The Blog Identity - Preface

[][][]

More than a decade ago, Alvin and Heidi Toffler wrote a book about a major “wave” of technological advances, which they said would fundamentally change how we live, work, and govern. This “Third Wave” was based on how we receive, analyze, and utilize information.

During the year 2004, blogs played a critical role in investigative journalism, uncovering not only fraud but a brazen attempt by a network to manipulate a presidential election. More than ten million blogs were created in 2004, and the best information is that the explosion is just starting. Radio and editorial personality Hugh Hewitt wrote a book about some of the ramifications of what he calls the “Information Reformation”, indicating that the window of opportunity is real but will close relatively soon.

This article is the first of a series, of changes and creation of new and different identities and roles in the world to come. I hope to address some as-yet unexamined possibilities and directions, and perhaps spark an idea or two.

As often happens when major events occur, the full impact has yet to be seen, much less considered, of the blog phenomenon. Just last week , the CBS network released a report which, instead of accepting the responsibility for promoting fraud, chose to whitewash the scandal and spin a claim of restored integrity. The network has unwittingly to extend the controversy and damn its future, because it continues to misunderstand the nature and degree of the new authorities following the case, who will inevitably return to the attack.

This is a common symptom in the Old Media. Sunday morning, Chris Matthews addressed the scandal, but only as a tangent, and with something far less than a sincere respect for blogs. In a ‘roundtable’ discussion Sunday, Matthews invited Howard Fineman from Newsweek magazine, Campbell Brown from NBC, Ryan Lizza from New Republic magazine, and Kathleen Parker from the Orlando Sentinel; Old Media and Mainstream, all of them. There was not a radio or cable television host there, to say nothing of bloggers. Matthews was his predictable moronic self, demanding to know “if a prominent scandal was broken about a leading Conservative host, would Rush Limbaugh push the story?”, never considering that as a Conservative Talk Show host, that’s not Limbaugh’s job. Matthews never once asked why MSM networks never considered the severity and sheer arrogance of CBS’ actions in Rathergate; that speaks not only to his own bias, but to the clear complicity between MSM networks to excuse felonies, as long as they were committed in the attacks on Conservatives. Matthews demanded to know “whether bloggers would care about a scandal involving a Conservative”, indicating he has somehow never heard of DemocraticUnderground or Kos. Howard Fineman opined that blogger investigations were somehow bad for journalism, as did Campbell Brown, though she stated that the Thornburgh Report is “progress”. Ryan Lizza had no comments on the scandal of any sort, while Kathleen Parker claimed it was clear that “the bloggers” were only interested in “scapegoating” big names. Not a single one on the panel spoke even once to the fact that bloggers uncovered the fraud, forced the investigation, and in every point on this case were proven correct and CBS wrong. That speaks volumes.

This was interesting to me, not because I expected that pack of egotistical liars to give a fig about the facts or responsible journalism, but because after the Report and all the evidence already cited, I would have expected the MSM to at least begin to come to terms with bloggers as a potent force. Instead, Matthews and his buddies have chosen to ignore a sea change in culture and information, indicating a level of desperation as yet unacknowledged publicly.

In that same show, Matthews opined that with the fall in stature of “men to match the marble” in Washington, “Hollywood stars to rival the gods”, and the scandals involving Church leaders, there is no one left to admire or emulate. When examined in closer point, it turns out that only the Liberals have lost their glory, another fact lost on Matthews. Republicans and 62 million voters have found President Bush a man who keeps his promises and sticks to his word. Stars like Mel Gibson who stand on principle have inspired millions, and the Church is enjoying great support and strength in many places. Only in the Left has the lie been found and caused disgrace. This hardly means that only Liberals do wrong, or that Conservatives are starry-eyed and willing to ignore facts, but rather shows that the Right has been able to find a stronger base for its support than the Left has. Many people have grown tired of pretend virtues, and returned to genuine values.

Matthews also spent a few minutes deriding Prince Harry, and suggesting that “we” should end the British Monarchy as a result. I agree that Harry’s nazi-costume stunt was stupid and hurtful, but I wonder at the notion that anyone but the British have any right to say what should happen to their form of government. It seems to me that we were right to oppose their interference in our elections, so we have no right to demand they end their Monarchy. Matthews, in typical Liberal fashion, sees nothing wrong with such presumption.

And so I come to the first group in our examination: Old Media (OM). For many years, the Old Media has seen a tide between different mediums, and the expectation was, initially, that the Internet would simply add another dimension to the palate, not changing who the major players were, or how things got done. This year, that all changed. Rathergate caught the OM completely by surprise, strategic as well as tactical. Even as OM nabobs struggled to respond to the fact-heavy attacks from Little Green Footballs and Powerline and Polipundit, new sites like Rathergate sprang up to pursue new leads and counter OM spin. Rather was outclassed from the start, but never knew it.

By the time the smoke from the scandal began to clear, the public saw gaping holes in CBS’ credibility, as the indisputable facts provided by the bloggers found attention and support in Talk Radio and other New Media, such as Fox News, Fox News represents an interesting evolution in progress, as some networks are willing to use the new resource and acknowledge the importance of bloggers. Essentially, what happened in Rathergate, is that the OM tried to stall and resist the online journalists, but the blog community had already reached a critical mass; simply too many people were aware of the blogs and were carrying their demands to CBS and the other networks. The networks were prepared to ignore hundreds of critics, even thousands, but when the outcry became loud enough, the OM realized they were powerless to deny the truth any longer. So, they resorted to attempting to spin it. I’ll discuss the New Media later this week, possibly tomorrow.

So, what will happen to the poor Old Media? Actually, in the short term, not that much. The reason is, that the OM still has a lot of money and influence in the market. Yes, they’re losing market share, but all together as a group, the OM still has money and power beyond anything the NM can muster. The OM sees the NM as a threat, but only tactically. That’s because as often happens with empires, the men at the top only see what they expect or will accept, and the most serious threats are small enough to be missed until it is far too late. The demise of the OM will not be bloody, but gradual, and inevitable for all its apparent distance now. A generation from now, television will still be here, but its value as a news commodity will depend on the competition between hundreds of outlets, and what actually appears on sets will be programmed to suit the requirements and preferences of each user. Demand will drive the medium, and it will have no choice but to submit. Information will mix with entertainment, much as Talk Radio does now, so that I can see the TV news being delivered in a “forum” setting, where viewers enjoy VR connection to others watching the news, and an interactive discussion will take place, a situation somewhere between a professional briefing and a public square. Rhetorical skills will remain in demand, but unsupported facts will be derided immediately. Other possibilities exist, not the least of which is the reminder that facts and accuracy were few and weak in Michael Moore’s work, but that did not keep it from becoming popular for people who wanted to believe in the conspiracy. The same thing will happen, to some degree, in the delivery of news. News will become a commodity of varying flavors, as it always has, but the dominance of Network oligarchies will fade and die.

The next obvious trend is the scary one. With facts being parsed about as they are, it is possible for people to sort through the available data and reach mutually exclusive possibilities. This is how, for instance, reasonable people have been able to conclude that the War on Terror is either an unquestionably necessary element of American Foreign Policy, or else an unforgivably Imperial abuse of power by the United States. Fortunately, an appetite for fact-checking remains solid, and shows a healthy growth potential. The caveat to all of this, is that there will always need to be citizens willing to watch the watchers. After all, Dan Rather was supposed to be watching out for Big Government, but we discovered we needed to also be protected from Big News.

Grading the Schools

.
Last night, while I was driving home, I heard the Hugh Hewitt show on the radio. I think HH has a morning slot in California, so that would mean the station, as it does at times, had tape-delayed the show. Anyway, after the expected run through the popular topics of the day, Hugh turned his attention to Education standards, just as I was turning into the daycare parking lot to pick up my daughter. I mention this detail, because I want to be fair to Hugh and may have misunderstood his opinion on a point, but it appeared the debate was about the value of High School GPAs for students taking accelerated classes, against basing instead a heavy trust on class rank within each school, as a reasonable value on the student’s actual academic accomplishment. It started me thinking again, on the matter of educational measures and goals.

Jay Mathews wrote against the practice of awarding bonus grade points to students who take advanced and challenging courses, instead of riding easy courses.

Hugh Hewitt was clear in his opinion, asking “why not reward students for taking hard courses? If you don't, they won't. They are rational beings. Elevate mediocrity to the same level of achievement as excellence and you get more mediocrity. Period.”

Betsy Newmark went further, linking to both Jay and Hugh, and explained the matter directly and succinctly: “Taking away the honors point seems like a solution attacking the wrong problem. If the poorer schools don't offer such courses - they should. If they are college preparatory schools, the best way to prepare kids for college is to give them AP classes and prepare them at the lower grades for taking the AP classes by getting them ready to read and understand difficult readings and to write analytical essays. Why punish the kids who are working hard in their classes by taking away the bonus?”

Well said as usual, Betsy. Betsy also recognizes the real-world implications or removing rewards from hard work: “Hugh worries about kids not taking the class if they don't get the bonus point. As well he should. Apparently, the California researchers don't understand basic economics. People respond to incentives. Take away the incentive and fewer kids will take the class. Is that the result they are aiming for?”

I will leave off this specific point, because Jay, Hugh, and Betsy have all addressed it better than I could (interesting, how the print media, radio, and a real-world teacher have all jumped onto this one), and my comments would simply echo their existing thoughts.

