February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

-Noam Chomsky

June 30, 2006

The Da Vinci Challenge

Want to play a game? Go into any of the mega-chain bookstores - say Barnes and Noble, blindfold yourself, and randomly pull ten items off of the shelves from the music, video, fiction, and non-fiction book sections. Count how many of the items are of, or related to, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code novel. The empire created by this man, and the subsequent demand for all things Da Vinci, is astounding.

As embarrassed as I am to admit this, I, too, have been caught up in the hoopla, at least from the historical point of view, and have been glued to the multitudinous line-up of Discovery Channel/TLC debunking documentaries (my favorite being the Tony Robinson The Real Da Vinci Code).

A common element to all of these documentaries is parading one or more of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail to discuss and expand upon the hypotheses of which Dan Brown borrowed heavily for The Da Vinci Code. In particular, one of Holy Blood's authors, Henry Lincoln, is still active in searching for 'landscape geometry,' supposed evidence of Templars, or the so-called Illuminati, or masons having passed down the secret of the Holy Grail for future generations to discover.

While I find their theories intriguing, I also think they're mostly a lot of hooey. For example, Henry Lincoln believes that he's found a pentacle in the geometry of the streets in Washington D.C. And others have continued with Lincoln's work, suggesting that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington - both Freemasons - put heat on Pierre Charles L'Enfant, the architect and urban planner of Washington DC, to include Masonic symbols in his plans.

Now, if you take a rectangular grid street pattern, and you superimpose a series of circles connected by radial streets, then I challenge you not to find a pentagram pattern in the design. I think if you look closely enough, you can even find the words "Atlas Blogged" among the squares, circles, and triangles that make up the streets of D.C. I'm not sure what significance that has, other than, of course, George and Martha conceived a child whose descendant may or may not be one of the authors of this blog. But I digress...

So clearly, Lincoln has gone from amusing speculation to outright goofiness. And indeed, according to Jeremy Harwood in his book, The Freemasons, the "decisive feature in the positioning of major buildings was topography." And while there are five-pointed stars to be found in the major intersections of the U.S. capital, "it is far more likely this was coincidence rather than a Masonic conspiracy."

While I do not believe there are Masonic images hidden in the street patterns of D.C., imagine my surprise when I ran across this:

The story is different in Sandusky, Ohio, which is the only city in the world as far as is known to have been laid out according to a Masonic master plan. Hector Kilbourne, the first master of Science Lodge No. 50, was the surveyor who drew up the city plan in 1818. He took great care to position the streets so as to form a picture of the Square and Compasses. Indeed, his plan for the city as a whole has been likened to a representation of an open Bible, with the Square and Compasses in the positions they would be in at the opening meeting of a Masonic Lodge. Some of the street names honour statesmen and other prominent members of the country in the history of the United States.

Now this I find interesting. The streets have changed a bit since 1818, but when looking at Sandusky, Ohio, it's easy to make out the square and compass designs. But what amazes me most is the northernmost street - Water Street, which takes a noticeable southern dip to complete the image of masonry tools atop a bible.

In all of the Dan Brown holy grail hysteria that's swept the world, the scope of the history takes place over millennia. While our own Americana is measured by the centuries instead, this story of the Masonic streets is a little more plausible, and one that we can call our own. I'm just thankful that I don't have to drive the crazy streets of Sandusky, Ohio. What a mess.

Incidentally, I noticed the placement of the Barnes and Noble stores in Sandusky form a pentacle pattern. I wonder what Dan Brown would make of that?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2006

Revisiting Redistricting

SCOTUS ruled today that it's okay to redistrict more often than once a decade, so long as the usual BS redistricting rules are followed. My gut-response to this was that it would lead to even worse Gerrymandering. I am not sure that I believe that now. After all, the court did not uphold the entire Texas redistricting as constitutional. The district that stretches from Laredo to San Antonio (and out in a couple of odd spurs along the way) was deemed unacceptably discriminatory against Hispanics. So again, the old rules still apply.

But as I asked back in March, Where are the questions of how we can be rid of Gerrymandering altogether?

Other than the fact that the power to do this lies in the hands of exactly the people who would be destroyed by it - incumbent Republicans and Democrats - is there a downside to proportional representation? Is it a downside that is anywhere near what we have to go through with this redistricting nonsense?

