A Story About a Putter?

People generally think a journalist's job is to report information. The word reporter is often used to describe journalist, but in many cases, journalists are obliged to keep secrets. Usually they trade this secrecy for more important information, protecting sources of information from retaliation by people who do not want the information to get out. The classic case being Woodward and Bernstein protecting the identity of FBI Associate Director Mark Felt by referring to him in their Watergate reporting as Deep Throat. It is not unusual for journalists to go to jail rather than reveal sources for their stories.

But what happens when your source is not being honest with you? All journalists must deal with the fact that confidential informants are not always coming forward for purely altruistic reasons. How much can you rely on information coming from a disgruntled former employee about what is going on inside a company?

Then there is the quandary about what to do when you find out that your source is lying to you. Obviously if you catch somebody in one lie, it puts in question all the information you have gotten from them. Do you reveal all the lies of your source, or do you only report the deceptions that are relevant to the subject at hand? What is your responsibility to your readers, and how much of a responsibility do you still have to your source?

All of these questions were brought to the fore Friday when Grantland published an article by Caleb Hannan entitled Dr.V's Magical Putter, which is a tragic story that starts as an enthusiastic product review of the latest revolutionary new product designed to take a few strokes off your golf game, but ends up an article delving into the complicated life of the product's inventor. The article is very controversial right now, especially among those in the business of writing. What ethical principles apply to a writer who is asked to make the story "about the science, not the scientist," when every step of the way, the scientist has been lying to the writer?

While gathering information about the putter, Hannan discovered that the Dr. V's stated credentials might not be legitimate, which led him to other discoveries about Dr. V. Most of it was pertinent to the story, some not so much, except to show a pattern of deception throughout Dr. V's life. So, what information did Hannan owe his readers, and how much privacy did he owe Dr V? I think that it was possible to have run the story pointing out the credibility problems in regards to Dr. V's claimed background as a scientist without exposing some of the facts of his personal life, though I can understand the argument that the lies about his personal life were important, because the lies about his professional bona fides were merely a few tiles in the mosaic of deception that his entire life had become.

There was also the point that, despite the fact Dr. V's credibility was questionable, it appeared that the product itself was sound, garnering praise from several golf professionals. On this point, it might have been helpful if Hannan had actually discussed the issue with another engineer to see if the science behind the product truly was sound, or if it was just a matter that, when it comes right down to it, no matter the design of the putter, once you are on the green it is almost as much a matter of psychology as physics. Hannan does mention this in the article, telling a story of a science experiment at the University of Virginia that demonstrates the principle of positive contagion. Loosely stated, the idea is that if you believe your equipment is superior, you will perform better, whether the equipment truly is better or not.

It seemed that Hannan wanted to write what was for all intents and purposes, an advertisement for Dr. Vs Oracle GX1 putter, but to tie the whole story together, needed only to show due diligence and verify Dr. V's credentials. This is where the problems started. It appeared that there was a problem with Dr. V's stated educational background. Initially assuming that there could be an innocent explanation for that, Hannan tried to get Dr. V to give more information. That, according to Hannan, is when Dr. V's went from a business executive trying to promote a product while keeping himself in the background to a an uncooperative subject hostile to the entire project. Hannan continued dig for information, still wanting to write a story about a golf outsider who creates a product that revolutionizes the game, but Hannan's research turned up more than he expected.

It would have been impossible to make the entire story about the science and not the scientist after finding out some of what Hannnan did during his research for the article, because the science is only as good as the scientist. There were no peer reviewed papers to support Dr. V's claim of the Oracle GX1's superiority on the greens, and Hannan himself was not able to fully comprehend the technical background information that Dr. V. had provided, so only the doctor's own credibility in making those claims supported them. Yes, there were the endorsements of some professionals who used the product, but the reason the product was supposedly revolutionary was the science that went into its design. If Dr. V. was found to have no credibility as a trained scientist, it would really cast doubt upon his claims. The article could have stopped at the point of debunking Dr. V's credentials, but it is understandable that demonstrating deceitfulness about his personal life added to the overall narrative and enhanced the reader's understanding of the situation.

From my reading of the story, I think a lot of Hannan's problem is not that he got too curious as he got further along into the research, but that he was so enamored of the product and its inventor that he was not skeptical enough in his initial contacts. He missed some indications that things might not be as they were presented. When it was pointed out that the putter, which was supposedly scientifically designed to give you the best performance on the green, was made to retrieve a player's ball out of the cup without him bending down to reach for it, Hannan (who at that time in the process of researching his article was still enamored of the shiny new toy he was playing with) did not even think to ask how much putting performance was sacrificed for that little bit of multi-functionality. As pointed out above, it does not seem like Hannan spoke with any engineers or other golf club designers to see if Dr. V's claims were scientifically sound.

There was also Dr. V's immediate determination to protect his identity, from the first phone call warning that he had the same freedom of information act exemptions as a federal judge, and later claiming her work with the government was so secret that there weren't any records of it. That would have been a red flag for me. As I pointed out in the comments of Rod Dreher's article on the subject at American Conservative, we know Oppenheimer was working with the government, and there was nothing more secret than the Manhattan Project. I am not saying it is totally impossible, but hearing that would have gotten me to raise my antenna.

