21st Century Challenge: Forests Not Trees

My training is as a social ecologist. That means seeing the flow of energy through systems and processes, or viewing social problems from a holistic, ecologist perspective.

This training is literally worthless. While it has occasional shocking insights into issues such as crime, homelessness, politics, etc. -- there is no money to be made by telling the powerful the obvious. "Speaking truth to power" is how grad students got called out for extinction in the 2018 GOP budget.

This Thanksgiving Day 2018, I am instead going to tell the powerless -- essentially everyone reading this -- some "generally accepted"* basic truths about 21st century civilization. None of this first part should be controversial - this is 'can't see the forest for the trees' type stuff. But I am expecting some knee jerk reactions from ideologues.

-> The carrying capacity of the planet to support human beings, barring truly major technological changes (aka nanotech), is fixed. The human population is growing and will continue to grow absent major war or sustained genocide.

-> The only major ecological variable outside potential human control at this time is the weather itself, whether this is couched in the language of 'climate change' or is seen as changes in global trends over time. Everything else is politics: whether Japanese continue to "research" (read: eat) whales, China industrializes using oil previously sold to America, we exploit oil reserves in the global North or feed the starving South ... we can solve all these problems, we choose not to.

-> The sheer destructive power of weapons available to humanity has exceeded the capacity of humanity to withstand same. The planet will survive; the humans will not be so fortunate. Thus 'proliferation' (unauthorized access to nuclear arms) continues to be a major concern, but compare to the next point.

-> There is little to no effective disagreement between the power blocs that control the world. Trump is Putin is China is Japan. The future is planned.

-> It would be awfully convenient for a lot of people who make money if the population of the planet were to stabilize soon. It would be a little less convenient for a smaller set of people if the population were to radically fall ... but watch this space for updates, as this is a major if hidden goal of the globalist left. There is much internal (and for obvious reasons, confidential debate) about who to throw off Starship Earth, but not much debate that the 'starving billions' (and therefore unprofitable) need to somehow wander off.

-> The complexity of human problems, general and specific, is starting to exceed our ingenuity in understanding and solving them. We have tools for handling very complicated problems -- but those very tools create much more complicated problems we do not have tools for! This 'complexity' dilemma cannot be solved through simplistic actions no matter how anyone tries. The most forward looking organizations realize that they are in a complexity crisis ... others have their heads buried in the sand (or in the case of the US Navy, the mud) ...

Now for my _commentary_ on the above. None of what I am about to say carries any particular truth or weight -- merely my uneducated opinions of the above.

From this point on, I am being political as all get out. I am taking certain positions on the facts above.

-> The weapons of the 20th century war emphasized physical destruction, the burned out building. The weapons of the 21st century war will emphasize intellectual destruction or the literal destruction of your human opponents. Either your enemy changes his mind or you burn out his brain. (Then you loot his stuff.)

-> The major capabilities of X-weapons have yet to be demonstrated. ("X" for "we don't know, it's still classified.) The limits of nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons, etc. are relatively understood. But esoteric weapons are another story ... Steve Jackson Games jokes about "Orbital Mind Control Lasers" but a lot of digging at the spot marked X was cut off, like a switch, in the mid 1960s. There is a lot to worry about here.

-> In my professional opinion, major war or genocide will call into question humanity's continued existence on the planet in at least three ways. 1) Massive psychological damage, even to the alleged victors. 2) Chains of retaliation leading to humanity turning away from the potential of peaceful paths. 3) Inability to unite humanity in the future against existential threats, natural or manmade or even alien.

-> Nonetheless, there are members of the major power blocs who continue to flirt with genocide and limited war as methods of population control. One method is 'benign neglect' -- permit natural disaster, and simply do not respond to it ... or respond in punitive ways. I view the introduction of cholera to Haiti in this light, as essentially deliberate biological warfare little different from giving out smallpox infected blankets to starving Native Americans.

-> Given the problem of population control, and respecting that it is real, my own proposed solutions are simple and radical. They must necessarily be grass roots to have any hope of success. 1) Appropriate technology to spread the benefits of advanced technology without the costs of a fossil fuel driven society. 2) Mass deployment of effective basic medical care through patient education, community health aides, and flattening of global health costs. 3) Free birth control on demand and support for do it yourself birth control options globally. 4) A global safety net to discourage having more than two children, probably structured as a regressive tax and a negative income tax (subsidy payment) for not having children.

-> A useful middle step towards the above is to increase the survivability of individuals, villages, geographic areas and particular cultures _through their own efforts_. "If you set a fire for a man, you warm him for a day. If you set a man on fire, you warm him for the rest of his life." On this scale, I am somewhere between passing out matches and passing out flyers on how to make hand bows.

-> Explicitly to make genocide more difficult, I support the spread of appropriate technology and defensive memetics across all human populations in all areas. The alleged gains from genocide are far outweighed by the losses, even if one adopts Stalin's hoary adage that "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic." The ideology of inalienable human rights, such as the right to speak a language or to possess weapons, is one such memetic element. Note that these are essentially defensive in application... no one is going to go massacre their neighbors with hunting rifles no matter how many adjectives one applies to them (the neighbors or the rifles).

-> To improve survivability from natural and man-made disaster, I encourage everyone to learn as much as they can about survival and community building. There is the language of the "first responder" (first designated reaction on scene) and even the "zeroth responder" (first trained person already on scene). I am circling in the direction of the "enabled bystander" ... that every person should not only be trained in the basics of emergency response, but able and willing to act within their skill level and training and _work together cooperatively_ to resolve complex incidents through simple safe efforts.

-> We need a major breakthrough in how we solve social and economic problems due to the complexity dilemma. I have ideas; I am open to many other ideas. But any ideas which do not enjoy deep popular support will fail.

I think the solution might be mass but weighted participation in decision making that will make direct democracy look like freewheeling anarchy. The joy of the capitalist system is that it leverages so many different people making decisions into the organization process. Command economies just don't work - not enough decision makers and not enough analysis. Our problems are becoming too complex for mere bureaucracy

This is the kind of stuff I think about for fun. If I could find someone to pay me to think about it, I would leap at the chance. But people who think they know all the answers don't have any use for comments from the peanut gallery.

* "Generally accepted" for planning purposes by major governments, insurance carriers, global capital accumulations, brokerages, etc. Note that this may or may not be a public position statement, but is taken into account in planning.

13 Hours - Implications of a Rescue That Was Not Possible -and- The Real Incompetence

Just saw the movie "13 Hours" by noted action director Michael Bay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Hours

His movie _Pearl Harbor_ was more historically accurate (and a horrid failure, compared to the book _Day of Infamy_ and the movie _Tora Tora Tora!. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_%28film%29. Actually, the _Transformers_ movies were more historically accurate.