But I do wonder a bit about where we are going with education in this country. I think it comes down to the special interests, and the plain unhappy fact is, we aren’t going to abolish those interests, so we have to work with them, like sailing in a storm. Try to work with Mother Nature without getting smacked too hard. As I see it, the special interest groups (SIG’s) are:

Students as a whole,
Teachers as a whole,
Educator Unions and Associations (e,g, the NEA),
Liberals as a whole,
Conservatives as a whole,
Colleges and Universities in general, and
Businesses in general

The resulting melee is a real mess, and has been for most of the past century.

Americans take education for granted, in the main. Our nation includes the myth of the frontier towns always setting up a church and school before anything else was built. In point of fact, that just does not play out. As recently as World War 2, it was no sure thing for someone to graduate High School, and College was a true distinction. Ever since, all sorts of planners and idealists have tried to create the way by which every student would graduate, be successful and happy. Education, we seem to forget, serves specific needs. It may be enjoyable for those intellectually inclined, and it may be teach skills which people will find useful later in life, but in the main, education was simply a means to prepare for life. Thus, early schools taught fundamental skills, and most young men quickly found assignment into guilds and apprenticeships in Europe and Asia. Even in America, the notion of school was essentially for basic skills, reading/writing/simple math. As the 20th Century began, reforms were developed to develop a more-or-less standardized curriculum of academic virtues. History, Civics, Literature, and Sciences were added, along with the “electives” where possible. Public schools followed the lead of successful colleges, and introduced sports and arts to create interest, and the now-ubiquitous letter-grade system came into vogue. With the creation of the G.I. Bill after World War 2, colleges suddenly found themselves with more applications than they knew what to do with, and Admissions offices suddenly found it necessary to develop a screening method to sort out qualified students. And along the way, each of the groups I noted found themselves adjusting to the new realities, facing new challenges and opportunities as the nation grew and changed. It should not be surprising, therefore, to see that we have, once again, outgrown the old system.

So, what to do with all this? I think we should begin, by considering the short- and long-term priorities of each group, sinec we'll have to face them anyway. To start, Students as a whole are not likely to express a clear short-term goal, other than the desire to be acknowledged as the key players in this issue, but long-term, I suspect many students are worried about using their school skills in the real world. There is no purpose to putting in twelve years, just to find out most of it was a waste of time. Regarding Teachers as a whole, I would say that in their case the short- and long-term goals are simple but vital, to be able to do their jobs without bureacracy or censorship, and to be better rewarded for their devotion to our children. During the years kids are in school, the simple fact is that teachers will see more of the children than their own parents will, and that will have an indisputable effect, which we should all consider carefully. regarding Educator Unions and Associations, they are largely obsolete (grabbing advantages for themselves and far too seldom for the best teachers) and interfere for no purpose beyond political influence. However, some version of them will continue, so parents, teachers, and legislators need to consider the dialogue to accomplish common ground and positive effect. I will address Liberals as a whole & Conservatives as a whole in the next section, and will set aside Colleges and Universities in general, and Businesses in general for after that.

It seems to be that the tug-of-war between Liberals and Conservatives on Education comes from worthy differences of opinion. Liberals generally are concerned with Public Education overall, correctly understanding that not everyone can afford Private Schools (even though leading Liberals always seem to send their own children to Private Schools), and so they focus on the needs of the poorest and slowest children. Conservatives, for their part, are concerned with Academic standards and taking away false images of success from schools with serious issues. Conservatives demand accountability from those who teach our nation's children, and are not willing to sacrifice our brightest and most gifted students, simply because others cannot keep up. It would appear that Vouchers are a good option, but the matter has been so politicized, that it will be difficult to sort out substance from hyperbole in the results. I would call myself an essentialist on the matter of courses taught: Focus on basic skills early, and keep politics and religion out of it. It's fine to talk about the controversies of a political party or leader, but no teacher should be allowed to use the classroom to teach any opinion as truth. Facts should not be hidden or altered, nor should theories ever be presented as anything but heories. Personal faith should be allowed to be expressed, but no advocacy in the classroom for a personal belief, including atheism, should be advanced. The tripwires for students, teachers, and administrators, I would say, would be personal attacks and/or hostility. These must be prohibited. Make the schools a place to teach concepts and exchange ideas, not suppress free thought or create ideological factories. And above all, establish the use of Logic as a discipline, and separate fact-based courses from subjective discussions.

This brings me to the Colleges and the Business World . Colleges became a rather big business industry in the last couple generations, and they know it. With the baby boom over, however, colleges now have to compete not only with each other for a smaller consumer market, they also find themselves facing the new Remote Campus Universities, which are providing convenience and accredited education to thousands of adults who need their degree while working full-time. Slow to respond as first, a number of old-school Colleges are realizing they need this demographic. The economic force is working against many old mandarins and presumptions of privelege. But there are still many schools whose image and legacy have allowed them to remain aloof from this measure.

Universities rightly consider and revisit the sticky question of how to tell one student he is in, while another is out. Racial quotas may not be used, unless you are the University of Michigan and can hide your racism in the pretense of multiculturalism. But what about the SAT or ACT? How should grades or class rank be considered? What about additional qualities? A school enters a minefield by accepting or rejecting any of these elements, and the student left out can be certain to be unhappy. Where in the past, a rejected student would cry to his parents, a modern student may retain a lawyer. And after that, there remains the question about the quality of education one really gets at a school. If public schools are variable in their quality up through Grade 12, should it surprise us to find that there are colleges with incompetent and prejudiced faculties, or who go through the motions but do not insure that their students truly know their work?

And that brings me to Business. While I would be opposed to letting Corporations dictate the Humanities selections at a University, or have a compelling influence in the schools' ethical codes, there is a basic and undeniable need, for schools to do a much better job or preparing their charges for the world which comes next. Far too many students are left with the vague impression that their education has automatically prepared them for a position with a good company, which will promote them and dovetail perfectly with the academic halls they leave at graduation. This is one reason why so many 22- and 23-year-olds walk around in the fall with a vaguely stunned expression on their faces: No one prepares them for what's really out there. As a businessman, I have found myself mistrusting applicants with really high GPAs; thy never seem to accept that they still know next to nothing of the things they really need to pick up, they too often believe common sense is inferior to showing off what they heard in the lecture hall last year, and they simply have a hard time adjusting to the environment of the office. Sit 'em down with a pencil and a math test, and they're fine, but ask them to spend a couple hours doing account reconciliation and they freak.

A number of schools have started to address this, and none too soon. They have started asking the companies which recruit at their campuses, to also come ahead of that season to advise potential employees about what they are really looking for, while there is still time for students to work on those attributes. Also, companies are discovering the need to orient graduates for the transition between the theoretical world to the physical world, and to respect the employees they will encounter, whose degree may be missing but whose experience and ability are proven.

I'm not saying schools should be just about getting ready for work, but far too many schools forget that this is a necessity. Being able to create your own webpage is cool, but having a skill that will pay the rent is much cooler.

I'm still working through this issue, but those are my thoughts for now.

Rather Blather

.
So.

The "independent" report on Ra^thergate has been released after far too long, and with the removal of a few predictable (and expendable) employees, Les Moonves plans to pat himself on the back for saving CBS' reputation and sponsors. The Blogosphere is outraged, but really, did we expect anything to be different? Ironically, I expect this move by Moonves to prove disastrous for CBS, and here's why:

FIRST - the bloggers. Almost no one in the Old Media understands the phenomenon of the New Media, and especially the rise of citizen bloggers. I say 'citizen', because that's why Moonves was incredibly stupid in not directing his response to the real danger to his empire. Moonves was worried about Thornburgh, and he should have been, but he did not think things through. There were two worst-case scenarios to face; the first was allowing evidence to get out, which would prove the link between CBS and the Kerry campaign. The omission, hiding, and destruction of evidence by CBS was predictable, especially the e-mail trail. However, Moonves forgot to consider the other worst-case possibility. The report issued today was far too pat, and offered too little contrition. CBS tried to claim no political motivation at all, a claim patently false on its surface. This alone would prompt bloggers to dig deeper for the truth. Moonves somehow forgot exactly what happened when '60 Minutes' played that forged memo. Immediately the documents were challenged, and in a matter of days we learned details about typewriters, military document protocols, and the personnel opinions of a National Guard Colonel to a degree no one would have expected. And when pressed, the bloggers' experts trumped the network shills. It wasn't close, which is one reason why CBS finally gave in and promised an investigation. It has not occured to Mooves and his consultants, that there are literally thousands of bloggers waiting for the next big story to print, and they know from experience now that the lead story will get all the support it needs. Sooner or later, the break wil come, and when it does, the world will fall in on CBS. Ra^thergate came when CBS was thought to be pretty much untouchable; the next big scandal at the network will hit a target with known weak spots. Moonves should have thought about how to deal with the blogs. This whitewash will do nothing but make blogs angry and focused.

SECOND - CBS is nothing if it's not Old Media. Just as the Newspapers underestimated Radio, and in its turn Radio underestimated Television, so now the Old Media has missed a critical paradigm shift. TV news is not going away, anymore than radio news or print news did, but there is a true shift of attention and, more importantly, standards. There was a time when newsmen took their responsibility seriously, because there was always plenty of 'yellow' journalism to combat. There actually was a time, when the New York Times represented information which had been vetted for accuracy, and balanced by a sense of responsibility. Of course, it should also be remembered that the Times built that reputation for responsibility, after a prior history of bias and sensational journalism. History moves in circles sometimes. Now, people are able to verify claims and fact-check stories with more resources and ease than ever before. And the Ra^thergate story has inspired many people to double-check their facts, and in plain English, it means that not only is CBS losing viewers for its news, that slide shows no signs of slowing down, much less ending. I would not be surprised to see '60 Minutes' end in the next couple years, as well as CBS News as a major player in network news. Already, if you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that the news portion of the CBS budget is decreasing, relative to the Entertainment division. In real-world terms, that means no more franchise Anchormen like Dan Rather and Mike Wallace, and much smaller budgets for sending news crews out on high-profile stories. CBS has simply refused to acknowledge the gaping hole in the side of their ship, and that is a fatal mistake.

