-3) 6
National ConferenceGeorge W. Bush (16-0) -bye-
Eisenhower (15-1) -bye-
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) 27, Kennedy (11-6) 9
Jefferson (14-3) 24, Truman (13-4) 15
Next Week:
Monroe (14-3) at Teddy Roosevelt (16-0)
Washington (16-1) at Reagan (16-0)
Jefferson (14-3) at George W. Bush (16-0)
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) at Eisenhower (15-1)
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Myth And the CIA
[ --- ]
There are a lot of things believed about the Central Intelligence Agency, which are not rooted in fact. For instance, most people believe that the CIA is the oldest, largest, and most influential intelligence agency in American government, but none of those beliefs are accurate. Also, most Americans can quickly point to a supposed blunder by the CIA, but few are aware of Agency successes. This is actually quite by design. The Agency takes a perverse pride in holding a reputation for bumbling along without a clue; they have learned that such an image can actually cause their enemies to take them too lightly and drop their guard.
This is not to say that the CIA has not made mistakes, even commited crimes outside the scope of their authority, and they have people in their ranks who cannot resist misusing their position to build little empires, to the point of trying to manipulate national politics every so often. It is important to understand the CIA’s role in intelligence, not only as it has been since 1947, but as the new order of National Security designs it.
During World War 2, President Roosevelt often felt that he could not rely on the available intelligence to give him a clear and complete view about what was going on in the world, much less act on it where he would like. Army and Navy Intelligence (AI, ONI) often felt the ire of a frustrated FDR. William Donovan played on this discontent to build support for his own group, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which differed from other intelligence groups not only in terms of size and nature of information, but in Donovan’s belief that intelligence was like eggs; best used while fresh. As a result, OSS teams regularly pursued sabotage and direct application of the information they learned, and while this was not always effective in practice, it was refreshing enough that the OSS gained key support from the FDR Administration, although it made enemies in other parts of the government.
Fascinating as an overview of the Agency’s history might be, for here it is more important to understand that 9/11 radically changed the role and scope of the CIA. For a variety of reasons, the CIA does not generally conduct domestic intelligence operations or surveillance, except in special circumstances. In the world of anti-terrorism operations, this means that the CIA can only serve a limited role, however important its work. Yet review of the conditions and key elements of the 9/11 attacks also reveals the critical need for agents in place - HUMINT - which is the home ground of the Central Intelligence Agency. Also, as the new Director begins to clean house of the political malcontents, the need for a truly balanced focus in the Agency is becoming increasingly evident. As annoying as we may find people like Plame/Wilson, the fact that the New York Time’s recent breach of security most likely began with an Agency source, demonstrates that an overhaul of the Agency is badly overdue. This, of course, was another reason for the CIA’s relative demotion behind the new National Director of Intelligence. I leave the details of that redressing, to the men who have begun its work.
It would not be fitting to dismantle the CIA; the functions the Agency performs remain vital, and many agents perform admirably the responsibilities trusted to them. It is a difficult job at best, to do work that is designed to be ignored, where the hallmark of professional success is for people to think you too dull and stupid to possibly be an effective intelligence agent. Ironic, that liberals celebrate the likes of Plame and Wilson, who have pretended humility while negotiating book deals and magazine covers, all the while missing far greater work done by people whose self-control extends to their ego. Our nation may never know the names of most whose work changes history so directly, but we owe them an environment which does not attack them, either for rumors pursued by the paranoid, or for political intrigues held by empire-builders.
There are a lot of things believed about the Central Intelligence Agency, which are not rooted in fact. For instance, most people believe that the CIA is the oldest, largest, and most influential intelligence agency in American government, but none of those beliefs are accurate. Also, most Americans can quickly point to a supposed blunder by the CIA, but few are aware of Agency successes. This is actually quite by design. The Agency takes a perverse pride in holding a reputation for bumbling along without a clue; they have learned that such an image can actually cause their enemies to take them too lightly and drop their guard.
This is not to say that the CIA has not made mistakes, even commited crimes outside the scope of their authority, and they have people in their ranks who cannot resist misusing their position to build little empires, to the point of trying to manipulate national politics every so often. It is important to understand the CIA’s role in intelligence, not only as it has been since 1947, but as the new order of National Security designs it.
During World War 2, President Roosevelt often felt that he could not rely on the available intelligence to give him a clear and complete view about what was going on in the world, much less act on it where he would like. Army and Navy Intelligence (AI, ONI) often felt the ire of a frustrated FDR. William Donovan played on this discontent to build support for his own group, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which differed from other intelligence groups not only in terms of size and nature of information, but in Donovan’s belief that intelligence was like eggs; best used while fresh. As a result, OSS teams regularly pursued sabotage and direct application of the information they learned, and while this was not always effective in practice, it was refreshing enough that the OSS gained key support from the FDR Administration, although it made enemies in other parts of the government.
Fascinating as an overview of the Agency’s history might be, for here it is more important to understand that 9/11 radically changed the role and scope of the CIA. For a variety of reasons, the CIA does not generally conduct domestic intelligence operations or surveillance, except in special circumstances. In the world of anti-terrorism operations, this means that the CIA can only serve a limited role, however important its work. Yet review of the conditions and key elements of the 9/11 attacks also reveals the critical need for agents in place - HUMINT - which is the home ground of the Central Intelligence Agency. Also, as the new Director begins to clean house of the political malcontents, the need for a truly balanced focus in the Agency is becoming increasingly evident. As annoying as we may find people like Plame/Wilson, the fact that the New York Time’s recent breach of security most likely began with an Agency source, demonstrates that an overhaul of the Agency is badly overdue. This, of course, was another reason for the CIA’s relative demotion behind the new National Director of Intelligence. I leave the details of that redressing, to the men who have begun its work.
It would not be fitting to dismantle the CIA; the functions the Agency performs remain vital, and many agents perform admirably the responsibilities trusted to them. It is a difficult job at best, to do work that is designed to be ignored, where the hallmark of professional success is for people to think you too dull and stupid to possibly be an effective intelligence agent. Ironic, that liberals celebrate the likes of Plame and Wilson, who have pretended humility while negotiating book deals and magazine covers, all the while missing far greater work done by people whose self-control extends to their ego. Our nation may never know the names of most whose work changes history so directly, but we owe them an environment which does not attack them, either for rumors pursued by the paranoid, or for political intrigues held by empire-builders.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Oh Yes We Will
[!]
I have been writing about the fact that we are in a major international conflict, a world war in fact, well worthy of the name. This has prompted discussion and no small debate on the matter, with three significant themes worth examining at closer focus:
* The question about whether wars before the 18th Century could legitmately also be called “World” wars
* Mark Steyn’s dire and sadly compelling essay on the growing demographic threat to Europe from insurgent minorities
* The American will to fight, at the political and civilian level
First, the easiest one. I began my count of “World” wars with the pan-European conflict of the 18th Century, because that was the first major war to take place in both hemispheres, and to feature events of note both North and South of the Equator. Previous campaigns, even when they involved conquering the known world of the day, are hardly in the same scope and impact of the genuine article. For instance, the greatest exploits of Alexander the Great or Caesar made no ripple at all in the courts of Asian kings. The present conflict, however, holds significance not only for the nations and people directly involved, but will determine the course of events for at least a generation to come.
As to demographics, I admit it is an unwise thing to take a position opposite Mr. Steyn, but in this case I think it is necessary. Demographics can be quite useful in determining trends, but it is important to understand that there is a limit to how far any statistic may be employed in predicting the future. It’s worth noting, for example, that during the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a real fear of overpopulation in Europe and most urban areas, based on the demographics of the past generation there. The present condition demonstrates not only that the overpopulation fear was faulty in its assumptions, but also that the present condition can only be sustained if certain key factors continue as they are. Those factors, however, depended on a Europe much different in temperment than the one which I believe may just be waking up. France, for example, is far less keen to remain open-armed to young men who are prone to violence and crime; a backlash is coming, and while the immediate future will be chaotic, lancing the boil now would prove healthy in the long run. England has been less than brilliant in its own immigration policies (there’s a true pandemic, actually), but the spirit of England has not quite died to the point of giving in to thuggery, at least from non-Brits. It will be a tough job, cleaning house in Europe, but the history of Europe shows that when it is needed, men always can be found to set things right. Especially when the alternative is to let another Hitler or Lenin come to pass in their own country.
Now as to America. We are a strange lot, we Yanks. We bicker and fight amongst ourselves on any number of things, but there is a point that a dictator would do well to know and watch; beyond that point we are relentless and unstoppable. I could, and I am tempted, to go into detail as to why it is that America cannot actually be defeated in the manner discussed here, but instead I would just remind our readers of simple history. The U.S. made the mistake of allowing Slavery to be legal in the new nation for almost a century after we freed ourselves from Britain, and the cost to change that condition was bloody indeed, and the war controversial. Yet we fought it, and prevailed, and became stronger in the end for doing so. Protests against the First and Second World Wars were real and strong at times, yet we went in and did the job. Vietnam was an abomination, for many reasons, but we cannot make the mistake of letting that one case represent the whole, or forget that the national spirit is built on better things. Yes, the liberals learned how to lie on the grand stage with the media behind them in Vietnam, but that’s why alternative media has found such strong support, as in talk radio and (of course) blogging. Remember how the Democrats made such a noise in early 2004, that the election was a referendum on the War in Iraq? Well, they were actually right about that, and the election proved that while liberals could rally some to their side, the clear majority chose to support the President. Even after the press tried its best to attck Bush, even after significant questions about Kerry’s own service were suppressed while long-disproven slander against Bush was promoted, even after Democrats denied the facts of actual historical records and tried to cast doubt on the war still being waged, the people trusted the President. Now, of course, the Democrats pretend they never said or did anything out of line - how do we question their patriotism - and hope that their next ambush will yield better results.
By no means will it be easy or short, and we all know very well that after it’s over, the guys who laughed at the men making the tough calls, and who pretended to ‘support the troops', even as they appeared on television shows declaring (where the troops and the terrorists would be sure to hear) that ‘we cannot win’, and doubting the reports of the men on the ground - they will assure us that they were hard at work doing their part for America - how dare we challenge their patriotism.
Real men are hard to find at times, oh yes. But God has always granted us enough to win. So we will. By God, oh yes we will win. Because it’s not about proving a superior culture, or winning on some kind of scoreboard, but because it’s about what kind of world our kids and grandkids will grow up in. And in a Global Society, it’s important that freedom and liberty be established, especially in places where it hasn’t had much of a chance up to now. Oh yes we will, just watch.
I have been writing about the fact that we are in a major international conflict, a world war in fact, well worthy of the name. This has prompted discussion and no small debate on the matter, with three significant themes worth examining at closer focus:
* The question about whether wars before the 18th Century could legitmately also be called “World” wars
* Mark Steyn’s dire and sadly compelling essay on the growing demographic threat to Europe from insurgent minorities
* The American will to fight, at the political and civilian level
First, the easiest one. I began my count of “World” wars with the pan-European conflict of the 18th Century, because that was the first major war to take place in both hemispheres, and to feature events of note both North and South of the Equator. Previous campaigns, even when they involved conquering the known world of the day, are hardly in the same scope and impact of the genuine article. For instance, the greatest exploits of Alexander the Great or Caesar made no ripple at all in the courts of Asian kings. The present conflict, however, holds significance not only for the nations and people directly involved, but will determine the course of events for at least a generation to come.
As to demographics, I admit it is an unwise thing to take a position opposite Mr. Steyn, but in this case I think it is necessary. Demographics can be quite useful in determining trends, but it is important to understand that there is a limit to how far any statistic may be employed in predicting the future. It’s worth noting, for example, that during the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a real fear of overpopulation in Europe and most urban areas, based on the demographics of the past generation there. The present condition demonstrates not only that the overpopulation fear was faulty in its assumptions, but also that the present condition can only be sustained if certain key factors continue as they are. Those factors, however, depended on a Europe much different in temperment than the one which I believe may just be waking up. France, for example, is far less keen to remain open-armed to young men who are prone to violence and crime; a backlash is coming, and while the immediate future will be chaotic, lancing the boil now would prove healthy in the long run. England has been less than brilliant in its own immigration policies (there’s a true pandemic, actually), but the spirit of England has not quite died to the point of giving in to thuggery, at least from non-Brits. It will be a tough job, cleaning house in Europe, but the history of Europe shows that when it is needed, men always can be found to set things right. Especially when the alternative is to let another Hitler or Lenin come to pass in their own country.