I have no particular quarrel with the fight scenes as portrayed. Nor does the movie depart significantly from the timeline of the actual events. (This is very different from _Pearl Harbor_, in which a wounded sailor conscious-and-breathing was triaged as expectant, using symbols the US Navy has never used and no one was using during World War II.)

What I do have a quarrel with is elegant lying by indirection. The implication the viewer is left with is that the United States _could_ have done something to save the "Ambo" (Ambassador Stevens) yet for inexplicable reasons, mostly bureaucratic incompetence, did not.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Herewith my rebuttal:

-- It takes time to do anything in a foreign country. The Tripoli team being tied up at the airport ("gift shop," he quips, but as shown in the movie, arguments over authorization and bribes) is a great example. (Also, who was guarding the Tripoli embassy at this point? US Marines and Post 1, I presume? I hope?) It is completely correct to wait for authorization before initiating a movement, out of a nominally secret facility, to a known location where any retreat back 'home' will draw attacks and fire. It is foolhardy, bordering on asinine, to launch a rescue operation with six operatives, a handful of locals of dubious reliability, precisely two (lightly) armored vehicles, and only one heavy weapon - a grenade launcher - inexplicably left at the diplomatic compound. It is especially difficult to simultaneously launch such a mission and defend your own facility at the same time. They got lucky.

-- It is unreasonable to think that 20 minutes difference one way or another could have saved the day, or that six operators versus the overrun team in the compound would have saved the day. Friction happens, and the station chief ordering them to hold is part of the game. If anything, the suggestion that they 'went' without permission casts strong doubts on their discipline, courage and competence. (They didn't.)

-- It takes time - lots of time - to launch any support from bases elsewhere. First one requires authorization. Any duty officer who launches fighter jets based on some woman complaining on a sat phone would be lucky to be court martialed - he would be risking a training accident in which he would be the star guest. The military requires authentication before launching any mission. That means 'authority' and that authority is vested ultimately in the President of the United States, or POTUS. For POTUS to make this decision, he has to be briefed - meaning he has to know what is going on, through the 1000 member strong National Security Council, represented by his National Security Advisor. POTUS is kept backgrounded on current events with a customized, classified newspaper prepared daily just for him, it's several hundred pages. IF the National Command Authority (another fancy word for POTUS) authorizes the mission, THEN the mission has to be planned and briefed. Aircraft need to be fueled. Pilots and other operators need crew rest. Ordinance has to be uploaded and target packages (intelligence) prepared and distributed. If you fuck this up, you do things like drop on the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia 'by mistake' (yes, it happened.)

-- So let's assume for the moment that POTUS says, "It's a go!" and the military base or ship has a planned mission package for air support to American activities in Benghazi (more about this in a minute), and they can literally shove the throttles to the firewall within minutes of the order, you still have this nasty detail called FLIGHT TIME. You can get there quick (if quick is measured in hours) but burn up all your fuel, or you can get their slow and have fuel to either 1) get home or 2) hang out over the battle area. You usually do not have fuel for both. Refuelinghttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=507606925468585385#editor/target=post;postID=4152154095176331067 becomes critical and you need either carrier capable aircraft, available tankers (and aircraft capable of refueling midair), or a secure land base with a fuel component. Don't even talk about refueling military aircraft at local airports of dubious reliability and security. One bullet in the wrong place and you lose not only a pilot or two but a multi million dollar airframe - and the mission. See also http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2012/10/options-in-benghazi.html

-- So let's assume that some hypothetical carrier battle group has all the pieces, all the planning, its own tankers, the works. (And also CSAR, Combat Search and Rescue, to pick up any pilots who bang up their aircraft. And more ground support to support CSAR... and air cover for CSAR... see how this snowballs?) They are hot over Benghazi, with the latest in "reach out and touch someone" hanging under their wings. WHO DO THEY DROP ON? You have some trained 'operators' on the ground but you need secure communications, a decision on where to put the ordinance, a target worthy of the ordinance, and some way to drop on, say, the perimeter without accidentally putting a 2000 lb cluster bomb on, say, the CIA Annex or the Benghazi hospital. Combat Air Support is HARD and asking guys who know how, but are out of the service, to also call in CAS - probably without the proper codes, commo, laser target designators and equipment.

-- If you fuck this up, the wrong people die in job lots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Sayyd_Alma_Kalay_airstrike comes to mind. Awkward if you kill the Ambo you were trying to save. You can also end up killing friendlies, which costs you their help and ends up with a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu_Mile situation.

-- You can certainly have drones over the city, in a position to provide information, but not be in a position to downlink this to a 'secret' base, or the diplomatic protection team for an ambassador. It is nice to pretend that maybe the drones are armed, but given that there are presently two Federal agencies that run armed Predators - CIA and the US Air Force -- perhaps we can credit CIA with a little competence and assume they knew the drone's armament status. Even if it was armed (a colossal waste of fuel, given that nobody knew in advance that Benghazi was about to take a dump), that only gives you _one shot_. What do you drop on? See targeting decision above.

-- Suggesting unarmed high speed fly-bys as a method of 'intimidating' the attackers is also asinine. Some people just don't intimidate that much. You also get diminishing returns - they hide and duck for a minute, but after a decided lack of 'BIG EXPLOSIONS HERE,' they get up and continue with the mission.

It is however true that criminal incompetence was involved throughout the Benghazi affair. However this incompetence did not take place on the night of the attack, or the morning after. It takes years to screw up this bad, and since what they screwed up is pretty much security, I have a lot of opinions on that - see next post.

13 Hours - The Real Incompetence

In my prior rant, I cut apart how Michael Bey chose to portray the US response to the invasion of the (nearly empty) diplomatic compound and later attack on the CIA Annex.

Now I will cut apart the incompetence of the command teams and security personnel. No disrespect to the dead, but y'all fucked up.

-- You don't build an Animal Shelter - let alone establish a sensitive facility or military base - without fundamental basics. You analyze the security threats in the area. You put up defensive measures, including a perimeter and defense in depth, separating sensitive areas from less sensitive ones. You have quality guards appropriate to the threat level. You establish relationships so that there is a reaction force, that WILL come to your rescue with quality personnel, in an established time frame. You have an evacuation plan. You train your personnel for contingency scenarios including both evacuation and siege. You plan for and have equipment and trained personnel (and auxiliary backups) for any emergency that can happen in a 'civilian' setting. Fire, Medical, Armed Intrusion, Workplace Violence, Bomb Threat, Suspicious Package ... now allow for the fact that you are thousands of miles from highly qualified Western help.

-- NGOs - Non Governmental Organizations - who operate in dangerous areas often do so WITHOUT the benefit of being allowed to possess firearms or hire highly skilled, heavily armed foreign nationals (effectively mercenaries, although they don't fit the legal definition). They have worked out numerous survival techniques which are particularly appropriate to both diplomatic and intelligence personnel. Key techniques neglected in Benghazi included:

--- effective liaison with local government officials and armed groups, including potential adversaries

--- a medical logistics plan for obtaining medical attention for injured NGO personnel

--- restrictions on travel, movement routes and exposure appropriate to the situation - it is the height of incompetence to be tripped up by a roadblock when picking up someone from the airport!