My biggest questions, however, are about another person in the story. Hannan first found out about the new putter from seeing an infomercial about it featuring Gary McCord, a former PGA Pro who still plays tournaments on the Senior Tour and is well known for announcing golf tournaments on television. McCord loved the putter and even arranged a meeting between Dr. V. and the Taylor Made company to showcase the club and perhaps interest Taylor Made in purchasing Yar, Dr V's company. What makes me wonder about McCord is that he claimed to have known a few generals in the U. S. military, and asked them to verify her claims of working on the Stealth fighter. He claims that one general states  that Dr. V. was "with us." McCord also stated that he facilitated a call between Dr. V and former Vice President Quayle, and he claimed that they talked about some of the projects she worked on.

The super hush-hush so secret she can't even be named as a participant projects. All while one of them was standing within earshot of a man without any type of security clearance. This really does not give me any great confidence McCord's credibility, but I will say that even the most highly guarded government projects would have aspects abut them that are not classified, so maybe it is possible that the McCord facilitated discussion happened.

In the end, the entire story is tragic. In the end, despite all the deceptions and lies, Dr. V. created a product that he believed in, even if he misrepresented it. The product itself was, if not as revolutionary as claimed, at least a solid performer that won the approval of professionals in the field. The story Hannan ended up telling was not the one he expected to tell. The consequences for some involved were far higher than anyone could have foreseen when the story started. If you have not yet read Hannan's article on Grantland, you need to go over and get the full story.

Should Facebook Pay You for Content?

No.

 Question answered. 

Why would anybody think that Facebook should pay us? Because of its business model. Facebook gets money from advertisements- all those little pictures along the side of your timeline bring in money to Mr. Zuckerberg and the stockholders of the company. How much money they get for the ads is dependent upon how many sets of eyes that the company can get to see the ads. The reason so many sets of eyes see the ads is because of its status updates, pictures and links, known collectively as content.

Who provides the content that is attracting 1.3 billion people to use Facebook? We do. Which is why there is even a question about Facebook wages.

Last year, Laurel Ptak, a teacher at the New School in New York City, published Wages for Facebook online, a manifesto, and launched a series of lectures, claiming that Facebook use is labor, especially since it provides profits for Facebook, and as labor needed to be recognized with financial remuneration. Ptak draws her inspiration from a movement on the late '60s and early '70s demanding payment for housework. In fact, her published manifesto is a condensation of Silvia Federici's pamphlet "Wages Against Housework" published in 1975, replacing the word "housework" throughout the essay with the work "Facebook." In fact, the way Ptak's work so closely follows Federici's could give the impression that it is a parody, but, she seems serious about the issue.

The wages for housework movement ultimately failed. The thought that the government should pay people for taking care of themselves and their family didn't catch on. In that sense, the wages for Facebook supporters do have an advantage, in that at least they are seeking payment from somebody who actually benefits from their activity.

They have one great disadvantage, however. The wages for housework advocates actually wanted payment for something that was really labor. Sure, they stretched credibility when they fit everything that woman did under the definition of "housework," but it is hard to deny that ironing and cleaning are work.

Facebook is play. We already log on voluntarily, because Facebook is providing us with a reward in entertainment value. I am, as I am so often, reminded of a joke I heard.

Two generals were on their way to the airport from the Pentagon after receiving a briefing. They were seated in the back of an SUV, with an NCO up front driving for them. The generals passed the time in conversation, and the topic eventually worked its way to sex. 

"By this time in my life," one of the generals told the other, "it seems to me that sex has gotten to be 50% pleasure and 50% work." 

"I kind of agree with you there," said the other general, "but I think it is still 75% pleasure and 25% work." 

The first general saw that the NCO driving them had started snickering at their conversation. "What's the matter, sergeant?" He asked. "Is the thought of a couple of old timers having sex with their wives funny to you?" 

"Not at all, sir," the NCO replied. "It's just the way you two say that you think that sex is work. You both know that if there was really any work involved, you would get an enlisted man to do it for you."

 Facebook is not some dreary activity that we feel obliged to out of some sense of duty. We get a chance to catch up with acquaintances we do not get to see often. We get to brag about our accomplishments and find solace in our miseries. We already feel that being provided a venue to share is payment enough for our online activity.

The goal of the essay seems to be to diminish Facebook's role in modern society. She figures that payment for content rendered will mean we will see it as labor, and will thus be less likely to want to participate:

In fact, to demand wages for facebook does not mean to say that if we are paid we will continue to do it. It means precisely the opposite. To say that we want money for facebook is the first step towards refusing to do it, because the demand for a wage makes our work visible, which is the most indispensable condition to begin to struggle against it.

She is trapped in this language by her strict adherence to Federici's original work, but she does seem to believe this, against the example of the entire human history. Who could even imagine that rewarding any type of behavior would result in that activity becoming less popular? While the thought that we should get off-line and start face to face contact might be a noble goal, payment for services rendered is going to make that happen. Her suggestion is akin to trying to get people to quit smoking by lowering the taxes on cigarettes.