For those interested in looking up the decision, the S.F. Chronicle notes that the court's decision was in four consolidated cases: League of United Latin American Citizens vs. Perry, No. 05-204; Travis County vs. Perry, No. 05-254; Jackson vs. Perry, No. 05-276; and GI Forum of Texas vs. Perry, No. 05-439.

Oh, and by the way, Jon... Ginsburg did not recuse herself.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Happy Anniversary

The authors of AtlasBlogged have been emailing one another on various issues for about seven years, but this month represents one whole year of slapping this stuff up on the internet for the world to view. My first entry wasn't until July 10 last year, but Rammage did manage to get this beast off the ground a year ago with a test post on June 18, and we formally became a blog on June 28th of last year when Rammage gave the obligatory blasting of the NYT. Anybody who hasn't blasted the NYT may as well stick to MySpace.

Also, Happy Second Anniversary to Kip today. Back in February, Kip placed Atlas Blogged in his Elite Eleven on his blogroll. Ever since then, I have been wondering why anybody who writes like Kip would be reading us. But we really appreciate it - and thanks to everybody else who has stopped by more than once.

Update: What is it with late June? Happy third to Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Supreme Court to visit EPA Rules on CO2

The United States Supreme Court today agreed to hear a case involving the federal regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants.

In 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases. The EPA denied that petition in August 2003, saying that it had no statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, EPA also said it would not regulate greenhouse gas emissions even if it had the authority to do so under the Clean Air Act.

In October 2003, [Massachusetts] and 29 other parties challenged that ruling in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [and lost].

This March, Massachusetts and 28 other parties filed a petition for certiorari requesting Supreme Court review. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to review the federal appeals court case.

(story here)

As the Tacoma Tribune notes, the decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

I expect many on the right to stick with arguments that the Earth is not warming (false) or that it is only warming because of non-human activities (false) like the fact that the sun is shining brighter (true) and that this ruling could make it illegal to exhale (false and only mildy humorous even the first time, after which the comment has no humor value unless followed by a blast of secondhand cigarette smoke), but that doesn't help the debate. The question is, Has Congress already mandated that the EPA regulate the emissions of CO2? If so, then the EPA seems to be in the wrong in deciding not to do so.

And that does appear to be the case, says the National Resources Defense Council. As reported here, they note the wording of the Clean Air Act:

As evidence, the council cites Section 103, subsection (g) of the act, which states, in part, that federal officials should develop nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing "multiple air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter), carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, from stationary sources, including fossil fuel power plants."

But the EPA says that the word "nonregulatory" in the above passage is the key to the whole issue. If Congress has not given them the power to regulate these emissions, it doesn't matter how detrimental anybody believes them to be. That seems pretty clear to me, but the split decisions in the lower courts make me wonder how exactly this will play out, both when this case is heard in October and over the next several years. I'll be holding my breath. [rimshot]

The other states involved in the case are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

June 27, 2006

There's No Such Thing as a Free Market Economy

When a pollster asks if you think that the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world, you might want to ponder what the word "free" means. It shows up twice in the question, so it's important.

In a recent international poll, most respondants...

agreed that “The free enterprise system and free market economy work best in society's interests when accompanied by strong government regulations.” This view was endorsed by two out of three overall (65%).

So people want free enterprise, free market economies, plus a lot of regulation. Hrm. Now, I'm not saying that strong government regulations are inherently bad - I think it depends a lot on what government we are talking about, and what it is regulating - but I find the results of this poll interesting primarily because of that tricky word, "free". Just how "free" is that market economy when there is strong government regulation?

Despite this quibble, I take the results of this poll as a pretty positive sign. Sometimes, it seems that socialism is winning. And that's because people want the best of both worlds - "the electorate takes both a 'leave me alone' and a 'gimme a hand' approach to government," to quote Jon Henke.

Another interesting aspect of the poll is the first chart. As the article says,

In all but one country polled, a majority or plurality agreed with the statement that “the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.”

And who is that one country? France. You can't make this stuff up.

But on a more seriously intriguing note, the nation with the highest percentage agreeing with the statement was China. That's right, they scored higher than the U.S.A. So much for the Red Threat... we really did win the Cold War.

GlobeScan President Doug Miller had some interesting advice;

[C]ompanies will need to increasingly demonstrate that they are operating in society’s best interest rather than just their own. The social contract needs to be re-built around the free market.