--- a clearly defined, secured perimeter protected by appropriate measures, including lights you have positive control over; security cameras with pan-tilt-zoom and night vision capability; signage including host nation signage as appropriate

--- a tripwire of local but highly motivated, trained security personnel (who may or may not be armed) who will protect the perimeter and provide essential warning of a security breach

--- an outer tripwire of local law enforcement, also highly motivated (by diverse means, including bribery)

--- security personnel who speak the local language and can effectively interact with all of the above

--- an inner perimeter with bunkers against heavy weapons attacks

--- a clearly defined evacuation plan which can be executed within two (2) hours of the decision, including a destruction plan if sensitive information or equipment is involved

--- basic logistics needs (food, water, medical supplies) for at least twice the intended duration of a siege; don't forget the snacks!

Hotel Rwanda actually did a better job of defending itself and keeping the people inside alive than either compound did! Medicos Sin Fronteres does a better job of protecting its folks - admittedly with a very different security model, but an effective one. (Their bribe is medical care for all parties, which is very attractive to everyone who carries a gun including potential attackers...)

To hammer on some key points:

-- The 'security guards' have to dress up one of the locals in armor and a helmet and drag him along to interpret, and still can't tell who the good guys and the bad guys are!

-- The medical planning was especially poor. At least two of the non combatant CIA personnel should have been cross qualified and trained in combat lifesaver skills (basically first aid plus), with necessary equipment at hand.

-- No bunkers or other protective facilities were provided at the CIA annex. This is literally the first thing an infantry unit does when it takes control of an area. Dumb, dumb dumb! Third world soldiers do this! Get out your shovel and DIG! OK, maybe you didn't have any idea of that threat level, but those neatly landscaped facilities imply gardening tools, right? DIG IN!

-- The facilities at the diplomatic yard were too big, too spread out, and impossible to protect or control due to the enormous perimeter. The Ambassador was poorly served by the decision to shelter in place under those conditions. He should have E&E'd (escape and evaded) out.

-- A safe room should have provisions for what to do if the building catches fire or is set on fire. This necessarily includes self contained breathing protection (SCBA) NOT GAS MASKS, which are nearly useless in a smoke environment. This could also include several ordinary fire extinguishers, sand buckets (especially useful against incendiary liquids) and possibly even a portable foam system. (This is also very useful if, say, an evacuation helicopter crashes at the remote site, which is totally a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw)

-- Upon being trapped, the close in team should have immediately executed a breakout. So you get killed (aww....) or your principal gets held hostage (sux0r) ... but at least y'all don't star at a diesel barbecue. (Hint: diesel is hard to light and does not burn the way it was depicted in the movie...)

-- Any austere or remote facility should have emergency procedures AND TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT for firefighting, _especially_ if the local fire brigade is not up to stuff, is not responding, or prefers bullet avoidance. Or all three. A single set of SCBA gear might have saved the Ambassador's life.

A last word on command and control. The armed forces used to literally try, convict and execute commanding officers who so failed in their basic obligations as to display cowardice, a lack of control over their own personnel, or lose lives needlessly as the result of failure to take basic measures.

The CIA station chief may have been decorated for his actions, but his inability to control his own employees is a real, serious issue that had many other consequences. His failure to take the most basic measures to protect the lives of his own personnel is execrable. I will let "Bob" (a former Army medic who didn't provide any medical care that day either) speak for himself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-chief-in-benghazi-challenges-film-version-of-2012-attack/2016/01/15/9cf2defc-baf7-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

Now, "Bob," you are responsible for the lives of your personnel. You were the senior representative of the US government in a dangerous outpost. You fucked up hard core, real bad -- if not for the reasons shown in the movie -- by failing to provide for basic essentials to keep your people alive. EVERYBODY in a conflict zone builds shelters! EVERYBODY figures out how to turn off and on the lights! EVERYBODY knows who is in charge and follows instructions since they don't want to star in a 15 second segment on CNN.

Political Rant: Syrian Refugees

Welcome. If you are reading this, you almost certainly linked over from FB.

Political Rant: ON

Syrian refugees: the American thing to do is to take in as many as we can, assimilate them to our culture, and move forward. I don't know what the Syrians use for cuisine, but I'd like some a few years from now.

I would prefer that Syrian men of military age be offered the opportunity to fight for their country, which is a poster child for hosed. At minimum we should offer them a rusty SKS and a hundred rounds and our prayers. Better if we refer them to the Kurds or the French Foreign Legion, which specializes in sending people to where they can die. (Don't believe me, it's their motto!) Best if we actually get the American Foreign Legion (not the socialites) off the ground and offer them citizenship in exchange for five years combat service, saving their own country to boot.

I make no secret of my disdain and disgust for the Muslim faith, particularly as practiced by fundamentalists who believe they are compelled to take over the government of whatever land they find themselves in. The fundamentalist Muslim faith is neither religion nor government nor social system - it is all of these, and there is no difference between blasphemy and treason. These fundamentalist Muslims are an inherent threat, and as such should be carefully watched.

To suggest that we should not permit Muslim refugees to come to America is to admit that our time-honored ability to assimilate other peoples is inferior - that their beliefs will prevail should we let them come here. Nothing could be more absurd. In fact, there are several strategic reasons we should allow this:

1) mercy

2) a cadre of people who speak the languages of the area

3) immigrant gratitude, economic growth

4) a return to classic American values

5) lessen the strain on our allies around the world, for whom assimilation vs. disintegration is more a threat

I have no quarrel with Muslims who agree to follow the laws of the land in which they find themselves. They pose no special threat, and I find their religion no more (or less) ridiculous than many others whose adherents I am able to admire.

Nonetheless, the very idea of requiring Muslims - or those of any faith - to wear identifying badges is outrageous. In my eyes, Donald Trump has disqualified himself from seeking the Presidency, and his candidacy should go down to a rousing and very expensive defeat. Were such an insane idea to become law, I would be among the first to proudly wear a "Muslim Badge" ... although in fairness I would also wear the labels "Pagan" and "Infidel," just so we are clear who should be shot at.

Terrorism in Paris. I have two domains of remarks on this: one strategic and one geopolitical.

Strategic: "Terrorists cannot hurt you as long as you keep your nerve." The world is full of soft targets. I have suggestions for how to harden them (it is sort of my day job), but no matter how much harm terrorists do, they cannot create any lasting benefit for themselves and their factions so long as 1) their violence is repudiated, 2) no one negotiates with them, and 3) people pick up the pieces and carry on, preferably in grand style.