Then there is the most salient point in the discussion. We may provide some content when we log onto Facebook, but as a general rule, we are content consumers. Most Facebook users get much more information from their friends than they provide. If we expect to get paid for the content that we provide, should we expect to pay for the content we consume? If Facebook really thinks that the pictures of your schnauzer wearing a tuxedo are worth paying you for, then it must follow that Facebook believes showing that picture to your friends and acquaintances is worth charging admission for.

You might think that the Facebook business model is unfair to the users who share their lives online only to see their work turned into profit for a giant corporation, but it is really a playground that they have provided for you to share experiences with others. That they are able to make money while providing you with this opportunity should not make you upset that they do not offer you money for showing up.

A Question About the Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To avoid confusion, in large font  and italicized,so you realize that the words are really important, I have quoted the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is one of the more controversial and oft debated clauses in the document.

The sub-issue of the arguments that I would like to address seems to result from the sentence structure of the amendment. The sentence leads with a subordinate clause which seems to state a purpose for the amendment before the operative clause which actually gives instruction to the Congress and courts. I have read arguments that, because of the reference to a militia in the subordinate clause, claim that the right to keep and bear arms mandated by the operative clause must only apply for purposes of serving in the militia. To anybody who holds this belief I have one question.

If militia service is really so integral in the right to bear arms, then why is the operative clause of the amendment written in the manner that it is?

The wording of the subordinate clause does not inevitably lead to the operative clause. Instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," which pretty clearly spells out that people can have guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, and tomahawks, could have been expressed in numerous different ways to ensure limitation of the possession of weapons to those actively participating in militia drill or emergency response. While the archaic language used in the Constitution might seem confusing for the modern reader, it is generally straight forward, with the exception of literary creativity employed to avoid using the words "slavery" and "slave."

So, if clause in the Constitution states that the people have a right to something, then it means that the individual people have a right to that thing. If they intended that there would be exceptions to a right, they would have articulated them, as exemplified by the Third Amendment, which prohibits quartering of soldiers in times of peace, "nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Limitations on the right of the homeowner are included in the amendment itself.

The conclusion I draw from this is that the authors of the Second Amendment intended the right to bear arms as an individual right, otherwise it would not be written to express it as an individual right.

Impressions of the Week

It's the last day of the work week for me, and I haven't posted anything new. Time to gut it out and get to working on this blog. A quick round up of what has caught my attention in the past week.

Starting with what is most important, the rosters of the hockey teams for the Olympics to be played in Sochi have been announced, and the Chicago Blackhawks will have ten players traveling to Russia. Patrick Kane will be playing for the Gold Medal Winning Team USA, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Sharp and Duncan Keith will bring home the Silver Medal with Team Canada, Marcus Kruger and Johnny Oduya will play for Sweden, Marian Hossa and Michal Handzus will play for Slovakia, and Michal Rozsival will be playing for the Czech Republic.

In other sports news, congratulations to Frank Thomas of the Chicago White Sox, who has been selected for the Baseball Hall of Fame, along with sometime Chicago Cub Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine.

Robert Gates memoir of his time as Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush and Barrack Obama was released. There is a lot of talk about his impressions of President Obama and, to a lessor extent, Hillary Clinton, but I really don't think any of that is surprising. Nothing President Obama has said or done since being in office has left me with the impression he had any regard for our military efforts. I will point out that, even though the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was quick to take credit for getting our troops out of Iraq, and does deserve a lot of the scorn and derision directed at him for what is now happening, like the loss of Fallujah to al Qaeda forces, I always had the impression that all the agreements and timelines for withdrawal were already in place when he took office, and that he did not do anything substantial to alter them. So, remember, this time at least, George Bush really does share some of the blame.

Not getting as much attention from the press or blogosphere is what Gates wrote about when he first took over as Secretary of Defense. His predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, left after a contentious term of service. What was the culture and moral in the Pentagon like when Gates arrived? Was there relief that there was a changing of the guard? Were the uniformed leaders open and honest about the situation on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the modernization efforts, or were they guarded and careful about what information they shared and with whom?

Also getting the blogosphere and twitterverse into a frenzy this week was the revelation that aides to Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey used their authority to screw with traffic crossing the George Washington Bridge into the city you don't want your salsa to come from. The reason for this was to mess with the commuters of Ft. Lee, N.J. to get a sort of childish revenge on that city's mayor for not endorsing Christie for Governor. Of course, the internet is exploding as a result of this news. The analysis seems to be that this pretty much ends any chance that Christie might have had to become President, and some even calling for his resignation. Others are wondering what the fuss is really all about because it isn't like we had an ambassador killed as a result.

As you can imagine, a lot of the hubbub is a result of partisan politics, though Christie does get flak from both sides because of his hostility toward conservative Republicans. So, while many Democratic Party hacks are calling for Christie's head, most Republicans are calling the liberals saying such things hypocrites because they don't have a problem with corrupt partisanship when it is practiced by President Obama. Generally these Republicans go about listing many examples of that corrupt partisanship just to refresh the liberal memory.