THIRD - CBS fought the investigation and lost. The reason they lost, was because there were three critical values the network needed to retain, and they managed none of them. Those goals were Integrity, Market Share, and Relevance. CBS lost its Integrity early on, by its clear attack mentality against the Bush Administration; Dan Rather's hatred of anyone named Bush is well-known (remember his attempt to provoke George H.W. Bush back in the 1988 Election), and CBS took not action to redress this obvious bias. Moonves was running a network with a reputation for grudges and prejudice. After all, Bernard Goldberg wrote about the problem years ago.

As for Market Share, we're fast approaching autopsy conditions for CBS. In a recent Washington Times article, Dan Rather is accused of holding the network "hostage to his ego and political agenda as he slowly kills CBS News." Ouch. The Drudge Report observes that the CBS Evening News is losing market share to reruns of The Simpsons. For the period ending January 2, the CBS Evening News finished out of the rankings for the top 136 shows, behind such offerings as "Charmed" and "Blue Collar TV". This is not good for business.

But worst of all, is the quest for Relevance. CBS News made its name off Cronkite's Vietnam stories against Johnson and Nixon, off Rather's vendetta against Nixon, and on a continuing claim to holding weasels up for scrutiny. Now that CBS is revealed as a large, rather slimy weasel itself, Moonves claims notwithstanding. Les doesn't seem to realize that he has the credibility of Scott Peterson right about now, and his pretense that the public can "count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy", is not selling any better than Enron stock these days. After all, who but a CBS hack really believes that "Heyward is an executive of integrity and talent, and the right person to be leading CBS News during this challenging time", or that "Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken personal responsibility for his part" ? Serious error, Mr. Moonves. That bang you just heard was another shot you put right into your foot. You could have taken the tough but healthy step of cleaning house and rebuilding the foundation, but instead you put lipstick on the pig, and haven't quite figured out yet that we're not fooled.

There is fear that CBS' latest whitewash of its conduct is selling with too many people. Actually, the lack of emotion to this latest turn of events, is nothing more than the realization that CBS News is no longer important, that whatever they do, they will no longer hold the influence and power they used to hold. We'll still chase them down on their lies and tricks, but just as no one worries about anyone believing too much they read in the Weekly World News, no one is taking CBS News that seriously, either.

Buh-bye, lying eye.

Thoughts About the Culture War

..
I need to begin with a caveat; I don't get cable or satellite, yet I require a certain amount of Television each day, so this means I am compelled to watch whatever is available on the broadcast networks. Sometimes that means I get to see something interesting, if beyond my normal range of chosen fare. At other times, it reminds me exactly why so many people are paying extra for satellite and cable channels. Sunday night, I saw two shows which provoked a train of thought which led to this article.

Sunday began well enough. My wife and I were a little under the weather, so we slept late, which meant I missed the usual Beltway spin on current events. This is rather like missing potholes on your way to work. I was able to catch most of the NFL Wild Card games, so that was good, God's gift to me for being good all week, although Sunday's games were not nearly as competitive as Saturday's offerings. There is just something right about watching football games in cold weather in January, although Indy's squeaky-clean dome and fake turf reminded me more of a Nintendo simulation than an actual gridiron matchup. Anyway, my daughter and I watched football while my wife watched a DVD, and after the first quarter of the Packers-Vikings game, I took my little girl to the park to play for a couple hours.

The evening offerings were much more sparse, and we ended up setting 2 sets to 2 different shows; '24' on Fox, and 'The 31st Annual People's Choice Awards' on CBS. And while both shows reminded us that they wore out whatever virtues they held as entertainment long ago, they also had little lessons in them.

I will start with the 'People's Choice' awards. This little Hollywood production began decades ago, when it was discovered that the average American no longer gave a rat's patootie who won Golden Globes or Oscars; the blatent political overtones and expectations had long cast those awards on a course far from Reality. The 'People's Choice' awards, or the PC Awards as I'll call them, were Hollywood's pathetic attempt to convince America that they are somehow relevant and hip. It's not working, although the show provided some lessons in Left-think.

There was the crass commercialization we've come to expect from Hollywood, tying some "Red Carpet" awards to things like hair (sponsored by an overpriced hair soap), smile (sponsored by one of the tooth-whitener companies), and best 'look' (sponsored by either a makeup company or a cosmetic surgery company, I really stopped paying attention by then). And the voting, while it's wide-open theoretically, all began with careful and restricted 'nominations' from Entertainment Weekly, so they really didn't care what America though - as usual, the "elite" chose the field, so that none but the socially acceptable would even be considered. Which brings us to 2 notable winners.

I have to say I am a bit disappointed in Mel Gibson. His film, "The Passion of the Christ", certainly did well critically and at the box office, and in any fair consideration would have received both Golden Globe and Oscar nominations. But Hollywood is nothing if not hostile to mainstream value, and relentlessly opposed to letting producers and directors actually deviate from the formulae so long ago imposed from the stink-tanks in Deepest Liberalia. So the PC Award for Best Film Drama was a token acknowledgment by Hollywood, as if they believed this would convince America that values embraced by the nation in large measure would be respected, or at least granted some consideration in future expositions. And I found it interesting, that when he accepted the award, Gibson spoke out against "the System" which demanded a certain tone and flavor to films, and its unforgiving emnity to those who defied the existing order. But behind the curtains, Gibson frankly blew it, when he expressed a comraderie with propagandist and hate-monger Michael Moore, flatly asking "Why are we in Iraq?" While everyone has the right to their personal opinion, this was an unfortunate slap in the face of many of the people who supported Gibson; he somehow paid no attention to the values and opinion of the people he had praised on-stage, and in fact undercut them in a display of his own shallow ego and ignorance. It should be noted that Gibson is Australian, and while he has no public opinion on politics in his own country, feels quite free to pop off on issues he doesn't come close to understanding, in a manner insulting to the many millions of Americans who understand the issue, supported the War on Terror as it is being fought in Iraq, and who had been led to believe Gibson was an ally. And this, of course, brings us to the curious case of Michael Moore.

Michael Moore is a lying propagandist, but there is no question he is successful at his chosen profession. This year, his much-vaunted campaign against President Bush was far more successful than it ever deserved to be, in large part because the Old Media cast his film as a "documentary", by which standards Camelot and South Park should be designated "documentaries" as well. But there cannot really be any argument against the fact, that Moore's carefully crafted slander was effective, enough to bring the least-qualified candidate in the past century to serious contention for the White House. Were it not for bloggers and the Swift Boat Vets, this nation might be paying dearly for Moore's crude and false presentation.

This success was evident in the PC Award selection of "Pack-o-Lies 9/11" as the "Best" Overall Film for 2004. By Box Office numbers, fan popularity, merchandising, DVD sales and rentals, or any other sane standard, that honor was won by "Spiderman 2" or "Shrek 2". I have a strong suspicion the voting numbers were fudged, but no matter. It remains evident that Moore has his fans, and they are distinctly vocal and energized. During Moore's acceptance speech, he tried to portray himself as a patriot, unconcerned with political positions or the sharp disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals about the direction and mission of America. The resulting boo's and catcalls, mixed with cheers, showed that the decision to reward Moore was not universally accepted, even in Hollywood. Further, the fact that Moore has chosen to back off from his public statements supporting the terrorists (remember his 'Minuteman' speech?), and attacking the troops by contending that they were re-fighting Vietnam and being directed by incompetent or immoral leaders, is clear evidence that Moore is trying to cut his losses, rather in the fashion of leading Democrats. The lesson from Moore's award and speech last night is a 3-parter: Moore's hatred of Bush still has its buyers, Moore is retreating for a different approach later, and Hollywood still hasn't clued in to the difference between the elitist arrogance of Rodeo Drive, and the common sense of Mainland America.

Moving on, I now have a couple thoughts on the Soap Opera which is '24'. I call it a soap, because '24' has all the qualities required to be a Soap Opera:

1. Bad Acting
2. Bad Plot
3. Sex, often thrown in to mask poor plot transition
4. Violence, also often thrown in to mask poor writing
5. A large percentage of the dialogue is overly dramatic, especially involving yelling, apparently to imply sincerity and deep emotional commitment, those qualities being beyond the acting scope of the cast.

'24' is a peculiar show; it's not often a drama jumps the shark in its first season. From the beginning, the storyline lacks any connection to believability., We're supposed to accept the existence of a terrorist threat against the United States, but instead of all or any of the 30 agencies tasked to handle Intelligence, the discovery of the plot, its details, and coordination of the U.S. response is limited to one fictional agency, and in large part handled solely by a single field agent, whose role shifts according to his whim, in complete abrogation to all known policy and statute. Jack kills or tortures with impunity, he is injured (even killed in the second season), and yet returns with long-term effects, and he breaks whatever rules he find inconvenient without consequence. The President in the show, I decided long ago, must be a vampire - he never appears in daylight or in public, and he appears to be afraid of the White House - he is never seen there, as if the 'West Wing' people filed suit to prevent any other fake President from being seen in the Oval Office. And Jack's people at CTU come in 2 flavors - morons who oppose him, unable to understand his brilliance and courage or else jealous of him, and slightly smarter morons who understand that Jack Bauer is somehow America's only hope, but who are themselves unable to think through the analysis or develop a cogent plan of action.