I have re-read this several times. It's not such a revolutionary idea, but that last sentence in particular bears repeating in all company.

Also, the article does not make particular note of it, but I found it interesting which countries had the least number disagreeing: India, Poland, South Korea, and China. In general, Southeast Asian respondants seem much more "free" market than Europeans or Americans. Consider the relation between that point and the following:

In aggregate, agreement that the free market system is best was higher among those with high education (64%) than low education (56%), as well as those with very high income (66%) as compared to those with very low income (59%), but the differences were slight.

The view that large companies have too much influence over national governments follows the same pattern. Those with high education were more likely to agree (79%) than those with low education (69%). Contrary to the stereotype that very-high-income people perceive the influence of large companies as serving their interests, those with very high incomes were more likely to agree that such companies have too much influence (77%) than those with very low income (66%).

Majority support for greater regulation to protect the rights of workers was a bit higher among those with low education (78%) than with high education (68%), and by those with very low income (80%) over those with very high income (71%), but the differences were strikingly slight. The same pattern obtained for greater regulation to protect the rights of consumers, but the variation was even smaller.

Interestingly, the same pattern obtained for greater protection of the rights of investors, with 56% of those with low education favoring more regulation as compared to 50% among those with high education, and 59% of those with very low income as compared to 50% among those with very high income. Though those with higher education and income are more likely to be investors, those with low education and income are more likely to think that investors need government protection.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Hurricane Season

Old people watch the Weather Channel.

This might not be entirely true, but it’s a popular American joke that is at least based in some part on truth. My kids hate the Weather Channel. My parents leave it on as background pseudo-informative entertainment. Most people I know have similar anecdotal evidence that it's a channel for senior citizens.

So... am I old enough to link The Weather Channel Blog? I don’t know for sure, but I think I am going to give it a try for a few reasons.

1) I’m interested in the attempts by conventional media to get into that newfangled internet thing. The Weather Channel has a pretty good website, and it’s possible that their foray into a blog will be interesting. If it’s not, I’ll cut it.

2) Schadenfreude. Man, it’s hurricane season! Every swirl of wind in the Atlantic is like a baseball pitcher kicking the dirt on the mound. As the storm gathers form, it's like the beginnings of the windup. I consider Florida to be the center of the strike zone. Some pitches don't have enough on them to be interesting. Others are beautiful to behold. And occasionally, if one comes too far to the right of the zone, it can hit this batter in his Mid-Atlantic home.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Redeployments and Drawdowns

Redeployment has become a hot word lately. It’s a Democrat euphemism for troop withdrawals from Iraq… which seems pretty silly, since the left is convinced that Americans want an immediate troop withdrawal. So why the euphemism? I would rather see our troops brought home if possible, not “redeployed”, which means sent on a different deployment. I’m happy to say we should bring them home as soon as they are not absolutely needed overseas. While the exact moment is clearly debatable, especially with regard to Iraq, the silliness of the euphemism is not.

Do you realize that a quarter of U.S. active duty military personnel are deployed outside of the U.S.A.? One in four.

Now, it is easy to say that this is a good thing – after all, we’re in a time of war. It’s the job of the military to go Over There and fight the war. And that’s a fair argument for some of the deployments.

For example, there are about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan for the War on Terror. Let’s call that a good use of our troops. And there are another 170,000 troops in Iraq, ostensibly in the War on Terror. Whatever you might think was the “real” reason for the war in Iraq, for the sake of argument agree with me that this is a good use of our troops. I’m not interested in arguing that point, so if you don’t agree, please play along.

Let’s also grant that it is good to deploy approximately 120,000 members of the United States Navy – they are forward-deployed to Asia, or cruising the Mediterranean, or hanging out in the Arctic Ocean making jokes about how global warming will irreversibly change submariner hazing rituals. That’s fine. That’s what they’re for.

But what about the 120,000 soldiers and airmen in Europe? What are they doing in the War on Terror that requires them to be in Europe? I grant that we do have a mission that is served by these men and women, but that mission does not require 120,000 deployed. And the Department of Defense agrees:

Changes in the global strategic picture, in addition to revolutions in military technology, transportation and logistics, mean that U.S. forces no longer need to maintain the numerous large bases and supply hubs across Western Europe and northeast Asia.