For my money, I do think this is the end of Christie as a national candidate. While a Democrat governor could brush this off in the long run, Republican voters, especially in the mid-West and South, are not going vote for somebody with that baggage, especially when there are other (and in my opinion much better) choices. I can see a few aides being fired for the imbroglio, but I don't see any immediate repercussions for Christie, except maybe in his ability to get Democrats to work with him. In the long term, it will have a much greater affect on his political career.

In the Good Old Summertime

Summer is in full swing now in the southern hemisphere, which includes Antarctica. You have penguins on the beaches trying to catch some rays, and sea lions just off shore trying to catch some penguins.

Have you heard about the Australian research group aboard the Russian ship MK Akademik Shokalskiy? These are the people who went off to Antarctica trying to demonstrate the effects of global warming by replicating an exploration that was undertaken a century ago. The idea was to assess ice, ocean and ecological conditions at the same locations as the previous party. The expectation was that current ice measurements would be much lower than those taken by Australian Douglas Mawson on his expedition from 1911-1913.

So, did they get the results that they were expecting?

Not quite. They actually were not able to get any readings. You see, as they were in route to Antarctica, they ran into problems. There was a blizzard on Christmas Eve that caused their boat to be iced in. Where they were expecting to go floating merrily along, they were now set firmly in the middle of a skating rink. So, since Christmas Eve, there have been several attempts to rescue the scientists, crew, and tourists that had been trapped.

Wait...what? Did you read that right?

Tourists? On a scientific expedition? Really?

Of course. Don't all scientific expeditions bring tourists along to ensure adequate funding for the project?

In case you didn't notice, that last little bit was in courier font, which is henceforth to be known as the official Sulphur and Cordite sarcasm font.

Does that not tell you pretty much everything you need to know about this expedition? The scientists who dreamed up the excursion could not get adequate funding for it, probably because the legitimacy of the project was questionable, so instead of dropping the idea and looking for other projects, they thought, hey, let's see if we can find a bunch of gullible hippies with too much cash and overcharge them for the trip. Evidently, they found some.

So now, they have enough funding for their expedition, but they also have tourists in tow, and tourists, even gullible hippy tourists, expect at least a modicum of comfort when they shell out big bucks for travel. That meant that, instead of finding an ice breaker, which is the preferred mode of transport for most Antarctic expeditions, they got a cruise ship.

On Christmas eve, three days into summer in the Antarctic, is when they got hit by a blizzard, and they got trapped in the ice. At this point, I honestly don't know whether having an ice breaker would have really been helpful, since it seems the ice they were trapped on was pretty extensive. Ice breakers from three other (and better prepared) expeditions were sent in attempts to break their way to the Akademik Shokalskiy, but the closest any of them were able to get was still 12 miles, (19km) away. Still, they would have been much better off if they had brought the proper equipment in the first place.

Bear in mind the ice breakers that were sent on the rescue efforts were not just standing at the ready to respond in this type of situation like the Coast Guard. These were boats that were on resupply missions to other Antarctic expeditions. Now these other expeditions are being put behind schedule, and some members of those expeditions are being prevented from returning home, as a result of an ill-prepared group that set off on an ill-advised project.

Not disclosed if R. J. Macready was among
the rescue mission helicopter pilots.

Finally today, January 2, all the passengers on board the vessel were retrieved by helicopter. They are on an Australian ice-breaker that will return the to Tasmania, while the crew members will be staying with the ship.

I am a extremely skeptical about global warming being anthropogenic, and I do not really believe it is a concern in the future, near term or long term. I find it hilarious that a an expedition that sets off to gather evidence of global warming gets literally frozen out of its intended purpose.

The members of this expedition have not only become laughingstocks for those who have a reasonable skepticism about the whole anthropogenic climate change theory (justice cannot get any more poetic than a bunch of people trying to prove a warmer climate getting stuck in ice,) but also have raised the ire of other members of the global warming cult, just because they are a shining example that things are not quite as warm as they are trying to convince everybody they are.

Just remember, the only thing settled about science is that we do not know as much as we pretend to, and we only truly understand a fraction of what we know.

When Reality Shows Go Off Script

Happy New Year.

My resolution for 2014 is to write more, and I am starting with this little blog tucked away in a small, cold cavern in a forgotten part of the underworld. I will be posting about current (or current-ish) events, politics and whatever pop culture phenomenon catches my attention. Maybe even some about life for an American in Saudi Arabia, though not much, because, except for a daily commute through the hell that is Riyadh traffic, and a weekly trip to buy groceries, I generally stay on the compound living with all the other American contractors that my company has hired.

So, we will start with the biggest controversy of the past month.

This past week, A&E Network announced that Phil Robertson will be part of the show when they get back to taping Duck Dynasty in the spring. Does this surprise anybody? It shouldn't. I don't think that A&E ever had any intention of shooting any episodes of Duck Dynasty that did not include Phil.