Geopolitical: if there is any truth to the rumor that certain US and UK factions back ISIL (preferably referred to as Daesh), and that ISIL sought and obtained permission prior to the Paris terrorist attacks, we have a desperately dangerous situation, to wit: a US faction backed a terrorist attack on the capital city of a non-aligned NUCLEAR ARMED POWER, i.e. France, and holy shit you don't do that!

If world geopolitics take a weird turn, blow up suddenly and everyone ends up shooting at everyone in a glory of world genocidal tragedy, this is how that shit starts.

Gun control: I believe it is axiomatic that the private ownership of firearms, not just in America but around the world, is a human right, and that denying that human right lays a stepping-stone to genocide. Would private firearms have made a difference in Paris? Perhaps - but that does not mean the victims are to blame for their own demise, nor does it mean that a suggestion of this is welcome during tense times. Would private firearms have made a difference in Rwanda? Oh hell yes - most of the killing was done by mobs, and some retreated before UN observers with pistols. Will private firearms make a difference in preventing genocide in America? One hopes not, but given the stakes, it's an insurance precaution we'd better not neglect.

That's all I have time for right now. Same bat-time, same bat-channel.

An Open Letter to Democratic Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

To: Anna Eshoo

I am writing to express my outrage and contempt for your YES vote to extend the Patriot Act. If it were possible, I would be even more infuriated by the decision by Democrats to attempt to hide the vote within another measure to escape public scrutiny.

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/dems-abandon-reforms-extend-patriot-act/

This is the second time you have voted on major legislation against your own stated interest and the interests of the vast majority of your constituents. The first was with respect to the bank "bailouts" which are now recognized to have been a loot job of the Federal treasury.

You took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is very specific on this point:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I am a voter in your district. The Democratic Party will never get another vote from me as long as I live and you, you personally, in your cowardice and hypocrisy in supporting an extension of the blatantly unConstitutional Patriot Act when the Democrats hold the majority and you hold the power to vote your conscience, are the reason why.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll067.xml

"That’s the vote on whether to extend the Patriot Act without any reforms of its abusive spying programs. It doesn’t look like it, of course, but the Patriot Act extension is what’s referred to by “Senate Amendments”. The Senate Democrats sneaked the Patriot Act extension into a Medicare reform bill, and then voted by voice vote to approve the amendment so that no politician would have to have their name attached to this shameless abandonment of liberty. The House Democrats benefited from the maneuver as well, being able to vote on unnamed amendments related to Medicare reform, rather than having it on the record for everyone to see that they voted to renew the worst abuses of the Patriot Act without any effort to protect Americans from their spying powers at all."

"We here at Irregular Times refuse to go along with this underhanded political charade. We’re naming names. "

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/02/25/patriot-act-without-reforms-passes-house-roll-call-included/

Posted to my blog.

January 2010: BOHICA

I am once again getting my electronic act together.

I am drewkitty on Twitter and on Facebook. I am actually set up to tweet from the field now, so feel free to follow along. I can't promise much on Facebook except Mafia Wars posts, but it all depends on how you look at those :)

BOHICA is an acronym which stands for "Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!"

In this case we're talking about the ongoing crash of the American economy, the War Of Terror, and the creeping tide of bureaucracy and corporate greed which race to overcome the unwary.

This is a great time to be ready. Ready for what? Good question. I may blog about it, or I may not. Zombie apocalypse? Probably not. Nanotechnological warfare? Not just yet. Robot assassins cruising the skies? We're there now. http://xkcd.com/652/

Food on the shelves and gas in your tank? Roof over your head? Hits a little closer to home, does it not?

Cheers.

Super Tuesday

Ah, too bad. Obama and Clinton want my guns. McCain and Romney just want the rest of my freedoms.

traitor to America

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God,” Huckabee told a Warren, Michigan audience Monday night, “and that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards."

Here's our fundamentalist candidate, firmly outed.

He must be defeated so soundly that no one ever tries to monkey with the Constitution in the name of religion again.

media censorship at work

A decision has been made that Ron Paul is not newsworthy. AP won't write full articles on him, only local newspapers and international media. Fox News even edits Ron Paul's name out of AP news stories that briefly mention him!

Only the writer's strike has gotten Ron Paul any media exposure, his invitation to the Jay Leno show. Otherwise there is an echoing silence on the #5 candidate in the Republican primary, with $20 million in the bank (!!!) and a serious possibility of running a third party bid.

I have heard an unconfirmed report that when CNN broadcast the pie chart for the Republican primary, Giuliani's 9% was labeled but Paul's 8% was not.

Remember what I used to do for a living. The word has gone out, don't write stories on Ron Paul.

(from CNN)

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY January 08, 2008
Race

McCain 86,802 37%
Romney 73,806 32%
Huckabee 26,035 11%
Giuliani 20,054 9%
Paul 17,831 8%
Thompson 2,808 1%
Hunter 1,195 0%

news.google.com "Ron Paul" and compare to Rudy Giuliani
Results 1 - 10 of about 31,934 for Rudy Giuliani. (0.31 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 16,713 for Ron Paul. (0.31 seconds)

Hmmm....

Reference links (sorry, HTML broken, no time to fix)


http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/16969/its-time-for-ron-paul-to-go-bye-bye/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ron-paul-loser.html

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/the-end-of-ron-paul/

http://donklephant.com/2008/01/09/ron-paul-finishes-5th-in-new-hampshire-is-the-revolution-over/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/09/the-problem-with-paul/


Background and reaction pieces

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080108/ron_paul_080108/20080108?hub=TopStories

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108

http://www.galesburg.com/opinions/x1925657791

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/174684.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ronpaulreigns.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS189298+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/01/08/fox_news_antiron_paul_bias_shows_itself_again.php

Contradicting Terrorist Lies

I have set myself the challenge of replying to 'antimedia' only with Web links, so that others can get some use out of this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre Wikipedia: Nanking Massacre

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm German Declaration of War with the United States: December 11, 1941

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14986702/ Clinton defends bin Laden efforts, rips host

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm Snopes.com

"Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans. Status: False."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden Wikipedia: Osama bin Laden

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1998_register&docid=fr25au98-133.pdf
Executive Order 13099 of August 20, 1998 Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process [PDF]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216480,00.html Clinton's Braggadocio Will Haunt U.S. in War on Terror

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention Wikipedia: Fourth Geneva Convention

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

"Art 85. Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/(SPF)/party_main_treaties/$File/IHL_and_other_related_Treaties.pdf State Parties to the Following International Humanitarian Law and Other Related Treaties as of 5-Dec-2007

Excerpt: "GC I-IV 1949: Afghanistan 26.09.1956 Iraq 14.02.1956 USA 10.04.1975"

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/petraeus-testimony-slides20070910.pdf 10 September 2007 - Maps and Charts to Accompany the Testimony of General Petraeus [PDF] Slides 1, 4, 10 and 11.

http://www.state.gov/s/wci/us_releases/rm/19448.htm
Department of Defense Briefing on Humane Treatment of Iraqi and U.S. POWs Under Geneva Convention