Now as to America. We are a strange lot, we Yanks. We bicker and fight amongst ourselves on any number of things, but there is a point that a dictator would do well to know and watch; beyond that point we are relentless and unstoppable. I could, and I am tempted, to go into detail as to why it is that America cannot actually be defeated in the manner discussed here, but instead I would just remind our readers of simple history. The U.S. made the mistake of allowing Slavery to be legal in the new nation for almost a century after we freed ourselves from Britain, and the cost to change that condition was bloody indeed, and the war controversial. Yet we fought it, and prevailed, and became stronger in the end for doing so. Protests against the First and Second World Wars were real and strong at times, yet we went in and did the job. Vietnam was an abomination, for many reasons, but we cannot make the mistake of letting that one case represent the whole, or forget that the national spirit is built on better things. Yes, the liberals learned how to lie on the grand stage with the media behind them in Vietnam, but that’s why alternative media has found such strong support, as in talk radio and (of course) blogging. Remember how the Democrats made such a noise in early 2004, that the election was a referendum on the War in Iraq? Well, they were actually right about that, and the election proved that while liberals could rally some to their side, the clear majority chose to support the President. Even after the press tried its best to attck Bush, even after significant questions about Kerry’s own service were suppressed while long-disproven slander against Bush was promoted, even after Democrats denied the facts of actual historical records and tried to cast doubt on the war still being waged, the people trusted the President. Now, of course, the Democrats pretend they never said or did anything out of line - how do we question their patriotism - and hope that their next ambush will yield better results.
By no means will it be easy or short, and we all know very well that after it’s over, the guys who laughed at the men making the tough calls, and who pretended to ‘support the troops', even as they appeared on television shows declaring (where the troops and the terrorists would be sure to hear) that ‘we cannot win’, and doubting the reports of the men on the ground - they will assure us that they were hard at work doing their part for America - how dare we challenge their patriotism.
Real men are hard to find at times, oh yes. But God has always granted us enough to win. So we will. By God, oh yes we will win. Because it’s not about proving a superior culture, or winning on some kind of scoreboard, but because it’s about what kind of world our kids and grandkids will grow up in. And in a Global Society, it’s important that freedom and liberty be established, especially in places where it hasn’t had much of a chance up to now. Oh yes we will, just watch.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
World War Six – Another Reason George W. Bush Matters
[ *** ]
Back in February 2005 I wrote about the fact that we are in a World War, and not World War 3 but number Six. As events unfold in the middle of this protracted conflict, there is already evidence of the nature and participation in the next campaign. But it is necessary to lay groundwork, to first discuss how we got here.
WORLD WAR ONE – 18th Century, Europe. A series of conflicts for the domination of Europe, primarily between the kingdoms of France and England, but included participation by Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, and proxy conflicts in North America.
WORLD WAR TWO – Early-to-mid 19th Century, North America and Europe. A series of conflicts to wipe out oceanic and open seas piracy. A factor in tensions leading to the U.S. Civil War, as well as trade agreements involving all major seafaring nations.
WORLD WAR THREE – 1914-1925, Europe and Southeast Asia. A significant sustained conflict between England and France on one side, and Germany and Austria on the other, with a number of intermittent allies, most notably the United States. Key events included first widespread battlefield use of WMD, economic warfare in combination with military action, and postwar territory conquest (Japan).
WORLD WAR FOUR – 1935-1947, Europe, Asia, North Africa, coastal North America, various Pacific islands. Nazis, Soviets, Empire of Japan.
WORLD WAR FIVE – 1947-1991, Planet Earth. USA versus the Evil Empire (USSR).
WORLD WAR SIX – 1973-present. USA versus Jihadism.
What each of these wars has in common, include the fact that each lasted longer than people seem to realize, left permanent effects which are still showing up today, and involved every major power of their time. And that’s important to understand the direction of where we are headed.
When WW6 began in 1973, the movement in Jihadism was basically to free the Arab world from domination by the secular powers in Washington and Moscow. This was the political impetus for OPEC, after all, and it should be understood that OPEC paid for terrorist operations to the end of reducing outsider influence in the Middle East. While public comments were restrained, American and Soviet officials were able to track the flow of money and key individuals, and on occasion actually cooperated to prevent the success of certain initiatives. Perhaps the best example of this is the 1981 Osirak raid in Iraq, where Israeli jets attacked a reactor producing weapons-grade plutonium for Saddam’s Nuclear program. While it cannot be proven, rumors have long suggested that U.S. Satellite imagery and Soviet HUMINT provided key data for the Israelis. Yassir Arafat also threw a wrench into the Jihadists’ plans, when he took the OPEC council hostage in 1974, demanding and getting a large ransom of undisclosed amount – the rogue move established the PLO as an independent actor in terrorism, and curtailed OPEC’s interest in funding terrorism. This meant, in practice, that individuals took up the practice, including Saddam Hussein, who saw the applied use of terror as a tool to gain power.
1979 was a watershed year for the Jihadists. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the revolution in Iran, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Saddam’s seizure of power in Iraq combined to radically alter the landscape in the Middle East. Jihadists saw a combination of threat and opportunity. Literally dozens of new terrorist organizations dedicated to Jihad sprang into existence.
Fast forward to 1991. To Jihadist eyes, the American intervention in Kuwait was abhorrent, as much for the display of U.S. power as for the notion of infidel boots in Saudi Arabia, never mind that we had been invited. A relatively minor pace of kidnappings, bombings and assassination against Americans became a focus of renewed interest, especially the desire to hurt Americans at home. It took time to plan and develop, but inexorably led to the 9/11 attacks.
So here we are. The significance of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was not only the destabilization of Al Qaeda’s network and a forceful response to an unprovoked attack, but Bush’s plain demand to choose a side played a card the Jihadists failed to consider; the Lying Mahdi.
Somewhere back in the 10th Century, a Muslim Imam of some repute vanished, with a legend born that he would one day return to establish a Caliphate of great power. The difference between Islam and the West, is that where we have outgrown fairy tales, the legend of the Mahdi is a strong and permanent theme in Islamic culture. And every so often, some nutcase pops up, declares himself the Mahdi and starts an insurrection. It happened several times under the British, and in Algeria under the French at least once. With the current madman in Iran torquing up hate speeches by the day, it would hardly be surprising to hear him claim the title himself. But that is also a weakness in the Islamic culture. That is, they know about the Mahdi legend, but also remember how many false Mahdis there have been, and that those false Mahdis always made things worse for Muslims; empires before the United States were not at all shy in putting down rebellions with as much force as they could bring to bear. Bush’s strong response has not only showed the lie to the Jihadists’ claim that the U.S. is only a paper lion, but hinted at the “false Mahdi” gambit to many in the Middle East. It’s not hard to look at Iraq, and wonder if a stable Iraq wouldn’t be much preferable to the strict and despotic regime in Iran. When businessmen in Saudi Arabia and students in Iran demonstrate for reform, the Jihadists are in trouble.
But the war is far from over, and observers have pointed to a likely future battlefield: Europe. The violence in France was unsettling, not least because the French government was clearly out of its depth in controlling it. One cannot help but wonder if, in 20 or 30 years, a patient but ruthless Muslim revolutionary might not be able to make France or Germany like another Iran or Syria. The impact on the world, in military, political, social, and economic terms, could be devastating.
It is here that the United States finds the potential of some unlikely allies. The governments of China and India have generally taken a wait-and-see attitude in response to U.S. actions, for the obvious reason that neither is keen to see the U.S. dominate the world overtly. Yet neither India nor China has any stomach for the kind of methodology employed by the Jihadists; if China cannot tolerate the practice of peaceful Falun Gong classes in public, one can scarcely imagine how they would like Muslim uprisings along their northern border. And India has enough on its hands watching Pakistan; imagine that threat multiplied by a Muslim power in Europe. So, while both nations prefer a pragmatic policy and will be likely to play both sides against the middle wherever they can, when the crisis point comes to bear, it is in both nations’ interest to work against the Jihadists, rather than with them. And this is again where the mind of George W. Bush comes to play.
Attacking the terrorists in the countries of their own base was the best way to work against another major attack on our own soil. Destroying their network was the best way to prove the lie to their bragging. Establishing democracies in place of the tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq was the best way to show hope in spite of fear. And Bush knows how to read a map, well enough to give India and China the out he knows they will need eventually, even if they themselves do not yet realize that fact.
That’s why we will win.
Back in February 2005 I wrote about the fact that we are in a World War, and not World War 3 but number Six. As events unfold in the middle of this protracted conflict, there is already evidence of the nature and participation in the next campaign. But it is necessary to lay groundwork, to first discuss how we got here.
WORLD WAR ONE – 18th Century, Europe. A series of conflicts for the domination of Europe, primarily between the kingdoms of France and England, but included participation by Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, and proxy conflicts in North America.
WORLD WAR TWO – Early-to-mid 19th Century, North America and Europe. A series of conflicts to wipe out oceanic and open seas piracy. A factor in tensions leading to the U.S. Civil War, as well as trade agreements involving all major seafaring nations.
WORLD WAR THREE – 1914-1925, Europe and Southeast Asia. A significant sustained conflict between England and France on one side, and Germany and Austria on the other, with a number of intermittent allies, most notably the United States. Key events included first widespread battlefield use of WMD, economic warfare in combination with military action, and postwar territory conquest (Japan).
WORLD WAR FOUR – 1935-1947, Europe, Asia, North Africa, coastal North America, various Pacific islands. Nazis, Soviets, Empire of Japan.
WORLD WAR FIVE – 1947-1991, Planet Earth. USA versus the Evil Empire (USSR).
WORLD WAR SIX – 1973-present. USA versus Jihadism.
What each of these wars has in common, include the fact that each lasted longer than people seem to realize, left permanent effects which are still showing up today, and involved every major power of their time. And that’s important to understand the direction of where we are headed.
When WW6 began in 1973, the movement in Jihadism was basically to free the Arab world from domination by the secular powers in Washington and Moscow. This was the political impetus for OPEC, after all, and it should be understood that OPEC paid for terrorist operations to the end of reducing outsider influence in the Middle East. While public comments were restrained, American and Soviet officials were able to track the flow of money and key individuals, and on occasion actually cooperated to prevent the success of certain initiatives. Perhaps the best example of this is the 1981 Osirak raid in Iraq, where Israeli jets attacked a reactor producing weapons-grade plutonium for Saddam’s Nuclear program. While it cannot be proven, rumors have long suggested that U.S. Satellite imagery and Soviet HUMINT provided key data for the Israelis. Yassir Arafat also threw a wrench into the Jihadists’ plans, when he took the OPEC council hostage in 1974, demanding and getting a large ransom of undisclosed amount – the rogue move established the PLO as an independent actor in terrorism, and curtailed OPEC’s interest in funding terrorism. This meant, in practice, that individuals took up the practice, including Saddam Hussein, who saw the applied use of terror as a tool to gain power.
1979 was a watershed year for the Jihadists. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the revolution in Iran, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Saddam’s seizure of power in Iraq combined to radically alter the landscape in the Middle East. Jihadists saw a combination of threat and opportunity. Literally dozens of new terrorist organizations dedicated to Jihad sprang into existence.
Fast forward to 1991. To Jihadist eyes, the American intervention in Kuwait was abhorrent, as much for the display of U.S. power as for the notion of infidel boots in Saudi Arabia, never mind that we had been invited. A relatively minor pace of kidnappings, bombings and assassination against Americans became a focus of renewed interest, especially the desire to hurt Americans at home. It took time to plan and develop, but inexorably led to the 9/11 attacks.
So here we are. The significance of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was not only the destabilization of Al Qaeda’s network and a forceful response to an unprovoked attack, but Bush’s plain demand to choose a side played a card the Jihadists failed to consider; the Lying Mahdi.
Somewhere back in the 10th Century, a Muslim Imam of some repute vanished, with a legend born that he would one day return to establish a Caliphate of great power. The difference between Islam and the West, is that where we have outgrown fairy tales, the legend of the Mahdi is a strong and permanent theme in Islamic culture. And every so often, some nutcase pops up, declares himself the Mahdi and starts an insurrection. It happened several times under the British, and in Algeria under the French at least once. With the current madman in Iran torquing up hate speeches by the day, it would hardly be surprising to hear him claim the title himself. But that is also a weakness in the Islamic culture. That is, they know about the Mahdi legend, but also remember how many false Mahdis there have been, and that those false Mahdis always made things worse for Muslims; empires before the United States were not at all shy in putting down rebellions with as much force as they could bring to bear. Bush’s strong response has not only showed the lie to the Jihadists’ claim that the U.S. is only a paper lion, but hinted at the “false Mahdi” gambit to many in the Middle East. It’s not hard to look at Iraq, and wonder if a stable Iraq wouldn’t be much preferable to the strict and despotic regime in Iran. When businessmen in Saudi Arabia and students in Iran demonstrate for reform, the Jihadists are in trouble.