Sure, they announced that Phil Robertson was being "indefinitely suspended" for remarks made while being interviewed by Drew Magary of GQ Magazine. Suffice it to say that certain people were not pleased with how Phil expressed some of his religious views, or his opinion of what constitutes sin. These people are the type of people who like to cause a ruckus when they get displeased, actually, it seems all people are the type of people who like to cause a ruckus when they get displeased, but these people are the type of people to whom the executives at A&E pay attention when they cause a ruckus.

So they announced that Phil Robertson would be "suspended indefinitely" from Duck Dynasty.

The following is speculation, which means I am making an absolute guess with no real evidence that any of this is true. Yep, I am acting like a "climate change" believer. Here is the timeline that I believe the executives at A&E had in mind.

1) They announce Phil's "suspension." Those who called for Phil to be thrown off the show all shout "Yay," and give each other high fives.

2) A&E announces Phil's apology for offending the easily offended by saying the not really offensive things he said. This apology is possibly announced in conjunction with other concessions to the easily offended group.

3) New episodes of Duck Dynasty begin to air in January. Phil is on the show, because these episodes were filmed before his suspension. The A&E executives expect even higher ratings for at least the first episode, because the show is now controversial and has gotten even more attention. Many curious people who had never seen the show tune in to take a gander at the family whose favorite pastime is taking ganders. (Yeah, I know, but they do hunt geese too.)

4) A&E announces that a contrite and humbled Phil Robertson will be part of the show again. Most likely announced with assurances that he has changed is outlook in some way.

5) Duck Dynasty begins filming new episodes of Duck Dynasty. Because of the shooting schedule, Phil's suspension has not actually resulted in him missing any episodes of the show.

6) Profit.

Obviously the execs missed out on their calculations. They did not realize that Phil would stand by his principles Why they thought a man who, when young and dirt poor, turned down the possibility of fame and fortune when given the chance to play professional football, would, now that he is much older, sure of himself and, by the way, extremely well off, dismiss his principles to continue on a television show, is actually a bit naïve of them. They did not think that the rest of the family would tell them that they could take a hike if Phil wasn't included.

They also didn't foresee the firestorm that would come from the number of people that supported Phil, not just because they like the show, but also in general support of the principle that people shouldn't be fired for stating their beliefs. So, now they had a new group of people who were not pleased and were causing a ruckus. More importantly, this group of ruckus causing people actually belonged to the core demographic that watched the show in question. While the previous group had to be appeased out of the general principle that the A&E executives must always be as politically correct as possible in thought, word and deed, this group could actually effect the show's ratings, which could effect the bottom line.

The bottom line trumps PC all the time, especially in Hollywood. (No, this statement cannot explain In the Valley of Elah, Green Zone, or Lions for Lambs.)

To avoid any effect on the bottom line, Phil had to be reinstated way ahead of the timeline, and without prostrating himself to the lords of the "righteously" offended. This is an example that we can still push back against the legions of modern political conformity and come out on top.

I think we're stuck with her now.

Roger L. Simon over at Pajamas Media the other day mentioned that our Secretary of State has now assumed the Presidency solely because she was able to help influence President Obama to join the coalition enforcing a no fly zone over Libya.  Personally, I don't see it. Mrs. Clinton has previously not really shown very much influence in the administration, which is actually a pretty good thing, considering her job performance up through last Thursday could not be described as successful. I see this as a temporary situation; she will not be seen as one of the more trusted members of the cabinet for very long.

When Hillary was first selected to be the Secretary of State, I did not think that she would be in office very long. I thought that the very reason she was hired was so she could be fired. Not just fired, but fired in a way that would ruin her as a politician forevermore. I have really been expecting it for about a year now. Obama must have known, given her level of competence creating Hillarycare in the 90s, that she would sooner or later, (and much more likely sooner,) do something worthy of getting the heave.

How much of a political force would Hillary be in the future after Obama held a press conference, more in sorrow than in anger, announcing that he was forced to make a change at Foggy Bottom, because there is only so much ineptitude that he can put up with. He could then read a list of her faults and errors in judgment (that could take longer than a typical State of the Union address) and mention that when he first chose her to lead the State Department, he thought he was getting a first rate person to fill the position. “Unfortunately, events have proven that my optimism about her ability was regretfully misguided. Now let me be clear, I think that Mrs. Clinton is a wonderful person and I thank her for her years of service to the country, but America’s diplomacy is so important that it must be placed in the care of somebody whose judgment and temperament are better suited to the position.”

I thought that he had most of that speech already written before her confirmation hearings were done. Yes, subjugate her as a member of the administration early in the term when criticism from a former rival would be exponentially damaging, but throw her under the bus (Obama has Olympic level ability at that event) as soon as it is politically feasible. Now that the narrative is that Hillary influenced Barrack to intervene in Libya, Obama is probably stuck with Hillary for the rest of his term. Unfortunately, that means that we are, too.

Gunnery in the Desert

We just completed a very nice couple of weeks testing out the new equipment in the desert of New Mexico. Things generally went well for us, and we are looking forward to more opportunities to go out and play.