This laughable design might actually work as a comedy. But it is presented with the same sober expectations one gets from Dan Rather or Peter Jennings, who also should not be taken seriously. And this suggests the reason why the Left fears the Right so much. It seems that the Left, who truly are unable to grasp the history and imperatives of the War On Terror, actually belueve that the neocons are intent upon setting loose an army of little Jack Bauers - violent attack thugs who would choose violence as their first option in every case, accomplishing short-term goals at the cost of long-term needs. It explains the dichotomy of people who will say they support the troops, but never their mission when it involves opposing tyranny and freeing millions of people. They fear that somehow, even complete success wil lead inevitably to disaster. America, they believe, cannot be trusted, and yet they never consider the possibility that their own arrogance needs to be considered in the light of history. It's how Leftists can oppose sending troops in to Iraq to free 25-30 million people, but demand we imemdiately rush into Liberia, the Sudan, or Bosnia, no matter the cost or lack of planning. They can demand that we commit to treaties which demand the United States pay billions to other countriesd for no purpose but extortion, but refuse to accept that any other nation has a responsibility to the United States.

Just as Mr. Moore's movie was a fiction taken by many as fact, it would seem that '24' is an illustrative example of another fiction taken far too seriously. And there is a lesson for future education and resolve.

Washington State Supreme Court Awards Win To Seahawks

.
Seattle - (RNI) Establishing a trend begun in the Gubernatorial Election, the Washington State Supreme Court reversed the apparent results of the on-field play, and awarded a playoff game victory to the Seattle Seahawks over the St. Louis Rams.

The play on the fielded ended with St. Louis ahead on the scoreboard, 27-20. But because the margin was only one score, King County filed suit to review the play results, and because (in the opinion of the WSSC) the Seahawks “clearly intended to score a tying touchdown“, the Seahawks were awarded that touchdown by the court. Then activists from SOS (Seattle-Only-Success) turned up an additional field goal left somehow in Alaska, and the courts agreed to apply that field goal to Seattle’s tally, and at that point disallowed further review, declaring Seattle to be the winner by a revised score of 30-27.

“It’s a good thing” commented Steela Lection, “that we were competing against a team inclined to play only by the rules at the time of the contest. If we played a team from New York or California, they could easily have come up with new rules and friendly judges of their own.

“As it is, we can take this win for the greater good. Seattle’s good, anyway.”

The NFL admitted the after-game review was unusual, but noted that professional sports are about money and presentation, and the league spokesman, Ugota Bikidn, noted “liberal politicians are very good at raising unique arguments and funds from unusual places very quickly, and Seattle is as liberal and revisionist as any place in the country“.

APL Pre-Season: Divisions and Overview

Over on Polipundit, we've been discussing the Presidents of the United States for the last few days, and it occurs to me that any comparison between Presidents must include the relevant dates the Presidents had to operate, including the make-up of the Congress and Supreme Court that President had to deal with. That is, a fair evaluation of all the Presidents could best be done, by a series of one-to-one comparisons, in each term timeline. With 42 men having served so far, that works out to 82 contests for each President (41 comparisons in his own time, 41 in the other President's times), or 1,722 contests. To make that more fun and less droll, I am matching up the Presidents in a sports-style format, and calling the American Presidents League, or APL.

For each President, I am drawing up characteristic values and noting the party intensity for each Congress, and noting the Supreme Court's attitude by the major cases they handled at a time. For now, here are the six divisions (7 Presidents each):


CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE

Revolution Division
G Washington
T Jefferson
A Jackson
J Monroe
J Adams
J Madison
JQ Adams

Constitution Division
J Polk
M Van Buren
J Tyler
Z Taylor
M Fillmore
F Pierce
W Harrison

Reconstruction Division
A Lincoln
U Grant
R Hayes
C Arthurs
J Buchanan
A Johnson
J Garfield


FEDERAL CONFERENCE

Manifest Division
T Roosevelt
G Cleveland
W McKinley
W Wilson
B Harrison
W Taft
W Harding


Domination Division
F Roosevelt
C Coolidge
D Eisenhower
H Truman
J Kennedy
H Hoover
L Johnson

Leadership Division
R Reagan
GW Bush
G Ford
GHW Bush
W Clinton
J Carter
R Nixon

Based on the preferences expressed by Polipundit readers, here are the Pre-Season Top 12:

1. G Washington
2. A Lincoln
3. R Reagan
4. T Jefferson
5. A Jackson
6. GW Bush
7. T Roosevelt
8. F Roosevelt
9. J Polk
10. J Monroe
11. C Coolidge
12. J Adams

If the APL is a waste of time for you, just ignore those posts which reference the season's progress. But if you like to compare Presidents, this might be fun.

Torture

.
The mindless jackals of the Democratic Party* continued their assault on the United States of America yesterday, by attempting to discredit the distinctive qualifications of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General. This is not surprising, given the absolute slander delivered against John Ashcroft over the past four years, but it speaks to the peculiar and destructive belief that a political victory is more vital than the nation or honorable men in its service.

(I stop here to address the '*' I noted above. The Republican Party has its own jackals, politics being the sort of soul-killing machine it is, and I want to make clear that there remain honest and honorable public servants in Congress on both sides of the aisle. This article addresses the seditious words and actions of America's enemies, who think nothing of betraying the nation and her citizens for a chance to score demguagic points.)

The present canard was the cheap and false attempt to link Gonzales to support for torture as an interrogation tactic. As Gonzales made clear in his statements yesterday to the Senate, he has a clear demand for the conduct of U.S. forces who hold people, whether in prisons, detention, camps, or some other situation. The claims made against him come from a deliberate misrepresentation of both his opinions and of the men who have been claimed as victims of torture.

Perhaps the clearest method by which the distinction may be made, is to examine what happened at Abu Ghraib. Eight U.S. soldiers were arrested and charged under the UCMJ for their actions, which were described in their courts-martial as four basic types of offenses:

Conspiracy - to maltreat detainees, and to deceive investigators, and to coerce witnesses to conceal knowledge and evidence of a crime

Sexual Misconduct - by having sex with other guards in direct violation of orders, by stripping detainees and posing them nude, and by mocking detainees with graphic acts (such as photographing a nude detainee while hooded and with wires simulating electronic torture

Omission - Ignoring their duty to protect detainees from abuse and cruelty

Physical Assault - Striking and kicking detainees with hands and feet, and using dogs to threaten attack


In comparison, here are actions known to have been taken by the Baath regime at the Abu Ghraib prison (additional sources here and here):

* Regular beatings in order to break resistance

* Random executions to create and maintain terror

* Limbs amputated, beginning with fingers and continuing to arms and legs

* Tongues cut out, ears cut off

* Family members raped in front of prisoners

* Murder of children in front of prisoners

* Murder of fetus by cutting the mother's womb open, again in front of prisoners

* Prisoners' legs and ribs broken through prolonged whipping

* Prisoners thrown from roofs

* Beheadings


There is no comparison. None whatsoever.

This is not to say that the actions taken by this few U.S. soldiers represents acceptable behavior. Bear in mind, not only that these soldiers were arrested and tried for their actions, but also that their attempts to conceal and deny thei actions shows that they knew their actions were opposed to the training and expectations of the U.S. military. Any claim to compare U.S. policy to support for Torture is therefore either ignorance, or a deliberate lie.

With that said, however, the question comes up, when is physical violence or threats against detainees acceptable, and how far is too far?

It has been said, with validity, that armies will always have a few who go too far, and wherever the line is drawn, there will be some who exceed it. But the U.S. Military actually has a pretty good humanitarian record for the past century; the horrible crimes of My Lai and the like turn out to be remote exceptions when the evidence is considered. But at the same time, the question demands to be answered; how far can we go, without becoming what we fight?

In World War 2, the United States was unquestionably fighting against some of the worst evils of that century, personified by Tojo and Hitler. But the controversy remains today, about the use of atomic bombs on Japan, or of fire-bombing cities in Germany. Those, of course, were acts of war, and to some degree may be excused by the information available. Yet, that's the same issue facing Lt. Colonel Allen West, who faced court-martial for firing his pistol near the head of an Iraqi prisoner, in order to get information which saved the lives of many U.S. soldiers. Was the threat of death appropriate in order to save American lives? In the case of Col. West, he decided it was. What's more, the fact that Al Qaeda trains their recruits to believe that Americans are soft and squeamish (no doubt because of speeches by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pulosi), would enhance the effect of discovering the U.S. was quite willing to play rough. In practical terms, a certain relaxing of rules against physical force would unquestionably improve our interrogation results.

The next question is the legal one. Americans often forget that the world is not the United States. That is, the law is different in different places, and so are rights. There are, to be specific, different rights for different people.

Why? It comes down to Sovereignty. An American tourist in Jordan or Singapore may enjoy the exotic cultures and cuisines, but he must also understand the laws of each country and their enforcement. Larry Flynt would not do well in Singapore, nor would Keith Richards enjoy Jordan's conduct expectations. And citizenship is far more than a formality in the eyes of the law. To a U.S. soldier, an American citizen owns specific and undeniable rights, which cannot be abridged by a military force. A resident within the territory of the United States would have a lower level of rights, but would still enjoy the standard practices of U.S. domestic law enforcement. A captured soldier in unifiorm of a known country and formal government would still enjoy some protection as a Prisoner of War, per the Geneva accords. But an armed foreign insurgent who attacks civilians has no rights, of any kind. The decision which allows the insurgent to hide his identity and deny connection to a sponsor state, also strips away any pretense of legal defense when he is caught. This is not say 'anything goes'; all military units are compelled to operate under the Rules of Engagement set ahead of time for them, and there are clear Military Justice ordinances regarding the treatment of any captured person. But in legal terms, the eight soldiers tried for the Abu Ghraib offenses were arrested and tried for offenses against the U.S. Government, not for violating any prisoner's rights.