But the war is far from over, and observers have pointed to a likely future battlefield: Europe. The violence in France was unsettling, not least because the French government was clearly out of its depth in controlling it. One cannot help but wonder if, in 20 or 30 years, a patient but ruthless Muslim revolutionary might not be able to make France or Germany like another Iran or Syria. The impact on the world, in military, political, social, and economic terms, could be devastating.
It is here that the United States finds the potential of some unlikely allies. The governments of China and India have generally taken a wait-and-see attitude in response to U.S. actions, for the obvious reason that neither is keen to see the U.S. dominate the world overtly. Yet neither India nor China has any stomach for the kind of methodology employed by the Jihadists; if China cannot tolerate the practice of peaceful Falun Gong classes in public, one can scarcely imagine how they would like Muslim uprisings along their northern border. And India has enough on its hands watching Pakistan; imagine that threat multiplied by a Muslim power in Europe. So, while both nations prefer a pragmatic policy and will be likely to play both sides against the middle wherever they can, when the crisis point comes to bear, it is in both nations’ interest to work against the Jihadists, rather than with them. And this is again where the mind of George W. Bush comes to play.
Attacking the terrorists in the countries of their own base was the best way to work against another major attack on our own soil. Destroying their network was the best way to prove the lie to their bragging. Establishing democracies in place of the tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq was the best way to show hope in spite of fear. And Bush knows how to read a map, well enough to give India and China the out he knows they will need eventually, even if they themselves do not yet realize that fact.
That’s why we will win.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
The Immutable Laws of Business
[ ... ]
Yesterday, I noted the difference in one comparable experience between United Parcel Service (UPS), a private delivery service, and the United States Postal Service (USPS), the government mail delivery service. An interesting debate followed concerning the value and need for certain government functions. Certainly a key difference between Republicans and Democrats, is the question of just how much of our lives and power we should hand over to government. And that brings me to the place of business in the American mind and heart.
I don’t want to sound like I am trivializing the matter, but in many ways the American Revolution was a Businessman’s War. The beginning of troubles came not so much from King George III as from Parliament, whose heavy regulations and protectionist tariffs angered the American colonists; basically all they wanted was a level field for marketing and delivering their goods. But the New World was richer than England could pay for, and Parliament compensated by discounting American goods and giving preferences to British companies, in punitive practices which damaged colonists’ finances and outraged the colonial Congress. Rather than compromise to reach an amicable agreement, Parliament instead added to the tax burden, and began to send troops to occupy suspected trouble spots. In an obvious case of the self-fulfilling prophecy, people forced to house and feed troops send to punish their towns were indeed angry, to the point of rebellion, and by the time anyone in Parliament began to reconsider their actions, violence had begun and spread.
The connection between Business and Politics is long-standing, and has often been contentious. While there have been clashes, and some corrections took too long to happen, America has thrived in large part because the American Dream is real, and it allows someone to succeed on the strength of their own work. Nobody owes you a fortune, but anybody can make one. You have to know the Immutable Laws of Business, though, the ones that don’t change no matter where you are or what you are doing.
1. To succeed in Business, you have to either make or do something people need, something people want, or provide something which makes people’s lives better. There is no right to succeed; if you want to survive, you have to be about the customer.
2. Bad consequences are far more permanent than good consequences. So you’d better be able to address complaints and correct mistakes.
3. Nothing made by man is a necessity. Even if you make a great product, someone will try to make it cheaper, better, or more convenient.
4. Honesty matters. You will screw up sometimes, and things will go wrong. What happens next depends on whether you’re up to be accountable.
5. A business is only as good as its people. Especially the ones the customer sees everyday.
6. Listen to the customer.
7. No one owes you anything.
By the way, that USPS package is apparently still sitting in a Washington State airport, and no one at the USPS has any intention of looking for it anytime soon. That tells a lesson all its own.
Yesterday, I noted the difference in one comparable experience between United Parcel Service (UPS), a private delivery service, and the United States Postal Service (USPS), the government mail delivery service. An interesting debate followed concerning the value and need for certain government functions. Certainly a key difference between Republicans and Democrats, is the question of just how much of our lives and power we should hand over to government. And that brings me to the place of business in the American mind and heart.
I don’t want to sound like I am trivializing the matter, but in many ways the American Revolution was a Businessman’s War. The beginning of troubles came not so much from King George III as from Parliament, whose heavy regulations and protectionist tariffs angered the American colonists; basically all they wanted was a level field for marketing and delivering their goods. But the New World was richer than England could pay for, and Parliament compensated by discounting American goods and giving preferences to British companies, in punitive practices which damaged colonists’ finances and outraged the colonial Congress. Rather than compromise to reach an amicable agreement, Parliament instead added to the tax burden, and began to send troops to occupy suspected trouble spots. In an obvious case of the self-fulfilling prophecy, people forced to house and feed troops send to punish their towns were indeed angry, to the point of rebellion, and by the time anyone in Parliament began to reconsider their actions, violence had begun and spread.
The connection between Business and Politics is long-standing, and has often been contentious. While there have been clashes, and some corrections took too long to happen, America has thrived in large part because the American Dream is real, and it allows someone to succeed on the strength of their own work. Nobody owes you a fortune, but anybody can make one. You have to know the Immutable Laws of Business, though, the ones that don’t change no matter where you are or what you are doing.
1. To succeed in Business, you have to either make or do something people need, something people want, or provide something which makes people’s lives better. There is no right to succeed; if you want to survive, you have to be about the customer.
2. Bad consequences are far more permanent than good consequences. So you’d better be able to address complaints and correct mistakes.
3. Nothing made by man is a necessity. Even if you make a great product, someone will try to make it cheaper, better, or more convenient.
4. Honesty matters. You will screw up sometimes, and things will go wrong. What happens next depends on whether you’re up to be accountable.
5. A business is only as good as its people. Especially the ones the customer sees everyday.
6. Listen to the customer.
7. No one owes you anything.
By the way, that USPS package is apparently still sitting in a Washington State airport, and no one at the USPS has any intention of looking for it anytime soon. That tells a lesson all its own.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
The Value of Private Business
...
I mentioned a while back that I am studying for the GMAT. This is because I hope to get into school again to pursue my M.B.A. I have very few illusions about the difficulty of that task, and so I have been collecting all sorts of aids to help me study and prepare.
To that end, I have been making good use of Ebay, and bidding on study aids and practice tests. And in that course, I have noticed an interesting side-by-side comparison.
I ordered one set of books from a supplier who is using the U.S. Postal Service, and another from a supplier who uses UPS. Both offer tracking numbers and a website to measure the progress of the packages. Both were sent out December 27th.
The UPS tracking showed a series of locations, and the package was delivered to me Saturday, December 31. Four days, not bad.
The USPS tracking shows the package went to an airport on the 27th. And it has sat there ever since. I called the toll-free number to ask what was going on, and basically, they did nothing but read the information off the website to me verbally, even though I had told them I checked there first. They had no idea why the package had not moved, and said they could not consider it “lost” or “delayed” until at least fourteen business days had passed. They gave me a number to the city the package was sent from, but that number, besides being a toll call, only offered four recorded options, not one of them being to speak to a real person.
Moral of the story – as we already knew, never trust the government to do a job, if you have a private business alternative. Thanks UPS, nuts to you USPS.
I mentioned a while back that I am studying for the GMAT. This is because I hope to get into school again to pursue my M.B.A. I have very few illusions about the difficulty of that task, and so I have been collecting all sorts of aids to help me study and prepare.
To that end, I have been making good use of Ebay, and bidding on study aids and practice tests. And in that course, I have noticed an interesting side-by-side comparison.
I ordered one set of books from a supplier who is using the U.S. Postal Service, and another from a supplier who uses UPS. Both offer tracking numbers and a website to measure the progress of the packages. Both were sent out December 27th.
The UPS tracking showed a series of locations, and the package was delivered to me Saturday, December 31. Four days, not bad.
The USPS tracking shows the package went to an airport on the 27th. And it has sat there ever since. I called the toll-free number to ask what was going on, and basically, they did nothing but read the information off the website to me verbally, even though I had told them I checked there first. They had no idea why the package had not moved, and said they could not consider it “lost” or “delayed” until at least fourteen business days had passed. They gave me a number to the city the package was sent from, but that number, besides being a toll call, only offered four recorded options, not one of them being to speak to a real person.
Moral of the story – as we already knew, never trust the government to do a job, if you have a private business alternative. Thanks UPS, nuts to you USPS.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Spy Quiz 2 Answers
[.!.]
Here are the correct answers to yesterday’s quiz.
1. The first U.S. Intelligence service was authorized by Congress in
[A] 1947
[B] 1917
[C] 1861
[D] 1775 - The Continental Congress created the “Secret Commitee of Correspondence” in November 1775. The Committee was responsible for procuring arms and supplies, for recruiting secret agents and smuggling, propaganda and “gratuities” for foreign officials whose support was though to be worth the price. The “Secret Committee” became known as the “Committee on Foreign Affairs” in 1777, and also was given authority as the “Committee on Commerce” the same year, and so a committee given authority by Congress to lie and steal, was the direct forerunner of both the State and Commerce Departments!
2. The “MAGIC” intercepts made before and during World War Two were legal because
[A] Congress passed a bill approving them
[B] All of the intercepts were made in foreign countries
[C] As Commander in Chief of the military, FDR already held all the authority he needed. - With all the discussion about Article II powers, this should have been easy. Phone calls, letters, telegraph and radio transmissions were intercepted at various times and by various agencies as early as Hoover’s Palmer raids against Communists in 1920, and Yardley’s “Black Chamber” intercepts of 1919-21. By the time Roosevelt was President, a variety of tools and agencies were in place to collect and analyze information, and the “MAGIC” intercepts simply made use of the most advanced resources and talent. Sadly, poor cooperation between agencies prevented the analysis of Japan’s intention from getting to the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor, or history might have been very different.
[D] Actually, the intercepts were illegal, but no one pursued the matter.
3. One of the first federal employees to be fired for leaking government secrets was
[A] Tom Paine, pamphleteer and author of “Common Sense” - Yes indeed, it seems that Mr. Paine, a clerk to one of the members of Congress, disliked the notion of a government lying to the public, so on one occasion when Congress planted a false resolution, Paine revealed otherwise in his newsletter. Congress was not amused, and Paine lost his job with Congress.
[B] Sir Henry Clinton, of New York, who handled supplies for the troops - not the guy. Clinton was a man who handled supplies for the troops, but it was for the Redcoats he worked, in New York City.
[C] Dr. Benjamin Church, member of Congress and personal friend of George Washington - Church was a traitor who spied on Congress. He was caught and Washington wanted very much to see him hanged, but at the time there was no death penalty for the offense. In the actual event, Church was allowed to leave for England in 1777 as part of a prisoner exchange, but his ship wrecked and sank, drowing Church and everyone else aboard.
[D] Major Benjamin Tallmadge, who was linked to the death of Nathan Hale - Tallmadge was a personal friend of Hale, the link was that Tallmadge argued, successfully, for the execution of Major Andre, a British spy caught in similar circumstances as Hale.
4. Which well-known security business was founded by a man personally hired by the Union Army’s Commander during the Civil War?
[A] Brink’s
[B] Pinkerton - Alan Pinkerton was hired by General McLellan during the Civil War, and was renowned for the accuracy and detail of his reports
[C] Wells Fargo
[D] Lummis
5. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington’s opinion of spying was
[A] He detested such dishonesty, and strongly punished any officer so engaged
[B] He considered it a necessary evil, to be kept at arm’s length and avoid any direct connection
[C] He found it a useful tool, and allowed some of his officers to employ spies
[D] He was an enthusiastic spymaster, spending his own money and advocating the creation of networks - Washington spent his own money to run several spy rings, most famously the “Samuel Culper” ring, and unnamed ring which clued him in to British vulnerabilities in place and time at Trenton, making possible his famous “Crossing of the Delaware”.
6. Unrealistic expectations from Intelligence is nothing new. Of which war did the head of U.S. Intelligence remark, “They expect you to be able to say that a war will start next Tuesday at 5:32 PM“?
[A] The invasion of Grenada
[B] The Vietnam War
[C] The Korean War - General Walter Bedell “Beetle” Smith uttered that famous remark when press reporters hounded him for days about the most likely place and time for the commencement of hostilities between U.S. and North Korean forces.
[D] The entry of the United States into World War II
Here are the correct answers to yesterday’s quiz.