"And Article V of the Prisoner of War Convention, it specifies that if there is any doubt as to the status of a person, that person is entitled to prisoner-of-war protection until his or her status has been determined. That determination can be done by an Article 5 tribunal, which is a tribunal, set up by the military to look at the facts and circumstances of the capture and any other information. They then make a determination or recommendation. Our past practice, in Vietnam as well as in the first Gulf War, was that if at any time there remains any doubt, that person will be entitled to prisoner-of- war status."

http://www.usmm.org/halifax1812.html Old war's victims forgotten no longer

"During the War of 1812, Canada was still part of the British Empire, and Halifax served as the Royal Navy's most important base in North America. According to Admiralty records, more than 8,100 American prisoners of war were held at a military detention camp on Melville Island."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml CIA Flying Suspects To Torture?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866 CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/14/bashmilah/print.html?source=whitelist Inside the CIA's notorious "black sites"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316382,00.html Report: CIA Agent Says Waterboarding is 'Torture, But Necessary'

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17117379 CIA Interrogation Tapes: A Search for Answers

http://www.shadowmonkey.net/articles/general/dear-senators-cia-letter-on-torture.html Dear Senators - CIA Letter on Torture

"We believe it is important to combat the hatred and vitriol espoused by Islamic extremists, but not at the expense of being viewed as a nation who justifies or excuses torture and incarceration without recourse to a judicial procedure." Signed by 11 CIA, 3 DoD, 1 FBI and 2 State Dept. employees.

What does a "Trillion" look like?!?!?

(excerpted from an LJ comment I made about current budget claims by the Bush administration, which I will not dignify by citing here)

Does anyone have any conception of what a "trillion" dollars looks like?

The last time I looked, it cost about $4.5 billion to buy a modern aircraft carrier (warship) and another $5 billion to buy its aircraft. So call it $10 billion per carrier.

We have about ten carriers, counting two conventional carriers in place of the one nuclear carrier which is typically refueling, in refit, etc. and thus unavailable.

A trillion dollars is ONE HUNDRED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, or TEN TIMES the US Navy's present carrier fleet. This is enough military power to operate at sea over 7,000 combat aircraft, able to handily devastate any armed power on the planet except maybe Russia or China (and even then, give them hives and fits).

The University of California system plows through something like $8 billion per year. That's right, the entire UC system with its training and education benefits, libraries, repositories of scientific knowledge, cutting-edge scientific research and medical advancements . . . costs less than one carrier. Given all of the long term benefits to society and civilization generally, a cheap bargain for taxpayers despite amazing levels of waste and corruption.

A "trillion dollars" is ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY Universities of California, or a UC caliber higher education system for every nation on the planet.

The UC hospitals cost another $4 billion and provide four (4) Level I trauma centers out of nine hospitals, treating 135,000 inpatients; 240,000 emergency cases and 3.6 million outpatients while training over 12,000 medical professionals.

A "trillion dollars" is TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY UC hospital systems providing First World outpatient care to 900 million people, or four times the population of the United States. Call it buying a hospital system for all of China.

California's state budget is $145 billion.

A "trillion dollars" is the state budget (including schools, prisons and three (!) college systems) for SEVEN states the size of California! In rough terms, this is buying a strong, multi-tiered K through grad school educational system for the entire United States of America -- plus large chunks of a police and prison system, just in case.

A back-of-envelope calculation elsewhere suggested that $1 trillion could purchase enough solar panels to provide 15% of America's electric power.

Best estimate of the Iraq War to date costs range from $500 billion to $1 trillion. This does not include care for disabled veterans, loss of productivity from casualties, or secondary effects of retasking of persons and companies from civil to military work.

A single trillion is a scary amount of power, makes a megawatt look tame.

Lifehouse

I am pleased to see that one of my favorite Spider Robinson stories has been posted to the Internet as part of his Lifehouse trilogy.

"God Is An Iron" by Spider Robinson

I can't promise that it's a fun read. But it makes a worthwhile point.

The entire series is quite good. Among other feats, Spider makes a reasonable case for circumstances under which torture is morally acceptable, and a hypothetical (if wildly unlikely) way in which humanity could retroactively invent God.

2019 update:

Baen has reconfigured its Web site. However, "God Is An Iron" is available through the Baen CDs, and as such as author's permission for Internet hosting.

An alternative link can be found here: http://deathwish.net/arch/godisaniron.htm

dead link: http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1416555110/1416555110___2.htm

What Do We Owe Our Iraq Veterans?

Rather a lot.

If you've been reading my blog at all, you know that I am a bit left wing. As a friend of mine puts it, "[drewkitty], you're a moderate, but the country went so far right you fell off the left wingtip about a decade ago."

That said, recent events have caused me to think a bit about what we as a nation owe our soldiers and sailors and Marines and aviators who have gone in harm's way and paid with sanity, limb and life.

My opinion about the Iraq War boils down to "We broke it, we bought it." Having committed to this strategy in the Middle East, we simply MUST see it through. The national security and perhaps the ultimate survival of the United States now depend on a victory in Iraq or a departure that does not weaken us in the eyes of our (more numerous) enemies worldwide.

The members of our armed forces have lived up to their side of the deal. Sign up for dangerous work (that sometimes kills in peacetime), some training, mediocre pay and benefits . . . and receive the indifference of a distracted nation.

What about our side of the deal? Yes, the Iraq War is a stupid and unjust war. So? We called, they hauled. Consider how much harder it is to fight a war under these conditions, when it's pretty blatant that it's an American power grab.

What about military objectors to the war who chose to suffer disciplinary action or courts martial instead of going? Good for them, putting their lives and futures where their hearts and mouths are. Better, that they serve our nation by challenging and helping to define our rules while pricking our conscience. Sad but necessary that they will be found guilty and do their time. We need an armed forces that does what the civilians tell them to do, that goes where directed and stays where needed.

Thank a vet. Be nice to a vet. No matter how you feel about the war, they deserve your respect and your thanks. The Iraq War may have more to do with protecting your SUV's gas tank than the city of New York, but that does NOTHING to lessen what we as a nation -- and those of us who are civilians individually -- owe to those who put their bodies between "home and the war's desolation."

Also we need to do our part. VOTE VOTE VOTE! You don't like America's foreign policy, vote in a President who will do something about it! Unhappy with the Iraq War? Look up your Congresscritter's voting record and decide how much blood is on whose hands, and vote accordingly.

The Golden Compass

Apparently, the most coherent objections to the new movie "The Golden Compass" are hidden behind a $5.00 download of an E-pamphlet from the Catholic League. The best Web search I was able to conduct (with limited time on breaks) found five major points of objection.

On the drewkitty scale of morality, we are zero for five! Let's throw down.

* Blasphemy against the Judeo-Christian concept of God

Even if I were devout, this one would be silly. Blasphemy is a religious crime to begin with. If God's a fact, all He has to do is laugh and point and say "Here I am!" If their version of God is a lie, those who call it blasphemy are double liars; triple if they're hypocrites.