It is now possible for U.S. forces to do more with less, the officials said, by maintaining fewer, smaller military bases overseas, minimally staffed "forward operating sites," and "cooperative security locations," sites operated by allied countries that could be activated for use by deployed American forces should the need arise.

(story here)

It is arguable that the mission in Europe does not require any American troops – both Americans and Europeans tell pollsters that Europeans should have a greater voice and role in resolving world conflicts. As a good start, the mission in Europe should be carried out to a larger extent by European NATO forces. But for now, these 120,000 are not all coming back to the US – some really are being redeployed in the overall restructuring of the military to a rapid-response force. The ~~redeployment~~ drawdown will begin in earnest next year, and as the Army Times notes, it's not just the troops:

Most of the soldier positions will be transferred to the U.S., along with more than 100,000 family members.

Nearly two thirds of American troops in Europe are stationed in Germany. In the wake of this restructuring of U.S. forces, Alec at Prose Before Hos is making the case for letting Germany expand its own military and stand their own NATO posts now that we are 20 years past reunification and more than half a century past WWII.

Currently, the German economy is the fifth richest in the world per capita and third largest in the world by nominal GDP. Conversely, Germany is the 36th biggest provider of military and police contributions to UN efforts (in-between Rwanda at 35 and Slovakia at 37). Combined with NATO figures, Germany contributes approximately 6700 troops worldwide, including two thousand in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan, a multilateral operation agreed upon by NATO, serves as an excellent example. German assistance is done at considerable smaller percentages than other NATO nations, with 20 thousand originating from the United States, 2500 from Canada, and 1000 from Spain. Further, Romania, a country with an average income of $3000, contributed over 800 troops.

(I first found Alec’s article cross-posted at Publius Pundit)

Should we go so far as to advocate bringing home the 80,000 troops in South Korea and Japan? Like Germany, these are two nations who we trust, and who are economically capable of funding sizable militaries of their own. But that’s not currently part of the plan – it would be borderline isolationist to advocate that.

For now, a ~~pullout~~ ~~drawdown~~ redeployment from Iraq also appears to be a different story. But the situation in Iraq and the developing situation in Iran are looking more and more like conventual international disputes, and less like our original vision for the War on Terror. It's past time to think of them that way - and that's a different topic entirely.

By the way, visit the BRAC website for a full rundown on base realignments and closures, both domestic and overseas.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 25, 2006

Opposing the Sex Offender Registry

Proposals to take away the privacy of ordinary citizens don't usually go over very well. But it's a different matter if we are talking about convicted sex offenders, in which case many people feel it's a no-brainer that their punishment doesn't end when their prison time has been served. After all, if the guy moving in across the street has spent the last decade or two locked up for raping preschoolers, you want to know.

To hell with common sense. Kip, Esquire makes the argument that such a registry is a bad idea. And it's not just one of those wispy libertarian arguments about how government is evil - this post has some meat to it. I direct readers to it, here, and I hope to get some feedback. Oh, sure, you could post your comments on Kip's blog, since he's the one making the argument here. Go ahead. I'll see it there.

Of course, I am infuriated (but not surprised) to see people being caught up in this registry who ought not to be. But the part I found most interesting was this::

The dual canards: that "sex offenders have greater recidivism rates" (the Department of Justice says the opposite is true), and that "child molesters prey on the community" (they overwhelmingly tend, in fact, to prey on children they have proximate access to, such as stepchildren), have both been discredited.

Somehow, I don't expect these facts to dominate the evolution of these registries.

Now, I am no legal expert, but I find it intriguing that Kip has argued in the past that there is no legal basis for what he calls redlining (and I call banishment) - see here and here. I confess that I don't see how banishing a criminal is significantly different (from the POV of the community) from locking him up. The purpose of each is to remove the threat from the community. Either action infringes upon the freedoms of the criminal. Is one really so much more defensible than the other? I suppose it opens up some interesting questions - for example, as Kip once asked, is there, or should there be, a fundamental right to live where one chooses, even for convicted child molesters?

Clearly there are already limitations on an individual's right to live where one chooses: cost, zoning regulations, Kelo, ~~citizenship~~ (sorry)... why not a conviction for a serious crime?

You know... like raping preschoolers?

Update: June 26 at high noon
I'd like to direct readers to an article called Zoning Cartman from almost a year ago on PrawfsBlog.