1. The first U.S. Intelligence service was authorized by Congress in
[A] 1947
[B] 1917
[C] 1861
[D] 1775 - The Continental Congress created the “Secret Commitee of Correspondence” in November 1775. The Committee was responsible for procuring arms and supplies, for recruiting secret agents and smuggling, propaganda and “gratuities” for foreign officials whose support was though to be worth the price. The “Secret Committee” became known as the “Committee on Foreign Affairs” in 1777, and also was given authority as the “Committee on Commerce” the same year, and so a committee given authority by Congress to lie and steal, was the direct forerunner of both the State and Commerce Departments!
2. The “MAGIC” intercepts made before and during World War Two were legal because
[A] Congress passed a bill approving them
[B] All of the intercepts were made in foreign countries
[C] As Commander in Chief of the military, FDR already held all the authority he needed. - With all the discussion about Article II powers, this should have been easy. Phone calls, letters, telegraph and radio transmissions were intercepted at various times and by various agencies as early as Hoover’s Palmer raids against Communists in 1920, and Yardley’s “Black Chamber” intercepts of 1919-21. By the time Roosevelt was President, a variety of tools and agencies were in place to collect and analyze information, and the “MAGIC” intercepts simply made use of the most advanced resources and talent. Sadly, poor cooperation between agencies prevented the analysis of Japan’s intention from getting to the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor, or history might have been very different.
[D] Actually, the intercepts were illegal, but no one pursued the matter.
3. One of the first federal employees to be fired for leaking government secrets was
[A] Tom Paine, pamphleteer and author of “Common Sense” - Yes indeed, it seems that Mr. Paine, a clerk to one of the members of Congress, disliked the notion of a government lying to the public, so on one occasion when Congress planted a false resolution, Paine revealed otherwise in his newsletter. Congress was not amused, and Paine lost his job with Congress.
[B] Sir Henry Clinton, of New York, who handled supplies for the troops - not the guy. Clinton was a man who handled supplies for the troops, but it was for the Redcoats he worked, in New York City.
[C] Dr. Benjamin Church, member of Congress and personal friend of George Washington - Church was a traitor who spied on Congress. He was caught and Washington wanted very much to see him hanged, but at the time there was no death penalty for the offense. In the actual event, Church was allowed to leave for England in 1777 as part of a prisoner exchange, but his ship wrecked and sank, drowing Church and everyone else aboard.
[D] Major Benjamin Tallmadge, who was linked to the death of Nathan Hale - Tallmadge was a personal friend of Hale, the link was that Tallmadge argued, successfully, for the execution of Major Andre, a British spy caught in similar circumstances as Hale.
4. Which well-known security business was founded by a man personally hired by the Union Army’s Commander during the Civil War?
[A] Brink’s
[B] Pinkerton - Alan Pinkerton was hired by General McLellan during the Civil War, and was renowned for the accuracy and detail of his reports
[C] Wells Fargo
[D] Lummis
5. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington’s opinion of spying was
[A] He detested such dishonesty, and strongly punished any officer so engaged
[B] He considered it a necessary evil, to be kept at arm’s length and avoid any direct connection
[C] He found it a useful tool, and allowed some of his officers to employ spies
[D] He was an enthusiastic spymaster, spending his own money and advocating the creation of networks - Washington spent his own money to run several spy rings, most famously the “Samuel Culper” ring, and unnamed ring which clued him in to British vulnerabilities in place and time at Trenton, making possible his famous “Crossing of the Delaware”.
6. Unrealistic expectations from Intelligence is nothing new. Of which war did the head of U.S. Intelligence remark, “They expect you to be able to say that a war will start next Tuesday at 5:32 PM“?
[A] The invasion of Grenada
[B] The Vietnam War
[C] The Korean War - General Walter Bedell “Beetle” Smith uttered that famous remark when press reporters hounded him for days about the most likely place and time for the commencement of hostilities between U.S. and North Korean forces.
[D] The entry of the United States into World War II
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Spy Quiz 2
[ shh ]
With all the talk about NSA "wiretaps" and spying on Americans, I think it would be good to test the readers' knowledge about spies.
( Answers to come tomorrow )
1. The first U.S. Intelligence service was authorized by Congress in
[A] 1947
[B] 1917
[C] 1861
[D] 1775
2. The "MAGIC" intercepts made before and during World War Two were legal because
[A] Congress passed a bill approving them
[B] All of the intercepts were made in foreign countries
[C] As Commander in Chief of the military, FDR already held all the authority he needed.
[D] Actually, the intercepts were illegal, but no one pursued the matter
3. One of the first federal employees to be fired for leaking government secrets was
[A] Tom Paine, pamphleteer and author of "Common Sense"
[B] Sir Henry Clinton, of New York, who handled supplies for the troops
[C] Dr. Benjamin Church, member of Congress and personal friend of George Washington
[D] Major Benjamin Tallmadge, who was linked to the death of Nathan Hale
4. Which well-known security business was founded by a man personally hired by the Union Army's Commander during the Civil War?
[A] Brink's
[B] Pinkerton
[C] Wells Fargo
[D] Lummis
5. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington's opinion of spying was
[A] He detested such dishonesty, and strongly punished any officer so engaged
[B] He considered it a necessary evil, to be kept at arm's length and avoid any direct connection
[C] He found it a useful tool, and allowed some of his officers to employ spies
[D] He was an enthusiastic spymaster, spending his own money and advocating the creation of networks
6. Unrealistic expectations from Intelligence is nothing new. Of which war did the head of U.S. Intelligence remark, "They expect you to be able to say that a war will start next Tuesday at 5:32 PM"?
[A] The invasion of Grenada
[B] The Vietnam War
[C] The Korean War
[D] The entry of the United States into World War II
With all the talk about NSA "wiretaps" and spying on Americans, I think it would be good to test the readers' knowledge about spies.
( Answers to come tomorrow )
1. The first U.S. Intelligence service was authorized by Congress in
[A] 1947
[B] 1917
[C] 1861
[D] 1775
2. The "MAGIC" intercepts made before and during World War Two were legal because
[A] Congress passed a bill approving them
[B] All of the intercepts were made in foreign countries
[C] As Commander in Chief of the military, FDR already held all the authority he needed.
[D] Actually, the intercepts were illegal, but no one pursued the matter
3. One of the first federal employees to be fired for leaking government secrets was
[A] Tom Paine, pamphleteer and author of "Common Sense"
[B] Sir Henry Clinton, of New York, who handled supplies for the troops
[C] Dr. Benjamin Church, member of Congress and personal friend of George Washington
[D] Major Benjamin Tallmadge, who was linked to the death of Nathan Hale
4. Which well-known security business was founded by a man personally hired by the Union Army's Commander during the Civil War?
[A] Brink's
[B] Pinkerton
[C] Wells Fargo
[D] Lummis
5. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington's opinion of spying was
[A] He detested such dishonesty, and strongly punished any officer so engaged
[B] He considered it a necessary evil, to be kept at arm's length and avoid any direct connection
[C] He found it a useful tool, and allowed some of his officers to employ spies
[D] He was an enthusiastic spymaster, spending his own money and advocating the creation of networks
6. Unrealistic expectations from Intelligence is nothing new. Of which war did the head of U.S. Intelligence remark, "They expect you to be able to say that a war will start next Tuesday at 5:32 PM"?
[A] The invasion of Grenada
[B] The Vietnam War
[C] The Korean War
[D] The entry of the United States into World War II
PFL Week Seventeen
[ last regular season week ]
Week Seventeen Scoreboard
Teddy Roosevelt (16-0) 28, Washington (15-1) 19
George W. Bush (16-0) 34, Taft (10-6) 9
Reagan (16-0) 58, Hayes (8-8) 0
Eisenhower (15-1) 31, Madison (8-8) 12
Grant (14-2) 50, Andrew Johnson (0-16) 6
Lincoln (11-5) 15, Jefferson (13-3) 12 (OT)
FDR (14-2) 31, Wilson (7-9) 6
Monroe (13-3) 35, JQ Adams (8-8) 9
Truman (13-3) 22, JFK (11-5) 20
Polk (12-4) 31, Jackson (6-10) 3
John Adams (10-6) 44, Cleveland (9-7) 3
McKinley (10-6) 38, LBJ (3-13) 6
Arthur (8-8) 18, Ford (6-10) 12
GHW Bush (8-8) 24, Hoover (2-14) 0
Nixon (8-8) 35, Coolidge (3-13) 18
B Harrison (7-9) 25, Carter (4-12) 3
Taylor (7-9) 12, Garfield (3-13) 9
Van Buren (7-9) 43, Clinton (0-16) 21
Tyler (5-11) 26, Fillmore (2-14) 18
Harding (3-13) 19, Buchanan (0-16) 9
Pierce (3-13) 18, W Harrison (2-14) 9
Division A
[05] Washington (15-1) Division Champion, 3rd Seed
[08] Monroe (13-3) Wild Card berth, 5th Seed
[11] Polk (12-4) Wild Card berth, 6th Seed
Division B
[04] Eisenhower (15-1) Division Champion, 2nd Seed
[10] Jefferson (13-3) Wild Card berth, 5th Seed
Division C
[01] T Roosevelt (16-0) Division Champion, Homefield Advantage Clinched
[06] Grant (14-2) Wild Card berth, 4th Seed
Division D
[02] George W Bush (15-0) Division Champion, Homefield Advantage Clinched
[09] Truman (12-3) Wild Card berth, 4th Seed
[15] McKinley (10-6) (missed playoffs)
Division E
[03] Reagan (16-0) Division Champion, 2nd Seed
[13] Lincoln (11-5) (missed playoffs)
[14] J Adams (10-6) (missed playoffs)
Division F
[07] FDR (14-2) Division Champion, 3rd Seed
[12] JFK (11-5) Wild Card berth, 6th Seed
[16] Taft (10-6) (missed playoffs)
Week Seventeen Scoreboard
Teddy Roosevelt (16-0) 28, Washington (15-1) 19
George W. Bush (16-0) 34, Taft (10-6) 9
Reagan (16-0) 58, Hayes (8-8) 0
Eisenhower (15-1) 31, Madison (8-8) 12
Grant (14-2) 50, Andrew Johnson (0-16) 6
Lincoln (11-5) 15, Jefferson (13-3) 12 (OT)
FDR (14-2) 31, Wilson (7-9) 6
Monroe (13-3) 35, JQ Adams (8-8) 9
Truman (13-3) 22, JFK (11-5) 20
Polk (12-4) 31, Jackson (6-10) 3
John Adams (10-6) 44, Cleveland (9-7) 3
McKinley (10-6) 38, LBJ (3-13) 6
Arthur (8-8) 18, Ford (6-10) 12
GHW Bush (8-8) 24, Hoover (2-14) 0
Nixon (8-8) 35, Coolidge (3-13) 18
B Harrison (7-9) 25, Carter (4-12) 3
Taylor (7-9) 12, Garfield (3-13) 9
Van Buren (7-9) 43, Clinton (0-16) 21
Tyler (5-11) 26, Fillmore (2-14) 18
Harding (3-13) 19, Buchanan (0-16) 9
Pierce (3-13) 18, W Harrison (2-14) 9
Division A
[05] Washington (15-1) Division Champion, 3rd Seed
[08] Monroe (13-3) Wild Card berth, 5th Seed
[11] Polk (12-4) Wild Card berth, 6th Seed
Division B
[04] Eisenhower (15-1) Division Champion, 2nd Seed
[10] Jefferson (13-3) Wild Card berth, 5th Seed
Division C
[01] T Roosevelt (16-0) Division Champion, Homefield Advantage Clinched
[06] Grant (14-2) Wild Card berth, 4th Seed
Division D
[02] George W Bush (15-0) Division Champion, Homefield Advantage Clinched
[09] Truman (12-3) Wild Card berth, 4th Seed
[15] McKinley (10-6) (missed playoffs)
Division E
[03] Reagan (16-0) Division Champion, 2nd Seed
[13] Lincoln (11-5) (missed playoffs)
[14] J Adams (10-6) (missed playoffs)
Division F
[07] FDR (14-2) Division Champion, 3rd Seed
[12] JFK (11-5) Wild Card berth, 6th Seed
[16] Taft (10-6) (missed playoffs)
Friday, December 30, 2005
Political Compulsive Disorder
[!!!]
It’s a funny thing we are seeing these days. Democrats know full well that their tactics of slander and defeatism are not working to win elections, yet they just will not consider their position in any kind of mature light. Strange. Yet we have seen this before, and the problem seems to be based on raw emotion overriding better judgment. Political Compulsive Disorder, or PCD if you will.