Why I like big guns

If the link works, a rather violent demonstration of some of our gadgets in action.

A new APC Imp

My stepdaughter gave birth on Tuesday, 20 Feb. The new imp was generally healthy, albeit small and a bit jaundiced, but what does one expect when coming from the nether regions. The little girl was 6 pounds five ounces, which, for those who use the metric system, is about 2.8 kilograms. She arrived home from the hospital today, but being that home for her is over 1200 miles away (about 2000 kilometers) it is going to be a while before I get a chance to hold her and start influencing her political beliefs.

Home Sweet Home

Ladies and gentlemen, it has been a while since my last posting. This is because I have been in transit from KY to TX. It did not help my blogging life much that the POS ancient computer I had been using did not exactly survive the trip and I had to get a replacement. Though I am loathe to make endorsements on this sight, I will say that the people at Circuit City were incredibly helpful throughout the ordeal of trying to revive my comatose computer and in providing a replacement. I am slightly disappointed this weekend because I have just been informed that I will not get to be on a tank full time in my new battalion, but will be in charge of the headquartes platoon of my company because my expirience in that type of environment. I would much prefer to be tinkering on the tank and slamming through open terrain in a tank commander's hatch than in a command vehicle, but a soldier is expected to make personal sacrifices for the good of the unit.

Judging by the number of hits that this site actually gets, I am not going to assume that anybody really missed me, but it is nice to be back.

Kick 'em when they're down...

Four years ago at about this time, the Democrats were looking forward to making gains in Congress. Sure, they didn't have a platform and much of their leadership was grating on the ear, but tbey were against Bush in every politically safe way they could be.

Lo and behold, the first Tuesday after the First Monday in November came along and the gains that they were expecting somehow failed to materialize. What lesson did they gleam from this situation? Well, in the House, they did get rid of the Minority Leader, Dick Gephardt, blaming his ineffective leadershipp as the reason that they had such a disappointing election. After this bloodless coup dispensing of their leader, the House Democrats were left with a choice to fill the void of leadership- they could get a mock-moderate who could actually be reasonable in the guise of Harold Ford of Tennessee, or go for the loony leftists by picking Nancy Pelosi for their top position. Choosing Pelosi just seemed to be a sign that the Democrats weren't a mainstream party any longer, and that they did not feel the need to bring alternative ideas to the table.

Two years later, after a close presidential election, the Democrats still did not have control of the Senate. (This is probably as good a place as any to point out that one of the front-runners in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination was Dick Gephardt. What kind of thought process leads a person who was forced out of his leadership position because he was ineffective at motivating a group that was at least nominally in agreement with him into believing that he was the man to ascend to the Presidency, a job that requires the cobbling together of coalitions with those whose interests are usually at odds with your own? When Gephardt was replaced as House Minoity Leader, most rational societies would have seen that as a big-time signal that a run at the Presidency should be out of the question, but Gephardt, and many Democrat pundits, took the fact that he was found incompetant as a leader to be a great good fortune because it meant he could take more time to campaign.)

Back on topic- Here we find ourselves in the autumn of 2006, and the Democrats are looking forward to taking over control of the House and possibly the Senate too. The word on the street all summer has been that the Democrats would be taking over in December, and the buzz is all around the internet to talk radio to cable news that the Dems are going to have a good year. James Carville, the Democrat pundit and campaigner, has said that if the Dems don't take over Congress in this current environment, then they might as well fold up their tent as a party. (I guess that he forgot the stupid phrase he coined about the economy.) Charles Rangall of New York has stated that he would resign if the Dems don't take the House. But what if...

What happens if the Democrats don't take over? Who gets to be the scapegoat this time? Will the Democrats throw Pelosi under the bus? Who would take over for her? Will the Democrats learn their lesson and get an actual moderate to take her place, or would they find another moonbat like Murtha to fill the bill? Some conservative columnists, such as John Derbyshire of the National Review, have stated that a Republican loss on election day could actually force them to re-evaluate and more closely adhere to their core conservative principles. Does anybody think that a Democrat failure in November would force them to reconsider their outlook and bring them away from the far left leanings that are hurting the country as much as they are hurting their party?

Torture

From Taranto's Best of the Web:

If the restrictions on interrogations that Powell and McCain advocate
result
in another 9/11, then they will have sacrificed the lives of women and
children in order to protect soldiers. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

Yes, James, it is supposed to be the other way around. And, btw, the restrictive provisions that they want to place on our interrogators are not going to do a damned thing to protect any American POW's from being tortured anyway. If I become a POW when they eventually get around to deploying me to Iraq, I sure as hell don't expect to get treated as well as Centanni and Wiig. Hell, if al Qaeada believed in the Geneva Convention, there wouldn't even be a need for Gitmo in the first place.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a defininte need to get information from those we take on the battlefield. While I do not subscribe to a "by any means necessary" philosophy, there are harsh methods that can be effectively employed that we must have the option of using that do not equal torture. The House Republicans should stand firm and give the president what he wants in this instance.