* Depiction of Catholic Church as evil, and religion in general as obscurant

No disagreement on either point. If the movie portrays this accurately, more power to them. I have held for a long time that "If the Devil were to set out to create an organization to promote and maximize human suffering, he could do no better than to create the Catholic Church."

* Promotion of the occult

Um, hey, I'm Wiccan.

* Endorsement of relativism as an acceptable system of belief

Depends. If the right to make your own decisions as to what is morally right and wrong is relativist, I'm four square on the side of human empowerment. If the definition of "relativism" is situational ethics or "do-it-if-it-feels-good" then I have a problem with relativism.

* Heretical portrayal of the human person

What the dickens is this supposed to mean?

"Every man and woman is a star!"

If you deny the spark of divinity that is in every person, in my opinion you deny the essence of deity itself.

LJ "Content Protection Feature"

Back when I was an academic (yes, I know, shameful) I wrote a few papers on issues of content regulation and the Internet. In that research I identified "the default" as a most important variable. Most people can't be bothered* to change their technical settings, so the decision of the program author as to what privacy / security settings are automatic tends to be final for a big chunk of the installed base.

LJ just forced all LJ users into accepting "filtered content" as their defaults, and worse, created a misleading system by which any user who responsibly selected "adult concepts" found their material cut-tagged and blacklisted.

This is a horrible act of censorship. I recognize this and therefore I'm gone. Blogger it is.

* Bothered could mean not knowing how to change the settings (12:00 blinking VCRs anyone?); not having time to read the manual or the fine print; or simply trusting in the program authors to know what is best.

Abandoning Live Journal

The "adult content protection" change on LiveJournal has been the last straw. I went from being a paid user back to unpaid out of frustration with how LJ has been treating its user base.

Now I'm switching to Blogger. I'll read LJ and you'll see my posts there (a little late) courtesy of syndication, but I refuse to contribute another sentence of my copyrighted work (i.e. everything I type) to these pixel thieves.

2019 update: LJ no longer accepts crossposts from DW because I won't agree to new LJ terms. So nothing here will end up over there.

the serpent of radical Islam

Why do we nurture the serpent that is radical Islam? Granting them an endless state of war, cheerfully embracing the role of Great Satan (and acting accordingly), funding Islamists behind the scenes in Iraq and Pakistan . . . I fail to see how we could do more to prop up the Caliphate.

Where we should be corrupting fundamentalist Islam with the weapons of wealth, Baywatch and human sexuality, we are instead cementing their world view and paying to do it with the blood of our sons and daughters.

One Laptop Per Jihad

I recently had the opportunity (at Baycon) to play with a working OLPC ("One Laptop Per Child") unit. http://www.laptop.org/ | http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Home

Any self respecting insurgent wants one. Easily flashable, ruggedized, deniable, small keyboard but sealed, USB ports, small screen not as vulnerable to detection.

Children's mileage may vary. Aside from the very real risk of having an insurgent haul it out of the kid's hand, it is neither self-explanatory nor easy to use.

current status 2007

For the moment I'm going to do most of my public posts on blogger, mostly because I'm peeved at LJ. Friends posts will still be on LJ, but this whole thing motivates me to want to set up my own discussion wiki and/or learn how to use aggregators. Any suggestions?

I can't talk about work, except that we are reaching a decision point after which I will either be far busier, or unemployed. Remains to be seen.

My other major project requires some wiki-support as well. Due to the LJ issue, I need third party hosting for it. It will need to be password protected. Any suggestions?

*hugs* to all. I hope to catch up on sleep this weekend.

2019 update: it's amazing how much my work has gone up and down over the years. But I seem to have managed the interesting trick of staying with the same company, if not the same job, for nearly two decades now.

LJ! Dangerbot!

You may know by this time about the great LJ censorship project and about SixApart's cowardice. If not, look around. :)

what is the habeus in this corpus?

I assume everyone's heard of the Attorney General of the United States saying that habeus corpus is not a right.

>>> The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

>> In the absence of rebellion or invasion, the courts may require that the executive branch produce a prisoner and bring that prisoner within the jurisdiction of the court, for adjudication of their fate according to law.

>>Impeach. Not fire. High crimes sounds about right.

says LJ-user jordan179:

> I would imagine that Elian Gonzalez would argue that terrorism against America would constitute exactly that ... "rebellion or invasion," depending upon whether or not the terrorist was an American citizen.
>
> Why would you argue that it wasn't?

Herewith my reply:

The fallacy is treating the individual citizen or non-citizen as if they were a state rather than an individual subject to the power of the state (in the case of non-citzens) or a member of the body politics (in the case of the citizen).

Certainly the government has the power to preserve its own existence, and in cases of rebellion or invasion, a threat to the continuity of government -- however remote -- exists.

In cases of simple crime or even terrorism, no threat to the government itself exists. Therefore, suspending the right of habeus corpus is itself a greater threat to society than a criminal or terrorist act, however horrific.

Treating terrorist crime as a warlike act seems to impute the status of prisoners of war to criminals, or alternatively to create a class of persons who are neither criminal nor POW, and thus placed outside the bounds of civilized law.

Such a class should not exist. Civilization is not something we can set aside for temporary expediency or convenience.

Even if we were to posture that such a class should exist, to suggest that an American citizen, however monstrous (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind) should be stripped of citizenship and placed outside the rule of law ... is itself an attack on the rights of every American citizen.

Further, the right of habeus corpus is an essential part of the checks and balances between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. In particular, it is the right of the judiciary to assert criminal jurisdiction over an individual person for their actions -- whether accused of a crime unjustly, or ostensibly able to defy the law through control of police and/or soldiers. This is essential to preventing executive officials in particular from breaking the law at whim -- which is exactly what the Bush regime has been doing, by its own admission, for years now. (It is worthy of note that legislators in session are immune from executive action, but not from judicial action, and that immunity for the executive subject to impeachment only extends to making the House into the triers of fact and the Senate into the final judges.)

Elian Gonzalez has violated his oath to the Constitution of the United States and should immediately resign. If he does not resign, he should be impeached and his unfitness to hold an office of trust or profit thereby established. Either he is grossly ignorant (which fails the laugh test due to his considerable judicial experience) or he believes that his executive position gives him the right to run rampant over the rights of any person, citizen or non-citizen, prior to any finding of fact by court or jury.

Even the meanest condemned criminal has the right to pray for justice, and to have that justice meted out by the court. Taking away this right is not just an offense against him personally (which is a small thing in the grand scale) . . . but an offense against every citizen and every person with rights, and a weakening of the judiciary's ability to protect each and every one of us from false accusations, unjust arrest and interrogation, torture and even murder.

fish sauce, cheap pawns and why "jihadis are good for your children"

The academics have been warning about the threat of Muslim extremism since at least the 1970s. The destruction of the towers was not only the second attack on the towers but also the second Al Queda plot involving hijacked aircraft! So 9/11 was a wakeup call only to those who didn't know.