Republicans have done it too, of course. Bill Clinton got on Conservative nerves like no one in a long time. This was partly due to his politics, but also his personal character – Conservatives hated the man, and were determined to find a weapon to use on him at almost all costs. That hardly means that the Impeachment was not valid; it was. But the emotions rose and fell at various times, and when it came time to follow, the Republicans in the Senate proved to have no fortitude for the task. And so, despite all the momentum leading up to the Senate trial, the actual event was weak and ineffective.
Of course, it should also be observed that Bill Clinton’s staff was equally obsessed with the same disorder. Just as Richard Nixon never seemed to realize, Bill Clinton failed to understand that he could have avoided all his serious trouble with a bit of candor; both men instead tried to deny and obfuscate and ignore the growing personal crisis, until in both cases the consequences grew too big to handle. In Nixon’s case, it cost him his job and place in history, while in Clinton’s turn it cost him what chance at a legacy he had, and damaged Al Gore’s chances to be President.
As for the Democrats, there’s a lot they need to learn from history. The Democrats owned control of Congress for more than half a century, and the loss to the Republicans has led to a bitter denial of reality in their midst. The PCD phenomenon showed up in the Democrats’ side in their vicious vendetta against Nixon in 1973, never dreaming it could lead to a backlash when an incompetent President put the security of the nation at risk in 1979. A new wave of Leftist PCD rose against Ronald Reagan, who refused to act as if his party were the minority, but instead whose policies and ideals resonated with the American public. That wave failed to harm Reagan, but damaged the fortunes of his successor, the less solid G.H.W. Bush. After Clinton’s election in 1992, under circumstances which outraged Republicans, it was the Conservative turn to suffer PCD, though it led to the beneficial uprising which changed control of the House of Representatives in 1994. But PCD is not a moderate emotion, and it drove GOP leaders to take actions and make statements which appeared immoderate and unstable to many Americans, especially as political gestures became more important to the party than keeping the promises made to gain control of the House. This enabled Clinton to be re-elected and enjoy the majority in the Senate through his time in office.
But time has shown the Leftists’ PCD to be far more severe and permanent. After George W. Bush won the White House in 2000, Democrats and Liberals in particular were extremely angry, just as Republicans were unhappy in 1992. But where most Republicans were able to work past their anger and adjust to reality to their advantage by 1994, the Democrats just got less and less reasonable. The short-lived amity after the 9/11 attacks displayed the intense and bitter hatred most on the Left carried in their hearts, and it drove them to harsh rhetoric and extremely partisan attacks. This, combined with President Bush’s organizational and motivating skills, led to unexpected gains for the Republicans in 2002.
I admit that while I was not particularly worried about President Bush’s chances for re-election in 2004, I did wonder how he would fare in the 2006 mid-term elections, and I sensed that with 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections going to the Republican candidate, the mood for a change might be dominant in 2008. As it happens however, if the Democrats cannot bring themselves to control their emotions and begin to act in a more mature manner, they not only may continue to lose seats in the upcoming 2006 election, but the 2008 as well. The ability to change course after all, is not an immediate thing, and the momentum of the past decade seems to be increasing in a rather unfavorable direction for the Democrats. The key for the Republicans, and especially Conservatives, is to watch for and avoid PCD ourselves if and when it should show again in our own ranks.
It’s a funny thing we are seeing these days. Democrats know full well that their tactics of slander and defeatism are not working to win elections, yet they just will not consider their position in any kind of mature light. Strange. Yet we have seen this before, and the problem seems to be based on raw emotion overriding better judgment. Political Compulsive Disorder, or PCD if you will.
Republicans have done it too, of course. Bill Clinton got on Conservative nerves like no one in a long time. This was partly due to his politics, but also his personal character – Conservatives hated the man, and were determined to find a weapon to use on him at almost all costs. That hardly means that the Impeachment was not valid; it was. But the emotions rose and fell at various times, and when it came time to follow, the Republicans in the Senate proved to have no fortitude for the task. And so, despite all the momentum leading up to the Senate trial, the actual event was weak and ineffective.
Of course, it should also be observed that Bill Clinton’s staff was equally obsessed with the same disorder. Just as Richard Nixon never seemed to realize, Bill Clinton failed to understand that he could have avoided all his serious trouble with a bit of candor; both men instead tried to deny and obfuscate and ignore the growing personal crisis, until in both cases the consequences grew too big to handle. In Nixon’s case, it cost him his job and place in history, while in Clinton’s turn it cost him what chance at a legacy he had, and damaged Al Gore’s chances to be President.
As for the Democrats, there’s a lot they need to learn from history. The Democrats owned control of Congress for more than half a century, and the loss to the Republicans has led to a bitter denial of reality in their midst. The PCD phenomenon showed up in the Democrats’ side in their vicious vendetta against Nixon in 1973, never dreaming it could lead to a backlash when an incompetent President put the security of the nation at risk in 1979. A new wave of Leftist PCD rose against Ronald Reagan, who refused to act as if his party were the minority, but instead whose policies and ideals resonated with the American public. That wave failed to harm Reagan, but damaged the fortunes of his successor, the less solid G.H.W. Bush. After Clinton’s election in 1992, under circumstances which outraged Republicans, it was the Conservative turn to suffer PCD, though it led to the beneficial uprising which changed control of the House of Representatives in 1994. But PCD is not a moderate emotion, and it drove GOP leaders to take actions and make statements which appeared immoderate and unstable to many Americans, especially as political gestures became more important to the party than keeping the promises made to gain control of the House. This enabled Clinton to be re-elected and enjoy the majority in the Senate through his time in office.
But time has shown the Leftists’ PCD to be far more severe and permanent. After George W. Bush won the White House in 2000, Democrats and Liberals in particular were extremely angry, just as Republicans were unhappy in 1992. But where most Republicans were able to work past their anger and adjust to reality to their advantage by 1994, the Democrats just got less and less reasonable. The short-lived amity after the 9/11 attacks displayed the intense and bitter hatred most on the Left carried in their hearts, and it drove them to harsh rhetoric and extremely partisan attacks. This, combined with President Bush’s organizational and motivating skills, led to unexpected gains for the Republicans in 2002.
I admit that while I was not particularly worried about President Bush’s chances for re-election in 2004, I did wonder how he would fare in the 2006 mid-term elections, and I sensed that with 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections going to the Republican candidate, the mood for a change might be dominant in 2008. As it happens however, if the Democrats cannot bring themselves to control their emotions and begin to act in a more mature manner, they not only may continue to lose seats in the upcoming 2006 election, but the 2008 as well. The ability to change course after all, is not an immediate thing, and the momentum of the past decade seems to be increasing in a rather unfavorable direction for the Democrats. The key for the Republicans, and especially Conservatives, is to watch for and avoid PCD ourselves if and when it should show again in our own ranks.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Salute A Spook
[ shh ]
You want to talk about 'the few, the proud'? How about a job where you risk your life, but the medals you win will be locked away, because the missions are classified so highly that you can’t even tell your family what you were doing? How about a job where, if someone knew who you worked for, the most common assumption would be that you were practicing deceit, murder, and perhaps the overthrow of legitimate governments? How about a job where even your allies wouldn’t be seen in public with you?
Welcome to the Central Intelligence Agency.
I will say more about the intelligence services over the next few days, but for here and now, I just want to focus on 48 names. There are 83 agents of the CIA who have earned a place in the “Book of Honor”; 48 of those men have been publicly named (and at least six agents have died in the CIA service serving in the present Middle East conflict). All are worth respect, especially seeing as how little of it they saw during their service.
I Salute:
Jerome P. Ginley
Norman A. Schwartz
Robert C. Snoddy
Wilburn S. Rose
William P. Botolex
Frank G. Grace, Jr.
Howard Carey
Chiyoki Ikeda
Leo F. Baker
Wade C. Grey
Thomas W. Ray
Riley W. Shamburger, Jr.
Nels L. Benson
John G. Merriman
Buster E. Edens
John W. Waltz
Edward Johnson
Michael M. Deuel
Michael A. Maloney
Louis A. O’Jibway
Walter L. Ray
Billy Jack Johnson
Jack W. Weeks
Wayne J. McNulty
Richard M. Sisk
Paul C. Davis
David L. Konzelman
Wilbur Murray Greene
Raymond L. Seaborg
John Peterson
John W. Kearns
William E. Bennett
Richard S. Welch
James A. Rawlings
Tucker Gougelmann
Robert C. Ames
Scott J. Van Lieshout
Curtis R. Wood
William F. Buckley
Richard D. Krobock
Lansing H. Bennett, M.D.
Frank A. Darling
James M. Lewele
John A. Celli
Johnny Michael Spann
Helge P. Boes
William Francis Carlson
Christopher Glenn Mueller
You want to talk about 'the few, the proud'? How about a job where you risk your life, but the medals you win will be locked away, because the missions are classified so highly that you can’t even tell your family what you were doing? How about a job where, if someone knew who you worked for, the most common assumption would be that you were practicing deceit, murder, and perhaps the overthrow of legitimate governments? How about a job where even your allies wouldn’t be seen in public with you?
Welcome to the Central Intelligence Agency.
I will say more about the intelligence services over the next few days, but for here and now, I just want to focus on 48 names. There are 83 agents of the CIA who have earned a place in the “Book of Honor”; 48 of those men have been publicly named (and at least six agents have died in the CIA service serving in the present Middle East conflict). All are worth respect, especially seeing as how little of it they saw during their service.
I Salute:
Jerome P. Ginley
Norman A. Schwartz
Robert C. Snoddy
Wilburn S. Rose
William P. Botolex
Frank G. Grace, Jr.
Howard Carey
Chiyoki Ikeda
Leo F. Baker
Wade C. Grey
Thomas W. Ray
Riley W. Shamburger, Jr.
Nels L. Benson
John G. Merriman
Buster E. Edens
John W. Waltz
Edward Johnson
Michael M. Deuel
Michael A. Maloney
Louis A. O’Jibway
Walter L. Ray
Billy Jack Johnson
Jack W. Weeks
Wayne J. McNulty
Richard M. Sisk
Paul C. Davis
David L. Konzelman
Wilbur Murray Greene
Raymond L. Seaborg
John Peterson
John W. Kearns
William E. Bennett
Richard S. Welch
James A. Rawlings
Tucker Gougelmann
Robert C. Ames
Scott J. Van Lieshout
Curtis R. Wood
William F. Buckley
Richard D. Krobock
Lansing H. Bennett, M.D.
Frank A. Darling
James M. Lewele
John A. Celli
Johnny Michael Spann
Helge P. Boes
William Francis Carlson
Christopher Glenn Mueller
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Read Bill Roggio
[ *** ]
I have been remiss in linking to the very important work being done by Bill Roggio, write of the The Fourth Rail. Bill went to Iraq recently, at his own expense and significant inconvenience, to be an embedded reporter and relay the real deal about what’s going on in Iraq. The series of reports from Bill are well worth reading, as noted here, here, and here.
The Washington Post couldn’t bother to get the facts right about Bill’s mission, which only goes to reinforce the value of Bill’s work.
Roggio is thorough, honest, insightful, and extremely credible. If you want to know what’s going on in Iraq and why it matters, read Bill and read him again.
I have been remiss in linking to the very important work being done by Bill Roggio, write of the The Fourth Rail. Bill went to Iraq recently, at his own expense and significant inconvenience, to be an embedded reporter and relay the real deal about what’s going on in Iraq. The series of reports from Bill are well worth reading, as noted here, here, and here.
The Washington Post couldn’t bother to get the facts right about Bill’s mission, which only goes to reinforce the value of Bill’s work.
Roggio is thorough, honest, insightful, and extremely credible. If you want to know what’s going on in Iraq and why it matters, read Bill and read him again.
Hypocrisy Does Not Befit You, Madam
.!.
A Blogger Responds To A Slap In The Face
I like reading Townhall most of the time. Solid columns which are generally both well-written and intelligent. Sadly, there are a few cases which demand a response, and at times a forceful one. This is such an occasion. Kathleen Parker, an ostensibly educated columnist who directs the Buckley School of Public Speaking and Persuasion, wrote a work which, at best, is foolish and wrongly disrespects the most significant evolution of public debate in our lifetimes, and quite possibly displays the desperation of an archaic aristocracy in denial. In a column titled “Lord of the blogs”, Parker unleashes a series of false presumptions and arrogant insults at the Blogging phenomenon. Accordingly, it seems to me fitting that a blogger should respond to those points, and so I present my answer here.
Parker begins by a brief overview of the Internet, then quickly homes on blogging, which she describes as the “insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility - the angry offspring of narcissism's quickie marriage to instant gratification.”