The Path to 9-11

Does anybody else get the feeling that if Clinton had spent as much effort in wiping out terrorism as he has in trying to get a re-edit of the ABC miniseries, that the twin towers would still be standing?

UPDATE 9 SEP; I, for some unknown reason, am going to make an attempt to see this from the Democrat side. I will counter-argue the Democrat side immediately, so I don't know how effective an advocate I will be, but what the heck, let's go.

Democrats are saying that the miniseries will not be an accurate depiction of what really happened. This is, unfortunately, correct. The Path to 9-11 is a movie, and though based on the 9-11 commission report it is still just a movie. The producers have admitted that they have condensed and combined scenes and characters and have, for the sake of the drama, put words in people's mouths that had not actually come out of them before.

Is this sufficient reason to pull the miniseries off the air? I would have to answer that with a resounding "No!" I am sorry, Mr. Clinton, and the DNC, but I think that the citizens of the US are sophisticated enough to realize that even the "true life" entertainment that they watch isn't really what happened. I think that the Democrats are just bringing ridicule upon themselves for acting so petulantly on the matter, especially when they can presumably point to other bits of the movie that might show that Republicans in embarassing circumstances.

I don't think that most critics have seen the movie, but I have seen Tom Kean (by the way, that is pronounced "cane" as in sugar or walking, not "keen" as in razor or peachy), the chairman of the 9-11 Commission, attest to the general veracity of the film. So, what is truly my take on the film? I will probably watch it, because I am not really that interested in the Manning Bowl, but I am not going to delude myself into thinking that anything that the characters in the movie say are actual quotes of the historic figures the characters represent. I will know that the film is probably about 95% true to history, but since I didn't do any additional research into the subject, I don't know which 5% isn't true, so I will have to take the whole thing as speculation. I will think that the events depicted are all possibly what occured, but I will not think of anything on screen as carved in stone "HISTORY". Who knows, it might motivate me to actually peruse the 9-11 Commission report and other source materials to figure out for myself what really went on.

What Cost, Iraq?

It seems that the discussion about our efforts in Iraq can only be thought of in a single way by the media. Everybody likes to mention the "costs." The billions of dollars poured into the desert, and the number of soldiers who have lost their lives.

I am not an accountant, but I can see that this discussion is missing a great big part of the "cost/benefit analysis" process. Nobody ever wants to bring up the benefits. It is easy to understand why- the benefits are in many ways intangible and aren't that easy to put into a five minute video montage, but they do exist. It is a lot easier to point to the amount of money spent on a project than to show how much money didn't have to be spent on others as a result. So, I will try to temper the rhetoric about Iraq by adding to the "benefit" side of the analysis, hopefully without turning this thing into a cheap David Letterman top ten list.

First, Ghaddaffi has turned in his mass destruction programs. Any time that a dictator relinquishes a part of his arsenal like that is a good thing, and it came about directly as a result of the US leading a coalition into Iraq.

The old saw "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." What does that really mean? Allow me to personalize this for you- Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, aka Zarky, was, until his all to recent demise, the leader of al Quaeda in Iraq. This came about because he was being treated for an injury he received in Afghanistan in the Islamic Republic of Iraq (oh, by the way, if you don't believe this establishes that Iraq was a haven for terrorists before we invaaded, get your logic circuits checked) when France was unable to keep its promises to Saddam. So, if the US doesn't inundate the local area with soldiers how many people think that Zarky is going to sit around idly and sip tea for the next three years? Everybody who thinks that Zarky would have lived peacefully in the mid-East and not planned attcks on the US mainland, please raise your hands. Now, since you have your hands up already, use them to slap some sense into yourselves.

It is very likely that, even without the benefit of ridding the world of Saddam, the invasion of Iraq has prevented the deaths of American citizenbs in the US. But how many? It is impossible to know. I am guessing that it is somewhere between 2,000 and 7,000, but that is truly conjecture that I have no real way of defending logically. It would be just as valid to argue that the number is zero or 25,000, but I would think that just the sheer number of al Quaeda and other terrorist operatives that were too busy messing around in Iraq to plan anything in the US means that there were at least a few attacks that didn't materialize that very well might have if we were not in Iraq.

Preventing these attacks also means that soem of our industries, like travel, are much better off than they would have been without Operation Iraqi Freedom. True, I am not a follower of the oil industry, so I don't know if gas prices are higher or lower as a result of our actions. It copuld be that Iraq is actually able to export more becuase sanctions have been lifted, but I am not sure if oil production there is up to the same level that it was prior to the liberation.

There are other benefits that I have not even touched on, to include the goodwill we have received from many of the Iraqi people for their liberation. Many who claim that our actions have caused a great number of Muslims to become terrorists seem to forget that there are also those who see opportunity in their future, thus don't think that their best option is to splodeydope themselves sooner rather than later to get to meet Allah and the 72 virgins.