I believe that The Powers That Be are setting the Islamic jihadis up as the next "Great Enemy" and that in fact, to make it a worthy struggle, we are quietly pumping them up behind the scenes and doing all sorts of things that only boost their numbers, their finances, their arsenal (an enormous chunk of which is being sold to them by the USA and Europe!!!) . . . and certainly causing our allies to desert us in greater numbers. Iraq has certainly worked well for this purpose.

It's a race between the cultural assimilation of the radical Muslim (the positive factor that will end the War of Terror) and the use of terror by fanatics on both sides to enrage and blind the West as well as the East. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib (and by extension, most of what we've actually done in Iraq, if not the invasion itself) are stupid moves . . . unless, of course, you're recruiting for Al Queda. Failing to clean up Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . goes beyond tragic. Always remember that Pakistan is a nuclear armed power!

Iran can see the writing on the wall, and while they don't particularly want to be cast as the Great Enemy, they certainly don't want to go down without a fight the way Iraq did. Ironically, with a little quiet effort in supporting Iranian opposition parties, we could actually have a counter-revolution in Iran. The fact that we're not trying this seems proof to me that we don't want a weak Iran, rather the opposite.

I think a lot of American soldiers are beginning to realize that they are being used up like cheap pawns in a war we don't really want to win. (Sound familiar . . . is that black pyjamas and tire sandals and fish sauce I smell?) Unfortunately, many of them are being encouraged to blame "leftist" Americans instead of the neocons who are doing it to them.

We are about to live in Interesting Times.

regarding the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)

Summary: the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) project desires to sell $100 laptops to developing country governments, with which to educate their children into 21st century digerati and close the gap between global North and South.

I'm pessimistic. Herewith my commentary, as posted within http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Home

The Cult of the Individual and the OLPC

I have been following the OLPC project with some interest. I've read through chunks of this Wiki and various public articles. I've also read the article in the MIT Quarterly publication.

I fear that the OLPC team will come up with a great technological achievement that will be a dismal failure at deployment time.

The sociocultural baggage carried by the OLPC ("One Laptop Per Child") may well get in the way of the project's own objectives.

OLPC is essentially individualist. Empower the child through access to advanced information technology . . . and get out of the way.

However, in the bulk of the world, children are not seen as individuals and, just as important, do not see themselves as individuals. The essential social relation is that of the family and NOT of the individual. The poorer the family, the stronger the family bond, as long as the family itself has hope of survival. Children are expected to contribute, and do contribute, to the survival of the family. Children also represent the investment capital of the family -- to the extent that children go to school, it is in order to improve their skills and earning power to support their parents in their old age.

An African proverb sums this up best: "Me against my brother; me and my brother against my family; me and my family against my village; me and my village against my tribe; me and my tribe against my country; me and my country against the world."

The involvement of the family group in the OLPC project is essential. Will the older brother watch the cows so that younger brother can spend more time on the OLPC? Does Father's need to keep his small business books on the OLPC override his son's need to learn to read? Will the OLPC end up used primarily as a backlight so that Mother can keep sewing into the evening?

To introduce the OLPC into the family without considering the effects on the family -- and the village, and the tribe -- is to add yet another destabilizing influence. From the perspective of the individual (and of the Western 'cult of the individual') this is a positive factor.

From the perspective of the actual gatekeepers and stakeholders in the OLPC process, from Ministers of Education through regional train-the-trainers, local schoolteachers, village elders, heads of household and their families . . not necessarily so.

No one in authority feels that they will gain from something that diminishes that authority, no matter the apparent good that "other people" might derive from it.

I am concerned that the local petty authorities will -- correctly if the technology is haphazardly deployed -- see the OLPC as a disruptive, destabilizing influence and either "lose" the OLPCs, sell them on what will clearly be a hot black market, or (perhaps worst) lock them in a closet and only let kids handle them when a dust plume from a visiting inspector's vehicle is seen on the horizon.

The alternative is to use the OLPC as what sociologists call a "change agent." Make the OLPC accessible and usable by the entire family group. Tackle the equally arduous challenge of adult literacy at the same time as educating the next generation. If the parents get X amount of good out of the OLPC, they will be more likely to support their children in getting exponentially more good (X to the Y) out of the OLPC, even if they never quite understand the benefits themselves.

To misquote Shakespeare, my advice to the project team is "Get thee to a sociologist, quick!"

In all seriousness, the initial deployment in each major cultural grouping (which may be several per country!) should include a researcher with local language skills and some exposure to ethnographic techniques and/or anthropology, tasked to get feedback not only from students and teachers but from the communities in which the OLPCs are deployed.

Social facts are exactly that -- facts, which the outsider ignores at the very real risk of failure.

[drewkitty] M.A. [degree], University of California, Irvine (I am no longer affiliated with UCI and my opinions are my own.)

How To Win The War On Terror

Let's assume that a War on Terror is a good idea. This is a huge assumption. I've written oodles on the idea that declaring "war" on anything is a recipe for utter failure and disaster, for reasons ranging from reification to the government agency budget cycle. The utter success and minimal cost of the War on Drugs certainly shows that "Wars" are a great way to solve embedded sociological problems. NOT.

Now, let's go back to the dictionary.

War. 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war . . . 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end a class war a war against disease

Terror. 1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT. . . 4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands insurrection and revolutionary terror

Let's go with War 2(b) and Terror (4) to get a definition for the War on Terror.

"a struggle . . . between opposing forces or for a particular end [against] violent or destructive acts [ . . ] committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands"

I see several ways of achieving this.

1) Identify and destroy the terrorist groups. This implies a working intelligence apparat with the necessary tools (i.e. SpecOps) and national will (i.e. politicians with balls). The latter, America has. The former, we do not.

2) Harden populations and governments so that terrorist demands will be ignored and never granted. This requires that the majority of governments around the world actually be in tune with their populations. There are some problems with this:

a) Most of our "allies" in the developing world are NOT popular governments. The population and the government do NOT agree, and the latter stays in power because of activity by the security forces largely financed by the United States and Europe.

b) Many of the terrorist demands that are made, seem reasonable to a chunk of people around the world. Palestinians, fanatic Muslims, the governments of Syria and Iran, etc. are in agreement with certain terrorist goals.

We must either change their minds, or kill them all. In a "War" there is no middle ground. Direct occupation of Islamic territory is ruinously expensive (c.f. Iraq) and massacre is not only morally bankrupt, but likely to have very negative long-term effects for the so-called victors.

Any weapon can be used in two ways. You can use a weapon to kill and destroy. You can use a weapon to change a person's mind, temporarily, by threatening them with it.

I submit that there is no threat that will permanently change the mind of a religious fanatic.