At that point, I couldn’t help but think of the MSM’s marriage to the Democratic Party, and quick manner in which supposed scandals of public figures are so quickly touted on television and in the mass media. I do not mean just the scurrilous lies thrown out about George W. Bush, but the false allegations in the late 1980s that his father had an affair, and even the disgusting way that the most lurid rumors about Bill Clinton, including many which were far from carrying even a seed of truth, were presented. Parker, however, was not admitting to her own industry’s focus on the seamier side of rumors, but pretending that this was something new, that “Yellow Journalism” somehow began with the Instapundit. Not picking on Glenn, but I suspect a fact- and link-laden site like his is anathema to Ms. Parker. Permit me to doubt your veracity, madam.
Parker then goes on to denounce bloggers as “creepy”, “recently wired squatters”, and to sniff at “power untempered by restraint and accountability.” Parker somehow manages to write this without once considering Rathergate, Mary Mapes, or any of a dozen pathological liars granted prime-time spotlights to throw out allegations without substance, to pursue personal vendettae against anyone of the wrong sort of politics, and to not only display bias in their product, but defend it falsely as objective journalism. Mainstream media demonstrates no sense of responsibility, no duty to the nation or to the rights of the people they attack. And for Parker to blithely dance past the hate-spattered frauds which only came to light because bloggers uncovered them, is beyond the pale. Hypocrisy does not become you, madam.
The money line in the column comes next:
“Say what you will about the so-called mainstream media, but no industry agonizes more about how to improve its product, police its own members and better serve its communities.”
That, put bluntly, is a lie. There is clear evidence of a left-leaning bias in the newspaper and television news industry, and not only has this been well-researched and explained (see “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg), the backlash to it in the public has also been noted (see “South Park Republicans”, by Brian C. Anderson). But Parker does not see the inconvenient; she is too intent on her enemy. She goes on to dismiss most bloggers as people who “babble, buzz and blurt like caffeinated adolescents competing for the Ritalin generation's inevitable senior superlative: Most Obsessive-Compulsive.”
According to Parker, bloggers “are rich in time and toys, but bereft of adult supervision. Spoiled and undisciplined, they have grabbed the mike and seized the stage, a privilege granted not by years in the trenches, but by virtue of a three-pronged plug and the miracle of WiFi.
“They play tag team with hyperlinks ("I'll say you're important if you'll say I'm important) and shriek "Gotcha!" when they catch some weary wage earner in a mistake or oversight. Plenty smart but lacking in wisdom, they possess the power of a forum, but neither the maturity nor humility that years of experience impose.”
Given the behavior at, say, the New York Timesor the Washington Post, I would say a certain parable about ocular lumber needs mention, but I suspect the lesson would be lost on Ms. Parker. She’s here to show us our place, not mess about with facts and truth, you know.
Parker excuses the outright crimes of her professional colleagues by chirping that “[w]hen someone trips, whether Dan Rather or Eason Jordan or Judith Miller, bloggers are the bloodthirsty masses slavering for a public flogging. Incivility is their weapon and humanity their victim.”
Fraud is a felony in the conditions employed by Mr. Rather. And attempting to subvert a federal election as Rather tried, or to falsely indict an innocent man as Ms. Miller appears to have hoped to do, are criminal acts. Excusing such conduct hardly impresses to the public or a discerning mind a desire for accountability or professional standards in your profession, Ms. Parker.
Ms. Parker’s solution to bloggers?
“We can't silence them, but for civilization's sake - and the integrity of information by which we all live or die - we can and should ignore them.”
And the Mainstream Media wonders why they are still losing viewers and readers…
For the record, Ms. Parker: I am forty-five years old, married and a professional in my own field, with decades of experience. I am neither rich, nor do I have an abundance of “toys” or time, but I blog to serve the responsibility to answer aristocrats like yourself, the sort who wrongly think the common man is unable to understand or analyze the complex matters of state, economy, and culture. I am, in a manner, one of those people who has to clean up after the likes of you, presenting facts in place of your lies, the actual history in place of your fables, and an alternative analysis in place of your diatribes. Accountability is instantaneous; my readers will not let me slide on a falsehood, because unlike the MSM, I allow comments and a debate begins immediately upon publication. I give credit to sources and link to them, so that readers can check the facts for themselves, and they do.
You, to be blunt, represent a useless past. The mainstream press can be of great value, but not as long as you continue to lie about standards you rejected long ago because they were inconvenient, and as long as you ignore the public demand for responsible journalism.
Blogging exists for a variety of reasons, but it would not have an audience for commentary and analysis, except that your cadre of politically correct partisans drives people with common sense to seek alternatives and balance. Bloggers do not hate journalists in either the individual or collective sense, but we take on a code of honor which is sadly lacking in your numbers, and when we see a Rather or a Miller act in such an unconscionable way as they have, we present the facts and challenge falsity. Rather and Miller and Jordan received nothing which did not come from their own bad judgment and rash arrogance; indeed their positions have wrongly protected them from a fully just consequence. Rather, as an example, was neither arrested nor censured for his acts, but retired with a large pension and his pride unpricked. That is simply wrong madam, and you know it, or if you remembered your J-school standard, you would.
I am a blogger, and I am very good at what I do. Unlike you, however, I neither pretend to be better than other people, nor do I refuse to look hard into the mirror. And there are many like me. We are the future of journalism, not to replace the people who gather and report the news, but to drive them back to the ideals which used to matter; honesty, integrity, balance.
You know what I find “creepy”? That someone like you would be teaching future journalists. Watch and see, madam. Blogging is neither going away, nor is it ignored. Within ten years, you will start to see major journalism schools take it up as a necessary skill. Within five you will see a blog report segment on the major news networks, at least the ones which can keep their viewers. It’s simple really, just supply and demand – as long as you refuse to supply real news, people will demand it from us.
A Blogger Responds To A Slap In The Face
I like reading Townhall most of the time. Solid columns which are generally both well-written and intelligent. Sadly, there are a few cases which demand a response, and at times a forceful one. This is such an occasion. Kathleen Parker, an ostensibly educated columnist who directs the Buckley School of Public Speaking and Persuasion, wrote a work which, at best, is foolish and wrongly disrespects the most significant evolution of public debate in our lifetimes, and quite possibly displays the desperation of an archaic aristocracy in denial. In a column titled “Lord of the blogs”, Parker unleashes a series of false presumptions and arrogant insults at the Blogging phenomenon. Accordingly, it seems to me fitting that a blogger should respond to those points, and so I present my answer here.
Parker begins by a brief overview of the Internet, then quickly homes on blogging, which she describes as the “insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility - the angry offspring of narcissism's quickie marriage to instant gratification.”
At that point, I couldn’t help but think of the MSM’s marriage to the Democratic Party, and quick manner in which supposed scandals of public figures are so quickly touted on television and in the mass media. I do not mean just the scurrilous lies thrown out about George W. Bush, but the false allegations in the late 1980s that his father had an affair, and even the disgusting way that the most lurid rumors about Bill Clinton, including many which were far from carrying even a seed of truth, were presented. Parker, however, was not admitting to her own industry’s focus on the seamier side of rumors, but pretending that this was something new, that “Yellow Journalism” somehow began with the Instapundit. Not picking on Glenn, but I suspect a fact- and link-laden site like his is anathema to Ms. Parker. Permit me to doubt your veracity, madam.
Parker then goes on to denounce bloggers as “creepy”, “recently wired squatters”, and to sniff at “power untempered by restraint and accountability.” Parker somehow manages to write this without once considering Rathergate, Mary Mapes, or any of a dozen pathological liars granted prime-time spotlights to throw out allegations without substance, to pursue personal vendettae against anyone of the wrong sort of politics, and to not only display bias in their product, but defend it falsely as objective journalism. Mainstream media demonstrates no sense of responsibility, no duty to the nation or to the rights of the people they attack. And for Parker to blithely dance past the hate-spattered frauds which only came to light because bloggers uncovered them, is beyond the pale. Hypocrisy does not become you, madam.
The money line in the column comes next:
“Say what you will about the so-called mainstream media, but no industry agonizes more about how to improve its product, police its own members and better serve its communities.”
That, put bluntly, is a lie. There is clear evidence of a left-leaning bias in the newspaper and television news industry, and not only has this been well-researched and explained (see “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg), the backlash to it in the public has also been noted (see “South Park Republicans”, by Brian C. Anderson). But Parker does not see the inconvenient; she is too intent on her enemy. She goes on to dismiss most bloggers as people who “babble, buzz and blurt like caffeinated adolescents competing for the Ritalin generation's inevitable senior superlative: Most Obsessive-Compulsive.”
According to Parker, bloggers “are rich in time and toys, but bereft of adult supervision. Spoiled and undisciplined, they have grabbed the mike and seized the stage, a privilege granted not by years in the trenches, but by virtue of a three-pronged plug and the miracle of WiFi.
“They play tag team with hyperlinks ("I'll say you're important if you'll say I'm important) and shriek "Gotcha!" when they catch some weary wage earner in a mistake or oversight. Plenty smart but lacking in wisdom, they possess the power of a forum, but neither the maturity nor humility that years of experience impose.”
Given the behavior at, say, the New York Timesor the Washington Post, I would say a certain parable about ocular lumber needs mention, but I suspect the lesson would be lost on Ms. Parker. She’s here to show us our place, not mess about with facts and truth, you know.
Parker excuses the outright crimes of her professional colleagues by chirping that “[w]hen someone trips, whether Dan Rather or Eason Jordan or Judith Miller, bloggers are the bloodthirsty masses slavering for a public flogging. Incivility is their weapon and humanity their victim.”
Fraud is a felony in the conditions employed by Mr. Rather. And attempting to subvert a federal election as Rather tried, or to falsely indict an innocent man as Ms. Miller appears to have hoped to do, are criminal acts. Excusing such conduct hardly impresses to the public or a discerning mind a desire for accountability or professional standards in your profession, Ms. Parker.
Ms. Parker’s solution to bloggers?
“We can't silence them, but for civilization's sake - and the integrity of information by which we all live or die - we can and should ignore them.”
And the Mainstream Media wonders why they are still losing viewers and readers…
For the record, Ms. Parker: I am forty-five years old, married and a professional in my own field, with decades of experience. I am neither rich, nor do I have an abundance of “toys” or time, but I blog to serve the responsibility to answer aristocrats like yourself, the sort who wrongly think the common man is unable to understand or analyze the complex matters of state, economy, and culture. I am, in a manner, one of those people who has to clean up after the likes of you, presenting facts in place of your lies, the actual history in place of your fables, and an alternative analysis in place of your diatribes. Accountability is instantaneous; my readers will not let me slide on a falsehood, because unlike the MSM, I allow comments and a debate begins immediately upon publication. I give credit to sources and link to them, so that readers can check the facts for themselves, and they do.
You, to be blunt, represent a useless past. The mainstream press can be of great value, but not as long as you continue to lie about standards you rejected long ago because they were inconvenient, and as long as you ignore the public demand for responsible journalism.
Blogging exists for a variety of reasons, but it would not have an audience for commentary and analysis, except that your cadre of politically correct partisans drives people with common sense to seek alternatives and balance. Bloggers do not hate journalists in either the individual or collective sense, but we take on a code of honor which is sadly lacking in your numbers, and when we see a Rather or a Miller act in such an unconscionable way as they have, we present the facts and challenge falsity. Rather and Miller and Jordan received nothing which did not come from their own bad judgment and rash arrogance; indeed their positions have wrongly protected them from a fully just consequence. Rather, as an example, was neither arrested nor censured for his acts, but retired with a large pension and his pride unpricked. That is simply wrong madam, and you know it, or if you remembered your J-school standard, you would.
I am a blogger, and I am very good at what I do. Unlike you, however, I neither pretend to be better than other people, nor do I refuse to look hard into the mirror. And there are many like me. We are the future of journalism, not to replace the people who gather and report the news, but to drive them back to the ideals which used to matter; honesty, integrity, balance.
You know what I find “creepy”? That someone like you would be teaching future journalists. Watch and see, madam. Blogging is neither going away, nor is it ignored. Within ten years, you will start to see major journalism schools take it up as a necessary skill. Within five you will see a blog report segment on the major news networks, at least the ones which can keep their viewers. It’s simple really, just supply and demand – as long as you refuse to supply real news, people will demand it from us.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Back To Basics: Constitution 101
[wtp]
The Democrats have reached a new low; Afraid not only of Republican majorities in the House and Senate, they now seek to dilute the authority of the Executive Branch, by denying the President powers needed to do his job. I am speaking of course, about the recent noise frumped up from the Left over surveillance of communications for purposes of foreign intelligence. The Left would have people believe that warrantless searches are illegal and so use that issue to attack the President. Examination of the actual facts not only proves the falsity of such claims, but demonstrates the shallow and deceitful character of the people who present such charges.