Up to here, the matter must seem very cold-blooded, as if I were saying 'Ha! You are my prisoner, and I may do as I like'. This is absolutely not the case. But it was necessary to establish first the clear distinction between torture as it is acted out, and the nature of the actual offenses. It was then necessary to draw clear understanding of the fact that war is not courteous or kind, and such tactics must be set aside to accomplish necessary, even vital, goals. And it was also appropriate to remind the reader, that the terrorists' decision to act apart from a government, and to attack civilians, not to mention the brutality of terrorist actions taken against their victims, removed any pretense to a claim of civil rights for the men so captured. The matter becomes exclusively a question of the U.S. accepted level of responsibility.

Going back to the practical matter, it works to the advantage of the United States to maintain a balance between strength and mercy. Rebuilding roads and cities, protecting children with medicine and police, and showing a sincere desire for Iraqi self-rule through their own elections, all work to the good. It also helps, however, to make clear that the United States will crush any terrorist found, that insurgents will not find a timid defender. But for the sake of our soldiers' morality and confidence, it is also absolutely necessary that standards of conduct be clear and consistent. As I noted earlier, the My Lai massacre was a remote exception to U.S. conduct, and the overwhelming majority of Vietnam Veterans have every right to be proud of their service and conduct. John Kerry was simply lying when he claimed to see widespread atrocities in 1971, and the vets know this. The same condition exists in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo, where the U.S. is careful not to mistreat detainees, but has no intention of forgetting who they are, and what they have done. What is necessary in this matter, is to review the policies and actions of the United States, to set a clear line between what is right and acceptable for U.S. military, and what is unacceptable. And that brings us back to that Jan 25, 2002 memo prepared by Alberto Gonzales. When he prepared that memo, what he was doing was looking at that line, in moral and legal terms, and explaining where the boundaries are. That is exactly what we need in an Attorney General, especially right now.

Why 'Help' Sometimes Is Not Help

Last week, the City Council of Houston passed a new law, which requires the immediate towing of any disabled vehicle on the highways and freeways in Houston. The law has not been well-received. The Mayor, to his credit, has stepped up in person to face the criticism and displeasure of the citizens, but he has unfortunately confirmed that the only voice that matters is his own. He is, however, surprised by the unhappiness, explaining that he's doing this for our safety. The man is pathetically unaware that this very attitude is part of the problem.

Mayor Bill White considers himself to be a businessman, and so he approaches city matters as a business matter. The problem is, while a man may own a business and have the sole right to decide what is reasonable, the mayor is not the owner of the city, but only a servant of the people. In this case, the City should have set up a referendum, and asked for legal advice on the advisability of this action (the rights of the city to designate only certain tow trucks, to be used on state roads, to remove vehicles not hindering traffic from designated emergency lanes against the owner's will, especially where the matter is as simple as changing a tire or restarting the vehicle, is already in question). And no matter what, the Council should have known better than to deliver the decision as if it wer ean imperial edict. When a mayor arbitrarily decides not to listen to the people about the way the city should be run, he is ignoring his duties and subverting the rights of the citizens. And that's why people outside the city of Houston should consider this issue.

I have been exchanging e-mails with a couple readers, about the emerging realignment of American voters. A recent Gallup poll confirmed what the last three Federal Elections indicated; more Americans consider themselves Republicans than Democrats, and many more consider themselves Conservatives than Liberals. Some on the Right believe this means that the Democratic Party is in crisis, and may even cease as a political force within a generation. It occurs to me, however, that there are cracks in the foundation of the Republican Party as well, and there is major work for both parties to tend to, if they want to remain as relevant in 2024, as they were this year. And part of that crisis of confidence is a simple matter of job performance. Far too many politicians do what they like, and impose unreasonable burdens on the people, often in the name of "helping".

Here in Houston, it is now illegal to drive without a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt is a good idea, and people should be encouraged to wear one whenever they are in a car or truck. But it is not the state or city's place to declare it illegal to not wear one; they do not hold the moral authority to pass such a law. After all, if I am foolish enough to drive w/o wearing a seat belt, I am not driving recklessly as a result of that omission, nor am I endangering any other driver or passenger. Ethically, not wearing a seat belt is the same as driving while smoking - a bad idea, but not one which needs to be outlawed. Further, the state does not take away your license or restrict when you can drive, if you are caught not wearing a belt; you are simply fined, proving it's really nothing more than a revenue grab. That takes the action from stupid across the line to immoral. No authority has the right to penalize a person for doing something which is not directly harmful to anyone, and which is not a violation of anyone else's rights. Laws passed simply to generate revenue are not simply unreasonable, they create a sense of promoted injustice, using the law for immoral purposes.

Another law recently passed, sets up cameras at streetlights to catch red-light runners and speeders. The problem is, it violates the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the part about the accused having the right to face his accuser. The submission of the citation is presumption of guilt, which directly runs against the rights of Americans. Now, I'm not opposed to catching red-light runners and speeders and reckless drivers, but this law is bad in every way. That's because the city has tried to evade the 5th-Amendment concerns by treating the tickets as civil actions rather than criminal actions. There are many problems created by that stunt. First, the insurance companies point out that doing this will allow violators to pay a fine and not have it show up on their driving record, which prevents insurers from discovering who is reckless. The industry has already said this will force them to raise rates on everyone, which means that the city's actions will result in punishing good drivers. Further, if you receive one of these tickets, you will be expected to pay the fine, so the effect remains the same; if you are not guilty, you will be denied the right to challenge the charge in court. That is, you can plead 'not guilty', but the chances you will win are remote, given the starting presumption of guilt.

It goes further than driving infractions, of course. The trend over the past couple decades to protect non-Christian freedom of religion, while punishing public displays of Christian faith, is reaching a boiling point. A key example this year, was the banning of any Christian symbol or music at a New Jersey School District, while Hannukah and Ramadam celebrations were encouraged and supported with city funds and specifically noted at official celebrations. Schools have granted exceptions to their dress codes for Muslim students, while punishing Christians for Christian symbols and dress. The hypocrisy of such actions is clear, and the increasing publicity of such anti-Christian oppression by city and state authorities will sooner or later generate consequences.

But the heart of the crisis could reasonably be said to rest in Washington, D.C. In the generation following the Revolution, the Congress of the United States would meet for a limited amount of time, after which the Congressmen and Senators would return to their home states for their regular work, and to be accessible to their constituents. Those days have long been supplanted, by the permanent D.C. residences of Congressmen and Senators, who only see their home state on campaign tours, and who are no more accessible to the people who are supposed to be their bosses, than the Politburo of the old Soviet Union was. More and more laws are passed which do little more than bring in money, and window-dress the ambitions of the Congressmen and Senators. Issues vital to Americans are ignored, while billions are spent to create friends for the politicians when they leave office and want to become high-paid lobbyists. Republicans and Democrats both tend to see themselves as elite, and answerable only to each other. That attitude, while pervasive on Capitol Hill, is near Treason in its contempt for the duties and responsibilities these men and women pretend to accept, and at some point will reap a bitter harvest from the nation.

From time to time, this elected official or that wil lopine on the meaning and significance of the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, or the Fourteenth. I think we all ought to remind our city and county officials that we will vote according to their actions, responsible and irresponsible, our state officials that Gray Davis was not that isolated an option, and our federal officials that the Tenth Amendment is very valid, and we will demand it's application.

Why George W. Bush Matters in Intelligence Reform

.
One of my readers, Mugwump, asked about my sources and information on President Bush, and on another issue. I want to be clear, that Stolen Thunder is not an encyclopedic site. That is, I don't have the time or inclination in this blog to have to defend every claim. That means that I will present what I consider reasonable truths, from which I will make observations and state opinions. Sometimes, you may agree with me, at other times you may not. When I make a statement which is integral to the claim I am pursuing, then it is reasonable to challenge that claim if you find it flawed or invalid. However, if the statement to which you disagree is only incidental to the premise I am building, then I may or may not pursue that discussion. You will have to decide for yourself whether I make my case or not. I won't convince everyone, even if I had perfect knowledge, and I won't have perfect information, although I will try to make sure I don't waste your time, either.

On the first issue, Mugwump brought up a point I found incidental and a matter of personal opinion. I addressed it on the thread it concerned. But as for President Bush, I do think a deeper answer at length is appropriate.

George W. Bush is weird. That’s either a really bad thing, or a really good thing, depending on your perspective. The strong emotions surrounding this President are unique; while every President has his supporters and critics, no one in memory has suffered the absolute hate that has been spewed at Dubya, nor has a President often enjoyed the sort of loyalty that GW Bush has created. I believe this comes, in large part, from the clear and decisive policies and plans of this Bush Administration. Most Presidents try to set their policies in such a manner as to minimize conflict, which reduces outright anger but also dilutes their effectiveness. Dubya puts 100% into accomplishing his goals, but 0% into sugar-coating them. The fact that he really believes what he’s doing, accentuates the emotions as people react to the programs. This behavior continues with the restructuring of the Intelligence Community.