So if threats do not work, how about bribery?

Don't laugh. Paying people to not commit acts of terror is a popular tradition of the Western liberal democracy. We call it by various names: public education, food stamps, student loans, welfare, the GI Bill, etc. What it is, however, is direct payments to those people who do not presently support themselves by work, that feeds them anyway.

I'm not fond of the idea of paying Danegeld. But this is what we do now when we purchase oil from the Middle East. The problem is that a tithe (literally) of the money that goes into the gas tank of your SUV, pays for the training camps and the IEDS.

Let's do a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. The goal is to consciously and deliberately corrupt the Islamic world. Broadcast not only Voice of America, but the BBC and CNN in hundreds of languages. Put up a few satellites over the Arab nations for the express purpose of giving satellite links to schools, Internet cafes, opposition groups, etc. Air-drop AM and FM hand-crank radios to every village in Asia and Africa. Develop a solid curriculum for education to the American high school level, in all the languages of interest (Arabic, Farsi, etc.) and start broadcasting it for free. Use the Chinese village satellite pack (two solar panels, a deep cycle battery, a TV, satellite dish and receiver, with inverter) and start giving them away. Pop! Instant high school in a box.

Baywatch is already the ideological Marine landing on the beachhead of the Islamist. Crank up the tit power and start broadcasting free hard-core porn, mixed with a bit of street level education about freedom of speech and democracy. Focus at first on Saudi Arabia, where the locals are already so obsessed with porn that they dial up into AOL in the United States over cellular links to evade national-level censorship.

We can't do anything about Ahmed the terrorist. We can do something about Ahmed's brothers and sisters and cousins, and the opinion of his community.

Today: "Celebrate! Ahmed has gloriously given his life to fight the American infidels! He will eat and drink in Paradise! Who will take up the fight against the evil of the Westerners and their heresies?" (Me! Me!)

Tomorrow: "Oh, the poor Ahmed family. They are so ashamed. Ahmed was killed by Americans when he tried to bomb a convoy. He should have known better. The Westerners and their ideas are everywhere. Life in the villages has become so much better since the Americans dug the new well and installed the satellite dish. We see that the Americans are people, just like us."

LJ-Cut tag functionality

I am consciously giving up one thing in the move from LJ to blogspot -- the illusion of privacy in posting "friends only."

I don't want to give up the usefulness of the LJ-cut tag. However, implementing this is beyond me on a Christmas Eve.

Interlude: Boundaries

Interlude: Boundaries
Deviant Survival Guide
Copyright 2006 by drewkitty


[Author's Comment: it has not escaped my notice that I seem to have a life filled with people who have boundary issues, that my profession involves the enforcement and maintenance of boundaries, and last but not least, that my worst problems have been with people who are either blissfully oblivious to boundaries, or simply do not care enough to recognize that they exist. So this is a bit more personal, but in my arrogant opinion, no less relevant.]


Boundaries are about the difference between driving over the yellow line because you don't see it, and knowing that you're driving over the yellow line but not giving a damn.

Accordingly, here is some advice, which is worth what was paid for it.

• I own my actions. You own your actions. Unless your duties involve calling me to account for my actions, don't try. I will disrespect your attempt. I may even mock you. If I am feeling particularly patient, I may choose to explain the boundaries involved . . . but then again, I may not.
  
• You own your feelings. The management (that would be me) assumes neither responsibility nor obligation for any feelings you may choose to have or not have.
  
• I do not set out to hurt other people's feelings. Nor do I treat adult people as fragile cockleshells that would crumple under the weight of a drewkitty thought. Treating people, and especially young women, as if they are fragile and helpless is the fastest way to make them so in fact, and make it easier for predators to victimize them.
  
• "As brethren, fight ye." My friends do not have to be friends with each other. However, I expect fights to be fair and within reasonable boundaries intended to minimize drama and splashback on innocent bystanders. (I am not an innocent bystander in direct proportion to my involvement.)
  
• Incoming fire has the right of way. Friendly fire isn't.
  
• You have the right to negative emotions about me. You have the right to express these to me, within appropriate boundaries and in the context of any interpersonal relationship we may have. Your negative emotions do not privilege you to be rude to third parties, or to behave like an asshat, or to break rules you've agreed to (such as convention policies) or for that matter, the law.
  
• As in a duel, if you choose to exchange fire with me, once you have taken your best shot you are expected to stand your ground like a gentleman (or lady) and take fire in return. If not, I won't make you . . . but I'll lose all respect for you.
  
• You may ask for my time and energy. I may choose to offer it. I may choose not to. The only people who can demand my time and energy, and get away with it, are my employer and those few persons who have a deep friendship or romantic relationship with me. Even they are advised to consider whether they are loading the drewkitty with more than he can bear -- and I will tell them so, because we have a trust level that can support this.
  
• Everyone manipulates. What matters is what one chooses to manipulate for. I choose consciously to manipulate situations in such a way that the best results occur for everyone. My people come first, myself second, innocent bystanders third and active aggressors / asshats a distant fourth.
  
• I place a high value on truth. Lying to me is a fast way to get on my shit list. I don't have time to sort through bullshit. Neither do you. The clock is ticking, Death waits for us all, and Satan laughs every time a lie hurts a person.
  
• Don't ask me unless you want the truth. However, I will listen to almost any question, and will usually give a thoughtful answer. The answer will be true, but may not be complete.
  
• "Never do an enemy a small injury." If I did you a small injury, sorry. The good news is that you're probably not my enemy.
  
• I don't have many enemies. It takes hard work and long effort to become a foe of mine. However, once someone achieves this vaunted status, I shall never forget and shall always plan accordingly. If I am ever found dead, at least one of my enemies will be very surprised to be speaking to the homicide detectives.
  
• Users will find that they can take advantage of me for about twice as long as they can most ordinary people. However, they will also find that once I finally wise up, my tolerance turns to implacable disdain, which I can with difficulty override if there seems to be a good reason. (Rarely.)
  
• I like making good things happen to and for people. I am resigned to the idea that it does not work the other way around. But don't expect me to be cheerful about this.
  
• "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off." I strongly believe this quote by Solomon Short (David Gerrold). "The defining quality of truth is its ability to disturb."
  
• I have good reason to keep the secrets that I do. Don't be offended if you ask about a secret, minor or major, and I simply tell you, "Sorry, I can't share that with you." I may be able to explain why, I may not. Either way, if you take it personally, I have to assume that you're the type of person who can't be trusted with secrets.
  
• I have a very, very high tolerance for deviant behavior. Never assume that this tolerance extends to my professional life, or to obscene behavior in public that offends or hurts others.
  
• Last but not least, the drama llama feeds on injudicious and hasty comments, especially online. Think before you post. Admit it when (not if) you screw up. Being right is the booby prize -- no one wants to hang with someone who is right all the time. One reason I have so few real friends. It would be funny, but it's not.