First, as to warrants. I call to the stand Andrew McCarthy, who presented a long list of court-sustained instances where a warrant is not required for a search, and certainly the fact that the intent of this surveillance is to monitor the conversations involving foreign nationals discussing plans to attack the United States meets this standard. And it should be understood as well, that since many of these calls are from non-citizens or to non-citizens, the question about the rights of American citizens is not really at issue.
Also, is it really necessary to remind people of the difference between collecting information for use in a criminal trial, and information used to detect and prevent a terrorist attacks? I’ve said it before, but it needs saying over and over again – we should be shooting terrorists, not reading them rights as if we wanted to avoid getting sued.
But back to the question of President Bush. If there’s anything since 9/11 that Americans ought to agree on, it’s that we must protect the nation from another horrific attack. There can be no doubt that our enemy in this case is one with no scruples against killing innocents, or who would hesitate for an instant to use any weapon which could harm the United States. The 9/11 Commission wanted a better job of “connecting the dots”, which is simply a euphemism for collecting and analyzing intelligence data. Since our enemies are not likely to broadcast their specific plans, that rather means we have to spy on them, their phone calls and their emails and any international communication. It’s obvious to most of us, that if we had been intercepting phone calls between the United States and, say, Afghanistan in late 2000 and early 2001, we might have caught the hijackers before they carried out their plans. And no, terrorists have no expectation of privacy, under any interpretation of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution, believe it or not, sets out rather clearly that there are three branches of the Federal Government, each with its own powers and character, all equal to each other. Article I discusses the character and powers of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. Article III discusses the character and powers of the Judicial Branch, and between them is Article II, which addresses the Executive Branch. Even schoolchildren are aware that the three branches are equal to each other, with none intended to take precedence or supremacy. Apparently liberals are “re-educated” to indoctrinate them into missing that fact.
As the Constitution makes clear, the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices”. This is to say that on a matter of foreign intelligence, especially one which concerns possible military action, it is the President who has authority to act and use his judgment, rather than the Congress or any court, even the Supreme Court. Court reviews have supported this fact before, as John Schmidt observed:
“the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power", which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
The Supreme Court has also upheld such Presidential authority, inherent in the office, as noted in UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), citing “the Government's right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack” and specifically stating;
“We begin the inquiry by noting that the President of the United States has the fundamental duty, under Art. II, 1, of the Constitution, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Implicit in that duty is the power to protect our Government against those who would subvert or overthrow it by unlawful means. In the discharge of this duty, the President - through the Attorney General - may find it necessary to employ electronic surveillance to obtain intelligence information on the plans of those who plot unlawful acts against the Government. The use of such surveillance in internal security cases has been sanctioned more or less continuously by various Presidents and Attorneys General since July 1946.”
The distinction then, between the normative conditions of legal proceedings and criminal charges, measured against the imperatives of National Security and the collection of foreign intelligence information, is a crucial one.
Leftists often fall back on the Fourth Amendment, but a reading of that article simply notes that searches and seizures must not be “unreasonable”, and as Mr. McCarthy so eloquently cited, there are already literally dozens of conditions in criminal law where a warrant is not required at all. What manner of logic must be used to suggest that a private citizen’s yacht may be searched on the open sea without a warrant, but foreign nationals have a right to privacy for their e-mails to or from places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran? I rather suspect that if those emails should later prove critical to advance knowledge of a plot to, say, irradiate Washington D.C. with a dirty bomb, the same leftists now demanding new rights for suspected terrorists would be the first to demand to know why we did not intercept the communications.
In the end, I do not worry overmuch about the Democrats and their agenda. While they manage to smear good people’s names, and have managed to distract focus from the War on Terror all too often, the Democrats can’t fool all the people, most of whom I can trust to recall why we are in this war, and to understand the need for responsible but functional strategy.
The Democrats have reached a new low; Afraid not only of Republican majorities in the House and Senate, they now seek to dilute the authority of the Executive Branch, by denying the President powers needed to do his job. I am speaking of course, about the recent noise frumped up from the Left over surveillance of communications for purposes of foreign intelligence. The Left would have people believe that warrantless searches are illegal and so use that issue to attack the President. Examination of the actual facts not only proves the falsity of such claims, but demonstrates the shallow and deceitful character of the people who present such charges.
First, as to warrants. I call to the stand Andrew McCarthy, who presented a long list of court-sustained instances where a warrant is not required for a search, and certainly the fact that the intent of this surveillance is to monitor the conversations involving foreign nationals discussing plans to attack the United States meets this standard. And it should be understood as well, that since many of these calls are from non-citizens or to non-citizens, the question about the rights of American citizens is not really at issue.
Also, is it really necessary to remind people of the difference between collecting information for use in a criminal trial, and information used to detect and prevent a terrorist attacks? I’ve said it before, but it needs saying over and over again – we should be shooting terrorists, not reading them rights as if we wanted to avoid getting sued.
But back to the question of President Bush. If there’s anything since 9/11 that Americans ought to agree on, it’s that we must protect the nation from another horrific attack. There can be no doubt that our enemy in this case is one with no scruples against killing innocents, or who would hesitate for an instant to use any weapon which could harm the United States. The 9/11 Commission wanted a better job of “connecting the dots”, which is simply a euphemism for collecting and analyzing intelligence data. Since our enemies are not likely to broadcast their specific plans, that rather means we have to spy on them, their phone calls and their emails and any international communication. It’s obvious to most of us, that if we had been intercepting phone calls between the United States and, say, Afghanistan in late 2000 and early 2001, we might have caught the hijackers before they carried out their plans. And no, terrorists have no expectation of privacy, under any interpretation of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution, believe it or not, sets out rather clearly that there are three branches of the Federal Government, each with its own powers and character, all equal to each other. Article I discusses the character and powers of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. Article III discusses the character and powers of the Judicial Branch, and between them is Article II, which addresses the Executive Branch. Even schoolchildren are aware that the three branches are equal to each other, with none intended to take precedence or supremacy. Apparently liberals are “re-educated” to indoctrinate them into missing that fact.
As the Constitution makes clear, the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices”. This is to say that on a matter of foreign intelligence, especially one which concerns possible military action, it is the President who has authority to act and use his judgment, rather than the Congress or any court, even the Supreme Court. Court reviews have supported this fact before, as John Schmidt observed:
“the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power", which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
The Supreme Court has also upheld such Presidential authority, inherent in the office, as noted in UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), citing “the Government's right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack” and specifically stating;
“We begin the inquiry by noting that the President of the United States has the fundamental duty, under Art. II, 1, of the Constitution, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Implicit in that duty is the power to protect our Government against those who would subvert or overthrow it by unlawful means. In the discharge of this duty, the President - through the Attorney General - may find it necessary to employ electronic surveillance to obtain intelligence information on the plans of those who plot unlawful acts against the Government. The use of such surveillance in internal security cases has been sanctioned more or less continuously by various Presidents and Attorneys General since July 1946.”
The distinction then, between the normative conditions of legal proceedings and criminal charges, measured against the imperatives of National Security and the collection of foreign intelligence information, is a crucial one.
Leftists often fall back on the Fourth Amendment, but a reading of that article simply notes that searches and seizures must not be “unreasonable”, and as Mr. McCarthy so eloquently cited, there are already literally dozens of conditions in criminal law where a warrant is not required at all. What manner of logic must be used to suggest that a private citizen’s yacht may be searched on the open sea without a warrant, but foreign nationals have a right to privacy for their e-mails to or from places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran? I rather suspect that if those emails should later prove critical to advance knowledge of a plot to, say, irradiate Washington D.C. with a dirty bomb, the same leftists now demanding new rights for suspected terrorists would be the first to demand to know why we did not intercept the communications.
In the end, I do not worry overmuch about the Democrats and their agenda. While they manage to smear good people’s names, and have managed to distract focus from the War on Terror all too often, the Democrats can’t fool all the people, most of whom I can trust to recall why we are in this war, and to understand the need for responsible but functional strategy.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Getting The Business From Business School
$$$
Gee, how I wish my house was paid for. It appears that I would need to take another mortgage on it, to get the money necessary for a first-class MBA. People I speak to have one and all assured me that getting a top-school MBA will pay for itself, but few can explain how ordinary folks can pay for the thing.
Of course, I'm in a foul mood for a number of reasons besides the sticker shock of schools. My dad has learned he is likely to be completely blind from macular degeneration inside of six months, and this after surgery for cataracts and treatment for glaucoma. Also, my daughter caught Strep Throat last week, and in the process of things my wife and I have come down with it as well, along with those ubiquitous "flu-like symptoms" that could be anything from a bad cold, to the first human cases of the Avian Flu in the United States.
So anyway, here I am trying to figure just what, precisely, I intend to do with my MBA after I earn it. Assuming, naturally, that two years of hard work and sacrifice will result in getting the degree. For a number of reasons, going to a school out-of-town or becoming a full-time student are not feasible options, so that leaves Online or Part-Time. There is a remote but real chance I could get into Rice or Texas (who now offers an MBA course in Houston), but while both of those schools enjoy solid reputations nationally, both run around $74,000 tuition for the program. Well, UT says $67,000 for tuition, but throws in another $7,000 for various fees and costs, so that it amounts to the same thing. My employer would reimburse me, but only up to $5,250 a year maximum. The tax benefits would amount to another $3,000 a year maybe, so that leaves me somewhere around $57,500 short of the deal. Suffice to say, I do not have $57,500 in discretionary funds available to me, which means getting a loan or scholarship. Unfortunately, my age, undergrad degree and GPA, to say nothing of how long ago I earned it, all work against scholarship hopes, and it is very difficult for a Part-Time student to get any love from the Federal Government in terms of a student loan. Argh.
I know, I know. Lots of students bite the bullet and sign on for that devil's deal and get a bank loan, hoping to pay it off after the super-job is lured in by their shiny MBA. But my whole career is Risk-Averse, and the notion of adding that much debt before I have a sure idea of who I will be working for as an MBA, much less how much I will be making, makes that a bad idea on most fronts.
I understand Scrooge much better these days.
Gee, how I wish my house was paid for. It appears that I would need to take another mortgage on it, to get the money necessary for a first-class MBA. People I speak to have one and all assured me that getting a top-school MBA will pay for itself, but few can explain how ordinary folks can pay for the thing.
Of course, I'm in a foul mood for a number of reasons besides the sticker shock of schools. My dad has learned he is likely to be completely blind from macular degeneration inside of six months, and this after surgery for cataracts and treatment for glaucoma. Also, my daughter caught Strep Throat last week, and in the process of things my wife and I have come down with it as well, along with those ubiquitous "flu-like symptoms" that could be anything from a bad cold, to the first human cases of the Avian Flu in the United States.
So anyway, here I am trying to figure just what, precisely, I intend to do with my MBA after I earn it. Assuming, naturally, that two years of hard work and sacrifice will result in getting the degree. For a number of reasons, going to a school out-of-town or becoming a full-time student are not feasible options, so that leaves Online or Part-Time. There is a remote but real chance I could get into Rice or Texas (who now offers an MBA course in Houston), but while both of those schools enjoy solid reputations nationally, both run around $74,000 tuition for the program. Well, UT says $67,000 for tuition, but throws in another $7,000 for various fees and costs, so that it amounts to the same thing. My employer would reimburse me, but only up to $5,250 a year maximum. The tax benefits would amount to another $3,000 a year maybe, so that leaves me somewhere around $57,500 short of the deal. Suffice to say, I do not have $57,500 in discretionary funds available to me, which means getting a loan or scholarship. Unfortunately, my age, undergrad degree and GPA, to say nothing of how long ago I earned it, all work against scholarship hopes, and it is very difficult for a Part-Time student to get any love from the Federal Government in terms of a student loan. Argh.
I know, I know. Lots of students bite the bullet and sign on for that devil's deal and get a bank loan, hoping to pay it off after the super-job is lured in by their shiny MBA. But my whole career is Risk-Averse, and the notion of adding that much debt before I have a sure idea of who I will be working for as an MBA, much less how much I will be making, makes that a bad idea on most fronts.
I understand Scrooge much better these days.
RISK
*+*+*
Back when I was in college, I loved to play RISK, a board game where the initial objective was to take over the world. As we learned the different layers of the game, however, my friends and I learned that it was often a greater imperative to prevent someone else from taking over. That was because RISK is a difficult game to win, which makes it all the more satisfying if you can do it, and which therefore drives people to form alliances and coalitions with the aim of preventing a specific person from winning. That’s where we are today in the modern world; a lot of nations know they have no chance of “winning” in any global contest, so they band together, not for any constructive purpose or mutual gain, but simply to prevent the United States from “winning”.