Some fifteen major groups are tasked with handling intelligence gathering and analysis, and another fifteen deal with intelligence data as part of their operational responsibility. That fact alone illustrates the need for a comprehensive central control for intelligence; the 9/11 attacks happened, in part, because information which could have been combined with related data from other groups to provide a clear picture of the threat, was hindered by bureaucratic procedures and useless turf fights. The long feuds between the FBI, CIA, and NSA are common knowledge, and shameful to these organizations. Also, the very controls created by the Church Committee in 1977-78 to prevent recurrence of the abuses they discovered, instead serve to hide agencies from proper review and oversight. The world changed on September 11, 2001, for no group more than the Intelligence Community.

President George W. Bush was uniquely qualified for the reformation of U.S. Intelligence. In the first place, where most Presidents have been lawyers, Bush is a businessman by experience and education; a Harvard MBA means Bush looks for real-world solutions, not theoretical explanations, and establishes pragmatic expectations, with subsequent consequences for evasion or equivocation. Next, Bush has been on very good terms with his father since at least 1985, and part of that relationship is the education of his father’s experience. As a World War 2 vet and long-time CIA official, to say nothing of his Presidential experience, George H.W. Bush had critically valuable influence in shaping George W. Bush’s understanding of the military and intelligence agencies. It’s no shock to me that Dubya has made respect and appreciation for our men in uniform a top priority, and I have no doubt that his intentions for the Intelligence Community are sure and uncompromising. I also believe that, as he is familiar with the arrogance of the East Coast academics, President Bush has little patience for ivory towers in Langley. Porter Goss is right in line with the President’s thinking. Another example is the immediate arming of Predator UAVs with Hellfire missiles; unlike previous Presidents, who were content to observe terrorists in transit, President Bush immediately issued orders to make it feasible to kill terrorists on sight. In this regard, Bush is even more decisive than Reagan; Dubya does not believe in warning shots where terrorists are concerned, although he has made certain that all the nations likely to be involved are aware of his intentions and determination.

That is why I identified the new post of National Director of Intelligence as the real deal; Bush wouldn’t waste his time on window-dressing. The changes already in progress show that Bush intends to get work done straightaway in his second term, and since there have been two key intelligence failures that Bush has had to deal with, there will be real and effective changes in the way things get done. The first intelligence failure, of course, was the 9/11 attacks. The PATRIOT Act did several things to correct the flaws and holes found in the National Security wall, in fact it began as a reformation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many PATRIOT features accomplished two main missions; removing restrictions to inter-agency cooperation, such as prohibiting the FBI from seeing CIA information, or the National Security Council from being made aware of threats to National Security, if that information was revealed in Grand Jury testimony. The other mission was to grant intelligence agencies access to the same tools as law enforcement already used. For instance, the use of warrants which notice would not be announced prior to the execution of that warrant were already in common use in kidnapping cases and Organized Crime, but prior to PATRIOT, Federal agents on Intelligence cases had to provide advance notice of warrants, permitting enemies to destroy critical information in advance of its discovery. The complaints against PATRIOT essentially showed the ignorance of extant law. PATRIOT allowed Federal agents critical tools in their ability to protect lives by preventing terrorist attacks.

The second intelligence failure, came when the State Department failed to cooperate with the Bush Administration in the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion. The CIA was aware of Iraqi WMD storage and experimentation, but was unable to prove the existence of WMD after the invasion, in part because much of the material was destroyed, hidden, or smuggled across the border. The failure was unavoidable, given the absence of HUMINT, or human agents in Iraq. This failure was no agency’s fault, but came as the direct result of Church Committee restrictions on agency actions in the field, and the Clinton Administration’s fascination with a technical-only surveillance. Clinton didn’t want any human agents killed in the region, or dealing with unsavory types (which invariably are necessary to substantive agent networking – three of the four classic motives for a person to become a spy are unsavory in their nature). This amounted to prohibiting the detectives from ever leaving the police station. This had to change, and it is changing. Bush is the first President in a couple decades willing to meet that challenge.

Also, the creation of the NDI post allows another gap to be filled. Traditionally, Intelligence has been split into three parts; Intelligence, Technical Support, and Operations. The three have differed on how to interact, for as long as each agency has existed. The DNI will have enough information to direct Technical development, to coordinate Analysis, and to provide effective courses of action to the President or whomever he designates, for implementation. It also provides sufficient control, coordinating the data in a controlled-access process, that leaks and theft may be traced quickly to the source; this is important to Internal Security, and helps the agency protect itself by providing proof of guilt when a crime is committed.

Finally, President Bush has shown great foresight, by recognizing the flexibility of agency resources for a variety of tasks. Where in the past, government agencies could only influence other governments through direct actions, the US now possesses the means to use the Internet to release information directly to the people who can use it, simply by clarifying the classification of restricted data, freeing up information that cannot be used to hurt the United States, but can and will disrupt the plans and claims of totalitarian and oppressive regimes. The best recent example, was the surprise access in China’s restricted Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication (MPT) to uncensored versions of SkyNews and CNN during the fall of Baghdad in April 2003; while the PRC moved quickly to close down the news sites, the sudden appearance of these sites allowed tens of millions of Chinese to discover and verify the truth, and the inability of the PRC to prevent their appearance was significant on several levels. The ability to influence nations through simple release of verifiable facts, is a traditional yet powerful tactic, and the use of Internet access to poke open windows to the world, is the most significant tool in that area since Voice of America first powered up.

All in all, while there will doubtless prove to be unexpected challenges and crises, the reform of the Intelligence Community under President Bush is vital to the War on Terror, on National Security, and for the future of America’s influence in future world events. By the next generation, this accomplishment will be understood more clearly, but it is a signal achievement, for the man and for the country.

Some Old Notions

.
I was cleaning out some papers, and came across a page I wrote back when I was just fourteen years old. I found it interesting, in that the statements I wrote pretty much still apply for me as valid today. I thought I'd copy them down here, and you can decide for yourself if they are valid:

1. A man will oppose cheating and wrong whenever he finds it in another, since it will cost him.

2. Power and Honor come mostly through Peace and Justice.

3. Every successful group or government has a fair 'people policy'.

4. Every successful group or government has a sub-group to protect rights.

5. There is no Honor without Peace.

6. There is no Honor or Peace, without Freedom.

7. There is no Honor, Peace, or Freedom, without Justice.

8. Justice only comes through individuals.

Spook King

Later this year, Congress will appove a budget for a new office. I'm not talking furniture, here, but the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI), also referred to as the National Director of Intelligence. Whatever you want to call him, and whomever it is that ends up with the post, we are looking at a new world in Intelligence.

Condi Rice and Porter Goss have already given signs that they're loading up their guns for hunting weasels, and the improvements to PATRIOT approved in '04 by Congress are going to start having effects this next year. It's going to be a good year if you’re on the side of the angels, a bad one if you're a mole in the CIA, FBI, or State.

The DNI is the wild card, and a powerful one. His job description, if one were to write it up, is going to look like J. Edgar Hoover's in-house control, mixed with William Donovan's to-do list, topped off with a health dose of Rumsfeld's pragmatism. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be a hoot, if Dubya answered the calls for Rummy to leave DoD, by making Rumsfeld the DNI?

Myths Bounce

A new year has begun, but for most people things will keep going on as they have. Call it habit, momentum, impetus, but things tend to follow established patterns, whether you are talking about people, businesses - or even nations.

Earlier this week, I wrote posts on Employment and Self-Employment. This was partly simple soliloquoy on the basics every high-school graduate should know, yet most people learn the hard way much later, but it was also laying out some facts unique to the United States. Simply put, the United States is more business-friendly than any other nation on the planet, and this is why the USA will remain not only the most influential and potent country in existence for the next generation. Yes, there are nations which cozy up more to corporations, and yes, there are nations which sponsor massive industries in order to gain control, and yes, there are nations which have selected companies which lead the world in their field, but taken as a whole in the facets most critical to GDP growth and stability of currency, the USA has no rivals. Forget Superpower; the United States is effectively the Ultra-Power.

Take China for example. Over the past year, I have heard and read how China is a rising economic power, a revolution waiting to dominate the Asian continent, then the Pacific, and will match the US in economic power within twenty years. I heard an echo then, and I bet you did, too. Because the same things that are being said now about Jiang, were said in the early sixties about Khruschev and the Soviet Union. As we all know, the USSR's boasts proved hollow, and the Empire simply rotted from within, until Reagan forced Gorbachev to spare his people a bloody revolution of starving malcontents. Many of the PRC's fans today, make a point of saying how different things are now, but if you look at the signals, the truth shows up readily and without mercy for the Communist regime.

Look at their oil industry, for instance. China boasted about revamping their oil drilling and refining capacity way back in 1991; they made a big case about not caring anymore about OPEC, because the oil discovery in the South China Sea was going to change everything. Only, they couldn't get the oil the way they planned, the countries of Vietnam and the Phillipines fought and won in court for the best oil fields, and three major refinery acidents in as many years crippled the promised development of China's delivery system. Basically, China wanted it to work, but simply did not have either the technical level nor the business savvy to set up the requisite agreements to get their partners to do what they needed. That's one reason why China set up weapons deals with Saddam between 1997 and 2003; Iraq had lots of oil it wanted to sell under the table, and China wanted a lot of high-grade petroleum. Short term win, long term bust.

Then, consider automobiles. China sent students to Business Schools to learn how to modernize and market succesful consumer products, and one of the winners that always showed up in rising countries, was automobile exports. Japan of course, with Honda and Toyota led the way, but the relative success of Daiwoo and Hyundai showed the market was still hungry for cheap cars. China figured it couldn't miss. It guessed wrong. No fewer than twenty plants were built in China between 1994 and 2002 to make autos for export; the sales have been dismal by any standard, even inviting comparisons to the wretched Yugos from a generation ago. China has tried to claim that over 50,000 cars have been sold each year, but cannot name who is supposed to be buying them.