Securing the Border

We all realize that trying to secure the border is truly a pipe dream, if only because our government for some reason seems dead set against the idea. It's bad enough that the feds refuse to keep out the smugglers, killers and thugs that cross the border with the hundreds of thousands of otherwise "law-abiding illegal aliens," but now the State Department is giving visas to animal leaders of terrorist states. Or, former leaders of terrorist states.

Mohammed Khatami has been granted a visa to make a swing throught the United States, giving speeches at various forums. It is an outrage that the former president of Iran is able to walk freely about the U. S. without shackles on his hands and feet. I know that in Iran the president is really secondary to the grand ayatollah in terms of power, but to allow the former president of Iran to be given the celebrity treatment in this country is an outrage. The man is responsible for the represion of millions of Iranian people, despite his alleged "reformer" image. The man should be arrested and placed on trial for crimes against humanity for his "leadership" of Iran.

Billion Dollar Buggy Whips

I don't know about most of you, but the cost of fueling my car is starting to cut into other priorities for me recently, and it would appear that things will get worse before they get better. Just today, George W. Bush was speaking about the oil "'crisis" and the rising gasoline prices. He sounded like a man powerless to stop the situation, but at least he didn't seem to have the Chicken Little attitude that seems to emenate from the Capitol Dome. One point that he made was that the American people expect oil companies to put a lot of their profits back into building new refineries, searching for more sources of oil and developing alternate sources of energy.

I agree with these points, and the big oil companies will do well to take heed, especially on that last point that I mentioned, not just out of civic duty, but as a matter of Corporate survival.

Why do I say this? Let's gaze into the crystal ball as we spread the tarot cards.

Then again, let's not. Let's just analyze the situation. Over the past century, there has been an almost explosive increase in technological innovation, and I don't see that trend reversing itself any time soon. One or more of the innovations we can expect to see will involve energy sources, and techniques of putting those sources to use. We might be a long way from using anti-matter to power the warp drive, but in the interim, we will develop something, and more likely sooner than later. Whoever does develop this source is in for a huge payday.

This leaves the oil companies either developing the next source of energy or all but ceasing to exist. Five billion dollars in research and development may sound like a huge amount of money, but considering their alternatives, I don't see BP, Exxon/Mobil or Standard Oil as really having much of a choice. Without the need to refine oil into fuel, there is not much need for all the oil companies, except to provide the source of plastics and other petrochemical products, which won't do much for their bottom lines.

So, I say that we shouldn't be too concerned about the current oil company profits. They should enjoy the market they have while it still exists, because it won't be too long before they are selling off their assets to try to make payroll, unless they develop the next phase of powering the American Industrial Machine.

Plumbing

So, the CIA has fired Mary McCarthy for leaking information about the "secret CIA prisons" in Europe. This is a bit confusing to me, becaue just a couple of days ago I heard that the EU had found that there was no substantial evidence that these secret prisons exist. If these prisons don't exist, then what information did McCarthy reveal that led to the firing? I can only surmise that the EU roport is wrong, and that the "secret prisons" were (or might still be) just a well hidden secret. Besides, I think that the EU report was just about the program being conducted in member countries. I don't know whether it also covered non-EU countries in Eastern Europe.

I really don't care either way. If you take terrorists alive, you have to keep them somewhere, so it may as well be on foriegn soil as domestic, if the host country gives permission, and it really makes very little sense to advertise the capture of possible intelligence sources. Better for the enemy to think that the disappearence of one of their agents means that said agent is dead rather than giving away all of their secrets. And still better to have the facility controlled by an agency of the United States, where we can be reasonably assured that the inmates are at least moderately well taken care of than they be victims of that Clinton administration invention, the practice of rendition.

Should McCarthy have been fired? If she did give away information about secret holding areas, yes, though from news reports it seems that she has admitted that she has done so. She gave away information to the enemy about our tactics that obviously would hurt our ability to use the prisoners as intelligence sources, and also hurt our relationships with some countries that had been helping in the War on Terror. Should she be tried for her the crimes? I qould have to give a qualified yes to that question. She should only be prosecuted if it can be done in such a way that other classified information is not made public as a result. If the prosecutors need to reveal too much to get a conviction, then I would argue that it would be the lesser of two evils to let her get away with her alleged crimes than to put the public at risk by revealing our tactics.

If the Easter Bunny were Muslim

NSA Wiretapping

Question- Does anybody really think that our spy agencies require warrants to eavesdrop on foriegn nationals in their home countries?

If there is a warrant to tap a phone line, does the agency doing the wiretapping need another warrant to authorize listening in on the other party to those conversations?

The answer to both of those questions is no.

Since there is no necessity to obtain a warrant on foriegn calls, and no necessity to obtain a warrant on second parties to authorized eavesdropping operations, it is pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with the NSA wiretapping operations that are ongoing. Not only is this policy fully within the framework of the Constitution, it is all but mandated in the President's oath of office. The Democrats need to get off their hatred of everything this administration does and get their priorities in order.

The ACLU has brought a lawsuit against the government for this operation, hoping to stop it immediately. This is not just misguided, but genuinely evil. If they are successful, I know squarely where to place the blame for the next terrorist attack on American soil.