Why would nations want to make that kind of useless agreement? In some cases, it’s because the leaders of those nations are tyrants and despots, and they understand that a United States in full power will make their personal position very unstable. Others understand that while they may be able to claim that they are effectively democratic, a superior American influence may force them to abandon uneven practices and tactics, and to live by the terms of their own rhetoric. Still others fear that a victory for American methods and ideals will lead to American dominance in culture and trade.
Historically, there is little for a free nation to fear from the United States, but the dirty secret of the Left is that free elections is feared by Socialists, Communists, and Jihadists, especially the thought of giving votes to women and ethnic minorities; they lose the fulcrum by which they either oppress those groups, or by which they pretend to champion those people. The Welfare State takes many forms, but it kills Liberty even as it pretends its defense.
Another lesson I learned from RISK, is that sometimes a player is far too strong to oppose. When this happens, the only smart move is to be his buddy, so he has less reason to go after you. I wonder how long it will take for the real world to learn that particular lesson.
Back when I was in college, I loved to play RISK, a board game where the initial objective was to take over the world. As we learned the different layers of the game, however, my friends and I learned that it was often a greater imperative to prevent someone else from taking over. That was because RISK is a difficult game to win, which makes it all the more satisfying if you can do it, and which therefore drives people to form alliances and coalitions with the aim of preventing a specific person from winning. That’s where we are today in the modern world; a lot of nations know they have no chance of “winning” in any global contest, so they band together, not for any constructive purpose or mutual gain, but simply to prevent the United States from “winning”.
Why would nations want to make that kind of useless agreement? In some cases, it’s because the leaders of those nations are tyrants and despots, and they understand that a United States in full power will make their personal position very unstable. Others understand that while they may be able to claim that they are effectively democratic, a superior American influence may force them to abandon uneven practices and tactics, and to live by the terms of their own rhetoric. Still others fear that a victory for American methods and ideals will lead to American dominance in culture and trade.
Historically, there is little for a free nation to fear from the United States, but the dirty secret of the Left is that free elections is feared by Socialists, Communists, and Jihadists, especially the thought of giving votes to women and ethnic minorities; they lose the fulcrum by which they either oppress those groups, or by which they pretend to champion those people. The Welfare State takes many forms, but it kills Liberty even as it pretends its defense.
Another lesson I learned from RISK, is that sometimes a player is far too strong to oppose. When this happens, the only smart move is to be his buddy, so he has less reason to go after you. I wonder how long it will take for the real world to learn that particular lesson.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
And A Little Child Shall Scare Them
+++
Today celebrates the birth of Christ Jesus, the Son of God come to Man for the forgiveness of our sins and the reconcilation of Man with God. This simple proposition has found opposition ever since its first suggestion,and in modern times the very concept of Christianity comes under fire for all manner of supposed evils; the essentials of Christianity are all too often ignored in order to pillory the people leading the faith.
Of course, the rise of mega-churches has led to a peculiar interpretation of the Gospel mesage. Far too many of these self-praising palaces emphasize the pursuit of earthly success, while doing little if anything to remind their members to think of the less fortunate around them. This leads to congregations which are outwardly successful, but wondering why their faith is so weak.
Over on Beliefnet, I have seen a lot of attacks on the Christian faith , deriding it as no better than any other, indeed no different in history or source than many Babylonian and Pagan myths. This is a pretty thinly-veiled attempt to bring those cults up to the moral level of Christianity, but it’s not true.
The whole notion of Christianity was radical for its time. The very notion that the Kingdom of God would have nothing to do with the affairs and priorities of Man, was a revolt against the order of every regime controlled by Man. And the notion that forgiveness was freely given by God to all of His creatures, so that the rituals and complex doctrines of established dogmas was not at all necessary for someone whose heart sought God in truth, was unacceptable to the traditional establishment. Jesus was, in word and action, an observant Jew, an obedient subject to the Romans, and an innocent man. Yet he was hated by most of the Sanhedrin, by the Roman authorities, and by many men, simply because he taught a truth greater than they could control. And a generation after his crucifixion, His followers were quite willing to die for their faith, rather than recant. After Constantine came to power, Christianity gained human favor, and with it temporal power and wealth which has changed in nature and character, but has never quite returned to the original faith of the disciples, except at the individual level, as Christ always taught.
So it is, that many people do not really know Jesus Christ. They see the politics, the money, the history of one church or denomination. It might do, then, to remind people of the Christ whose birth is celebrated today:
God, desiring to reach men directly, took on human form and limitations. This is why we say “The Trinity”, because the Father remained Sovereign in Heaven, but sent His Son Jesus to live as man.
Deserving by his person to live in luxury and comfort, Jesus instead accepted the mean birth in a stable, and a life of relative poverty and disadvantage. This continued all through his life, as men who should have seen him as the promised King of Kings, instead rejected Him, and men who ought to have bowed prostrate in His presence, arranged instead to murder Him. Yet Jesus did not even condemn them for this, but forgave them as the paramount example of mercy and forbearance.
Jesus lived the perfect life by example, and taught the Kingdom of Heaven. He spoke to crowds, but His message was always to the individual, and is a message of hope and solace.
After his death, Jesus rose from the dead, but neither avenged Himself on His enemies, nor sought to overthrow the human order. Instead, he showed Himself to His believers as a sign of His power, but commanded them to spread the Gospel in love and hope and mercy.
That is the child we celebrate today. Far too scary for many to face.
Today celebrates the birth of Christ Jesus, the Son of God come to Man for the forgiveness of our sins and the reconcilation of Man with God. This simple proposition has found opposition ever since its first suggestion,and in modern times the very concept of Christianity comes under fire for all manner of supposed evils; the essentials of Christianity are all too often ignored in order to pillory the people leading the faith.
Of course, the rise of mega-churches has led to a peculiar interpretation of the Gospel mesage. Far too many of these self-praising palaces emphasize the pursuit of earthly success, while doing little if anything to remind their members to think of the less fortunate around them. This leads to congregations which are outwardly successful, but wondering why their faith is so weak.
Over on Beliefnet, I have seen a lot of attacks on the Christian faith , deriding it as no better than any other, indeed no different in history or source than many Babylonian and Pagan myths. This is a pretty thinly-veiled attempt to bring those cults up to the moral level of Christianity, but it’s not true.
The whole notion of Christianity was radical for its time. The very notion that the Kingdom of God would have nothing to do with the affairs and priorities of Man, was a revolt against the order of every regime controlled by Man. And the notion that forgiveness was freely given by God to all of His creatures, so that the rituals and complex doctrines of established dogmas was not at all necessary for someone whose heart sought God in truth, was unacceptable to the traditional establishment. Jesus was, in word and action, an observant Jew, an obedient subject to the Romans, and an innocent man. Yet he was hated by most of the Sanhedrin, by the Roman authorities, and by many men, simply because he taught a truth greater than they could control. And a generation after his crucifixion, His followers were quite willing to die for their faith, rather than recant. After Constantine came to power, Christianity gained human favor, and with it temporal power and wealth which has changed in nature and character, but has never quite returned to the original faith of the disciples, except at the individual level, as Christ always taught.
So it is, that many people do not really know Jesus Christ. They see the politics, the money, the history of one church or denomination. It might do, then, to remind people of the Christ whose birth is celebrated today:
God, desiring to reach men directly, took on human form and limitations. This is why we say “The Trinity”, because the Father remained Sovereign in Heaven, but sent His Son Jesus to live as man.
Deserving by his person to live in luxury and comfort, Jesus instead accepted the mean birth in a stable, and a life of relative poverty and disadvantage. This continued all through his life, as men who should have seen him as the promised King of Kings, instead rejected Him, and men who ought to have bowed prostrate in His presence, arranged instead to murder Him. Yet Jesus did not even condemn them for this, but forgave them as the paramount example of mercy and forbearance.
Jesus lived the perfect life by example, and taught the Kingdom of Heaven. He spoke to crowds, but His message was always to the individual, and is a message of hope and solace.
After his death, Jesus rose from the dead, but neither avenged Himself on His enemies, nor sought to overthrow the human order. Instead, he showed Himself to His believers as a sign of His power, but commanded them to spread the Gospel in love and hope and mercy.
That is the child we celebrate today. Far too scary for many to face.
PFL Week Sixteen
.<>.
Week Sixteen Scoreboard
Teddy Roosevelt (15-0), idle
Washington (15-0), idle
George W. Bush (15-0) 58, Ford (6-9) 0
Reagan (15-0) 56, GHW Bush (7-8) 0
Eisenhower (14-1) 76, Buchanan (0-15) 0
Jefferson (13-2), idle
FDR (13-2), idle
Grant (13-2) 27, Jackson (6-9) 9
Monroe (12-3) 55, Taylor (6-9) 0
Truman (12-3) 58, W Harrison (2-13) 3
JFK (11-4) 51, Pierce (2-13) 3
Polk (11-4) 69, A Johnson (0-15) 0
Lincoln (10-5), idle
Taft (10-5) 25, Arthur (7-8) 12
John Adams (9-6) 45, Coolidge (3-12) 9
Cleveland (9-6) 27, Nixon (7-8) 25
McKinley (9-6) 47, Fillmore (2-13) 3
JQ Adams (8-7) 28, Garfield (3-12) 9
Hayes (8-7) 32, Hoover (2-13) 9
Madison (8-7) 60, Harding (2-13) 10
Wilson (7-8), idle
B Harrison (6-9) 44, Clinton (0-15) 9
Van Buren (6-9) 27, Carter (4-11) 9
LBJ (3-12) 23, Tyler (4-11) 16
Division A
[02] Washington (15-0) Division Champion
[09] Monroe (12-3) Wild Card berth clinched
[12] Polk (11-4) WC3 pending
Division B
[05] Eisenhower (14-1) Playoff berth clinched
[07] Jefferson (13-2) Wild Card berth clinched
Division C
[01] T Roosevelt (15-0) Division Champion
[06] Grant (13-2) Wild Card berth clinched
Division D
[03] George W Bush (15-0) Division Champion
[10] Truman (12-3) Wild Card berth clinched
Division E
[04] Reagan (15-0) Division Champion
[13] Lincoln (10-5) (one game out of 3rd WC slot)
Division F
[08] FDR (13-2) Division Champion
[11] JFK (11-4) WC3 pending
[14] Taft (10-5) (one game out of 3rd WC slot)
Week Sixteen Scoreboard
Teddy Roosevelt (15-0), idle
Washington (15-0), idle
George W. Bush (15-0) 58, Ford (6-9) 0
Reagan (15-0) 56, GHW Bush (7-8) 0
Eisenhower (14-1) 76, Buchanan (0-15) 0
Jefferson (13-2), idle
FDR (13-2), idle
Grant (13-2) 27, Jackson (6-9) 9
Monroe (12-3) 55, Taylor (6-9) 0
Truman (12-3) 58, W Harrison (2-13) 3
JFK (11-4) 51, Pierce (2-13) 3
Polk (11-4) 69, A Johnson (0-15) 0
Lincoln (10-5), idle
Taft (10-5) 25, Arthur (7-8) 12
John Adams (9-6) 45, Coolidge (3-12) 9
Cleveland (9-6) 27, Nixon (7-8) 25
McKinley (9-6) 47, Fillmore (2-13) 3
JQ Adams (8-7) 28, Garfield (3-12) 9
Hayes (8-7) 32, Hoover (2-13) 9
Madison (8-7) 60, Harding (2-13) 10
Wilson (7-8), idle
B Harrison (6-9) 44, Clinton (0-15) 9
Van Buren (6-9) 27, Carter (4-11) 9
LBJ (3-12) 23, Tyler (4-11) 16
Division A
[02] Washington (15-0) Division Champion
[09] Monroe (12-3) Wild Card berth clinched
[12] Polk (11-4) WC3 pending
Division B
[05] Eisenhower (14-1) Playoff berth clinched
[07] Jefferson (13-2) Wild Card berth clinched
Division C
[01] T Roosevelt (15-0) Division Champion
[06] Grant (13-2) Wild Card berth clinched
Division D
[03] George W Bush (15-0) Division Champion
[10] Truman (12-3) Wild Card berth clinched
Division E
[04] Reagan (15-0) Division Champion
[13] Lincoln (10-5) (one game out of 3rd WC slot)
Division F
[08] FDR (13-2) Division Champion
[11] JFK (11-4) WC3 pending
[14] Taft (10-5) (one game out of 3rd WC slot)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