It's true that China has done well with cheap clothing and some simple electronics, but that is where the SOEs, or State-Owned-Enterprises, come in. Basically, China is trying a tactic that Japan used in the 1960s and 1970s; flooding a market with very-inexpensive products to drive out competitors, hoping to make up the losses later when the market was cornered. The problem is that Japan understood the balance of capital and investment, while China has simply flooded every market it could find, with no organization or follow-up. And China is already losing out to new rivals, from India, Thailand, and Brazil, who are targeting the markets with the best potential for growth. In short, China is losing money for no effective purpose than because they don't know what else to do.

What's worse, China has managed to make the worst of innovation. Mass production machinery has improved, but instead of training employees at SOEs for other skills they could use to help the country move forward, China simply lays them off. And in a Communist country, being "laid-off" means a constant 16%-25% Unemployment Rate. In a country of over a billion workers, that has led to whole towns of families with no work for years on end, and this has caused revolts and uprisings dozens of times. If these virtual armies of unemployed and starving people ever get organized, that's an instant army of 250 to 300 million angry, hungry people.

The same thing happens in many other nations. India, Brazil, and China represent the nations which are winning in the short-term, but cannot gain strategic gains because their tactics do not result in long-term stability or open expanded markets. Other nations with state-controlled economies, like Japan, France, or Russia, are more stable but unable to bring about the flexibility to evolve from the past to take full advantage of the new technology. Consider Japan, for example, and the legendary case of the VCRs. When Japan succeeded in driving out US makers of VCRs, many people believed that Japan had permanently dominated the market. Instead, American companies let go of the lost battle for the video players, and locked in control of the video cassettes. In any given year, the US makes more than ten times the revenue of videotape and DVD sales, that Japan does from player sales. Adaptability.

The US continues to lead the world in patents for business-applicable machines, for new medical procedures and new developed pharmaceuticals, for new alloys and composite materials, and for new businesses opened. That's not just last year, that's every year since 1945.

As long as America smiles on business, the world will see America out front. Way out front.

Sexual Civics

One of the more contentious issues in 2004, was the question of Gay Marriage, and in reviewing the year, I found myself wrestling, once again, with the moral issues surrounding the debate.

I'm pretty set in my ways, personally, but I try not to be an hypocrite. Since I am male, heterosexual, white, American, a Christian and consider the Bible to be correct and true, I start from a pretty defined perspective, and in the course of my life I have always tried to balance my own experience with valid alternatives, emphasis on both 'valid' and 'alternatives'.

On the one hand, Homosexuality is conduct, and so cannot really be considered in the same light as race, gender, or ethnicity. Also, the Bible is pretty clearly set againt the Homosexuals portrayed in its pages. On the other hand, I am struck by the consistency of Homosexual representation, demographically, throughout the world. Even where the culture considers Homosexuality to be a crime deserving death, still there are those who practice it, compelling evidence that it is more than a casual decision. Also, when I read through the Bible more closely, I am struck by two very important facts. First, Jesus Christ had nothing to say about Homosexuals, strange behavior if they were all that repulsive to God. Also, in the various verses where Homosexuals are mentioned in the Bible, what I see are connections to idolatry or lust, so that the condemnation refers mostly to the spirit; when Paul refers to "unnatural" desires, he can just as easily be addressing heterosexual lust as homosexual lust. And the Ten Commandmants are pretty interesting on that point. If I drift off into the Scriptural connotations, I will not finish the though today, so for here I want to consider the matter from a point of logic. It seems to me that there are three levels on which I may consider the morality of what I call Sexual Civics.

First, the easy part. The United States of America is essentially a nation founded on freedom, and for most of us, it's not a hard definition - you can do whatever you want, right up to the point where you affect someone else's freedom. So, you can't choose violence or theft or defamation, but the 4th Amendment gives a reasonable expectation of privacy. No one can come into your home without your consent, unless you have violated the law, and by the law, I mean that line between your rights and someone else's. If you are beating your wife, you have no right to privacy, but if two people want to have and neither is married to someone else, that's their business and no one else's. Like it or not, it's not my right to compel my neighbor to follow my idea of morality.

The second level comes down to your faith. Yep, here comes God. Now, like the first part, it's just common sense that even if I believe someone else's faith is sheer lunacy, I have no right to step in and tell him what he must believe in. Further, I happen to believe that even if you can compel someone to go to your church and pray as you do, all that will do is drive some further away in their hearts. Love and adoration for the holy cannot be forced. But, if you choose to join a church or congregation, whatever the faith is, you cannot be part of their group and demand they agree to your terms. You're either in or out, and if you're in, you have to agree that you will believe as the group does, or else you cannot be part of that group. There is usually room in faith groups for some differences, but on the vital and basic issues, you can't split hairs.

Now, the tricky part. I don't happen to like anything about Homosexuality, from what I know about it. The practice seems unnatural biologically, and there is a strong risk of disease in some of the practices, but then, I didn't much hold with the guys I knew in school who thought sleeping around with a dozen women was cool, either. The thing is, though, I also know enough to know that people are built differently, and just as one person really craves sex while another has no real appetite, there are wide variances in what attracts people, biologically as well as physiologically or psychologically. I still know a couple people who think sex with someone not your own skin color is somehow wrong. So, the issue comes down to a basic morality, after which a working system may be developed.

Sex is not evil. It's pretty obvious that it can be a very good thing. The restrictions to it, I think, come from the fact that Adultery and Divorce and STD's are horribly destructive, and should be avoided like the plagues they are. Also, I rather like the section of Proverbs, where Solomon warns his son to stay away from prostitutes, because that cheapens people, making a person no more than a loaf of bread, something to be used. Lust is wrong, because it calls attention down to the lowest level, and avoids any of the commitments and responsibilities that come with many sexual relationships. Therefore, marriage is much, much better than sex alone can ever be, because it comes with a clear price, but also later shows the rewards amd maturity that can only be had with commitment and a disciplined heart.

It follows then, that if a person is Homosexual, they should be allowed, even encouraged, to marry (or at least commit to civil unions). That is, provided that marriage or civil union would carry the same weight and responsibility as a heterosexual marriage does, and that society might return to the day when cheating on your spouse was shameful and rare, not the sidelight of a network sit-com.

I am a little tired, so doubtless I am missing something along the way in this road of reason, but that's what the 'Comments' section is for.

Happy New Year.

Self-Employment

In my last post, I discussed the issue of Employment, which in the common parlance means accepting hire to a company for set responsibilities and wages. This provides the security of knowing where your next meal will come from, but it limits the opportunity for someone to advance their economic independence. Fortunately, that window may be opening up again.

Now, to anyone under the age of 30 reading this post, be very, very careful about anyone promising you that you can get wealthy fast. Wealth has always been difficult to build, and for valid reasons. First off, it's a basic rule of Life, that it's much easier to spend money than to make money. Next, money always attracts attention, from the Tax man to friends you never knew you had; holding wealth is just as hard as making it. Third, if you do not know how you make your money, even a hot streak will end meaning nothing, because you have to know how to get hot again. Fortunately, there is a pretty good way to become financially successful, and it comes down to four rules:

1. Do your homework. Plan, review, analyze, repeat.
2. NEVER lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
3. Never forget your people, or take them for granted.
4. Stay humble.

I. First off, when you decide to get serious about making money, you're going to have to decide what you want to do, what you're willing to commit to make it happen, and where your heart is. Every financially succesful person who has made their fortune, has done it through a lot of hard work and persistence. You don't do that unless you are committed to what you're doing, and you can't make that commitment unless your heart is in what you do. You also have to be serious enough to realize, no one gets paid to play around; even professional atheletes and musicians and artists put a lot of work into their effort. So, you need to think about who you are, what you're about, because that's your foundation. You follow it up with putting together a Business Plan. Why? First off, unless you're already wealthy, you need a bank loan or something like it to make the business start, and for that you need a Business Plan. But also, you want a chance, and while some people may realize that 80% of all new businesses fail within a year, over 95% of businesses which survive that first year had a Business Plan, and over 98% which last more than three years had a Business Plan. No Business Plan, no chance.

A Business Plan is pretty simple in concept, but you really need to sweat the details. You need to come up with a realistic idea of how many customers you'll have, how much you'll make from those customers, how much you'll need to spend to run that business, and so on. And you need to be able to defend those numbers, with evidence. It's kind of like a really tough Term Paper, but an intensely personal one, too.

One benefit to drawing up the BP, is that once you start to get into it, you'll already be moving ahead. Getting that first loan is like passing a gallstone, but banks like loans and sooner or later, a serious BP will get a loan, at which time you will discover two feelings: the sheer panic of owing a huge debt, and the realization that you are going to do it. Because of the BP, you will already know where you will put the business, what it will cost and how long to get the supplies and equipment and hire/train your own employees. You will need to be inspected by various city and county departments, which has the additional effect of driving many new business owners to the conservative side of politics. But eventually, you'll be on your way.

II. Sooner or later, you will wonder if you might pull a trick or two to get ahead. DON'T! There are only a few reasons why customers will give a new business a chance; convenience (which will only be true for a few people), lower prices (which your competition will match, or quality. For some reason, businesses sooner or later often fall into lowering the quality, cheating a little on their promises, or some other little bit of shadiness. That makes the honest ones stand out. If you want to be around ten years later with a good reputation, NEVER let your standards or ethics slip.

III. No matter what you will be doing for your business, you'll depend on people, especially three groups: Your customers, your employees, and your suppliers. Always be courteous, always reward extra effort, and always treat them the way you'd want to be treated, if you were in their place. Because you either were once, or you will be, and in any case, networking includes making sure everyone who knows you, knows you at your best.

IV. Nobody like arrogance, but it's more than that. When everyone knows you don't have a big head, your success makes your business like a family, and your network of contacts like a community. You'll sleep better, and you'll never have second thoughts about your decisions.

OK, simple rules, but awfully hard to put into practice. What was that window, though, that I was talking about? INFORMATION. Once upon a time, if you had a job, you were pretty much stuck in your routine, no time or chance to find out what else you could do. Now, part-time work is a real possibility, and more than a few people have been able to start their own business by researching the web and building their Business Plan in their spare time. Right up to the point of commitment, you can recon your options and decide your course.

It's worth thinking about.

Money Matters

I find myself rather unhappy with Donald Trump today.

Not personally. I don't know him personally, and as a person, he seems to have enough decent qualities, that I might like him. But he's pushing a lot of people further down the road of class warfare and financial ignorance. He's doing that by filing Bankruptcy - again.

I actually have no idea how many times 'The Donald' has filed for the big eggshell. I could find out if I wanted, but it really doesn't matter. The problem is, even though Trump is filing for Bankruptcy, he still owns - shoot, he's cultivating it - an air of solvency and financial power. That's a trick, but a dirty one. It's mixing the idea that Trump is a business leader we should emulate, with the fact that he has no intention of paying legitimate debts he's incurred. He is basically telling America that cheating is not only acceptable, it's the smart thing to do. He's the star of "The Apprentice", a show about business acumen and ethics and metods, and he's living a life of a well-heeled scam artist. It says something, something rather offensive, about NBC, that Trump is still connected to the show in any, except as an object lesson on Fraud.

But Trump's little courtroom tactics are part of the fabric of American Business, wheer people are sold the illusion in place of the real virtues, where the quick trick is prized above earning and keeping trust. It's why Dan Rather believed he could slip forged documents past the nation on prime-time Television, it's why John Kerry thought he could get elected without a single serious explanation of his Senate record, it's why Americans could be told that freeing millions of people was evil, and why Americans are told that our very economic success is wrong and must stop. Many Americans, believe it or not, do not understand Money or any of the basic forces of Economics. And that lesson comes hard.

First, Employment. Thousands of Bush haters took to protests in 2004, blaming President Bush for the "poor" job market. Leave aside for a moment the limitations on what, precisely, any President can do to create jobs, and also leave aside the fact that Unemployment numbers in 2004 were almost exactly the same numbers that the press praised Bill Clinto for in 1996, and leave aside the fact that average wages continued to rise all year long; the sheer notion that anyone "owed" someone a job, illustrates an appalling lack of common sense and work ethic. Demographics show that prior to 1850, most Americans owned their own businesses, farms for the most part. The good news to owning your own business, is that you take your own profits - a hired man was considered to be on the low end of things, because he could only earn what his boss agreed to pay him. The bad news to owning your own business, was that you took on all the risks of having your own business. If you hit a really bad stretch, you could lose everything ("Lose the Farm" was well-understood when folks had real family farms on the line).

After 1850, and especially after the Civil War, things changed, with many Americans working in factories and for employers. Once the paycheck became the normal way of things, people started planning by that regular pay, relatively small but relatively steady. But even back in the "good old days", people understood that a job might not last forever. College was important, because it allowed a person to take a job with better pay, better security (less "projects" and more likely to be hired as part of a permanent team), and better chances for advancement. Unfortunately, there came a flood of college degrees, some quite accomplished, others frankly useless, and in any case the work environment has shifted again, to the point that people are finally coming back around to the basic question they should have addressed at the start; what is a good employer-employee match?

I have seen a great many job-search sites spring up, and precious few people get anything they would call a "good" job from them. Employers are even less enthused, since these sites flood them with applications from unqualified people, and even with sorting software, it remains just as hard to find that one truly-qualified employee, as it ever was. The problem, to be blunt, is the nature of jobs and workers. People want great positions, but if a job pays well, is fulfilling, and has a great future, the people in those positions are not going to want to elave those jobs. As a result, most jobs available pay less, are less secure, less rewarding, and/or are more difficult and demanding. Not that employers have a great time. These days, even after you screen for drugs and criminal histories, you could easily get someone who looks good on paper and interviews well, but who is lazy, or rude, or uncooperative, or any other combination of production-killing attributes. Most managers have antacids close at hand for very good reasons.

For some reason, people have forgotten to remind kids of one very important reason to do their homework: They'll need to use those homework study and research skills all the rest of their life, from finding the right job, to how they invest, to how they plan their major life events. Living your lifeunplanned can be exciting, true - but so can driving your car with your eyes closed, but the end results are likely to be messy in either case.

The simple fact is, people should be careful to think ahead, about what skills their "dream job" will need, and what they will need to do, to get that chance. And if they plan to work for someone else, they will have to decide when and if they want to set out on their own, or else accept the trade-off of a comfort zone for the chance to excel.

Next: Self-Employment?

Hugh Hewitt's "Blog" - A Review

.
I read too fast. This was an immediate problem from the start; the children’s library told me I was a troublemaker, because I was the only kid who wasn’t happy with only 5 books a week. By the time I hit Junior High, I had read every book my parents owned, more than a thousand books. And, being gabby, I had opinions to share on everything I read. So, by definition I was a blogger 30 years before I owned my first computer. And I learned to appreciate a book good enough that I could go back and read it again, and pick up new stuff. Milton is that good, so is Zelazny, and so is Hewitt. As in Hugh Hewitt, whose new book “Blog” may be fairly described as a must-have.

OK, so it’s no shock that bloggers will like “Blog”. But this book not only reads well, it’s a primer on planning your future online. Hewitt covers a brief history of blogging, noting that in five years, blogs have grown from the first few to over four million now. Along the way, we’ve seen the development of blogs which read like diaries or magazines, to blogs about specifics in the latest news, technical details, and insightful commentary to rival (or simply thump) anything the networks can offer.

When you get your copy of “Blog” (you will be very happy, I promise), among the things you’ll find is a list of some of the best blogs currently out there. Basically, if you come across a site you haven’t checked out, give it a few minutes. There are lists all through the book, from the Preface through the appendices. And Hewitt puts the whole thing in perspective right from the start. In the Introduction for example, Hewitt notes “The blogosphere is about trust ... None of us have time to understand everything, so we have to trust surrogates.” This is important, because that used to be the case with the TV networks and newspaper syndicates; when they betrayed that trust, the blogs were able to fill the void, because there is immediate feedback and consequence. If a blog tries to snow you, you will figure it out and move on to one of the many others. You’ll only stay with a blog when it eans your respect. Informational Darwinism at work.

Hewitt is very good at maintaining balance, noting accomplishments by Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan on one hand, but also Little Green Footballs and Captain’s Quarters on the other. The interplay between the Old Media and the New, often turning into an effective rout by the blogs, is covered, from the Jason Blair scandal, through the Swift Boat Vets, and of course Ra^thergate. The history Hewitt is writing will be taught at colleges by next year. Hewitt writes about the Information Reformation, comparing it to Luther’s Reformation of the Church, and provides some key insights in the historical trends present, in the 16th Century and now.

Of course, Hewitt made mistakes, calling the TV networks and newspapers by the already passe’ “MainStream Media (MSM)”, while many blogs are already taking up the clearer Old Media/New Media delineation. And when he covered Ra^thergate, Hewitt failed to give proper credit to Lorie from Texas for the name. Hewitt also leans just a bit too much in favor of the blogs already out there, forgetting the lightning-strike rise that so many blogs make in their creation. But overall, “Blog” is a first-class work, especially where Hewitt identifies key opportunities and trends for industries and entrepreneurs to grab, before someone else does. It’s more than a little like someone telling you in 1975 to keep an eye on that Gates kid.

Maybe the best Chapter in the book is Chapter 13, which gives pointers on how to start your own blog, with vital do’s and don’t’s for the just-starting blogger.

Buy the book.

Read it.

Read it again, with paper and pen for notes.

Pay special attention to the Appendices.

And if you’re like me, you’ll be glad to find out it’s just as good the third time through.

Earthquake in Sumatra

It's the kind of thing you just don't believe the first time you hear it. It has to be an exaggeration, a mistake, someone over-reacting.

But it's true.

An earthquake, 8.9 on the Richter scale (literally one-hundred-thirty times the force of the last "big" San Francisco quake

Over seven thousand dead.

Over a million people homeless.

Tsunamis in Indonesia, Maylasia, Thailand.

Please pray for the victims and the survivors, and do what you are willing to do.

What really is scary, are two additional factors:

First, that part of the world is ready and perpared for rain and floods. They have no reason to expect earthquakes or twelve-foot walls of water.

Second, an earthquake this big is going to be followed by killer aftershocks. The rescue teams are mostly going to be held back until the aftershocks, likely to be in the 6.5 range, are done. In other words, that means hundreds more dead, maybe thousands.

May God have mercy.

UPDATE, December 27:

The death toll is up past 22,000 now. Please contact the Indonesian Consulate inyour town to help.

UPDATE, December 29:

The death toll is projected at anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 fatalities, with at least twice that number injured, and millions homeless. Vital and immediate needs include drinkable water, medicine, emergency shelters, clothing, and evacuation. If you have not already done so, please contact any of the following organizations about helping:

The International Red Cross
Rescue Task Force
Indonesia Disaster Fund

Thank you.