Consider this question from the comment section:

Why should the right to live where you choose be subject to less regulation (i.e., protected with closer judicial scrutiny) than the right to work where and how you want? In this case, for example, would any court bat an eye if a government entity refused to hire someone because of a prior sex offense conviction?

There are several other comments that are very interesting, including:
bw | Aug 4, 2005 3:23:17 PM
Will Baude | Aug 4, 2005 10:41:09 PM
Anthony | Aug 23, 2005 2:04:47 AM

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Insomnia-Induced Ruminating

I don't have too many prognostications about the 2008 political year - save one. The Democratic Primaries are going to be among the most explosive of my lifetime, and I'm looking forward to the fireworks.

To add to the fun, John Edwards appears to be throwing his hat into the ring as well.

Ex-Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), evolving his pitch ahead of an anticipated presidential run in 2008, will propose to cut poverty by a third in 10 years, eliminate it in 30, and put in its place a "Working Society " where Americans are rewarded for hard work with a livable safety net of health and welfare incentives. [...]

Notably, the speech advances beyond Edwards's "Two Americas" concept. One aide described that phrase as his identification of the problem -- a society where the wealthy are rewarded and the poor are ignored. This speech inaugurates a new phase -- solutions -- and a new phrase -- a "Working Society."

A copy of his speech distributed to reporters and embragoed [sic] until this morning shows that Edwards proposes to "radically overhaul" the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; to create 1 million "stepping stone" jobs over the next five years, to raise the minimum wage, and to refocus the American education system.

In all fairness, my mind may be muddled with an inability to sleep tonight. But for some reason, reading this snippet above reminds me of this quote:

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and the impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree, and to obey?

-Ayn Rand, Anthem

John Edwards' political vision for the future certainly seems to add credence to the Geraghtyites.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 23, 2006

Chalk Up another Argument for School Privatization

With each passing year I find more reasons to support the privatization of the U.S. public school system (including the increasingly public-funded university system). Add one more reason to the mounting list: Keep the ACLU (or public officials, as it may be) from regulating your school's library.

From the Washington Post (registration required): ACLU Sues Fla. Schools Over Cuba Book Ban

MIAMI -- The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge to stop the Miami-Dade County school district from removing a series of children's books from its libraries, including a volume about Cuba which depicts smiling kids in communist uniforms.

The ACLU and the Miami-Dade County Student Government Association argued in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami on Wednesday that the school board should add materials with alternate viewpoints rather than remove books that could be offensive.

I was going to write up an extensive entry on this, but Stop the ACLU has already covered most of the bases, including reprinting the most ubiquitous quote in the Starboard Blogosphere from ACLU founder Roger Baldwin.

It is not often that I find myself on the side favoring any kind of book ban, and I certainly do not take issue with a school issuing Communist propaganda. It's just that I'd rather not have the bill footed by the same government who is supposed to be protecting us from an oppressive government. Public school students are already exposed to enough Marxist indoctrination without having to be mislead about Cuba being a Communist paradise. The Cuban immigrants in Miami seem to get this, why doesn't anyone else?

The privatization of the public school system would put the parents in charge of what their children ultimately would read. And I'm guessing that we'd be seeing fewer books on Communist Cuba and more from Harper Lee, Mark Twain, J.D. Salinger, and other perennial favorites on the Most Challenged Books list.

Meanwhile, I look forward to "Wulf the Teacher" to weigh in on the issue.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (4)

June 21, 2006

Islamocapitalism

At TCS Daily, Turkish Writer Mustafa Akyol asks; "Is Islam compatible with modernity?"

He notes that most Islamists would say it is not. But he argues that this is primarily because they don't know much about capitalism, science, and other aspects of modernity.

When you look at anti-capitalist rhetoric in Muslim circles, you will see that it is focused on sexual laxity, prostitution, drugs, crime, or the general selfishness in Western societies. Yet these are not the inherent elements of capitalism, they would be better explained by the term "cultural materialism" -- the idea that material things are the only things that matter. Most Muslims who abhor capitalism simply confuse it with materialism.

Such worried Muslims would be quite surprised to discover that some of the most outspoken advocates of the free market in the West are also staunch defenders of religious faith, family values and the healthy role of both in public life. Unfortunately, the synthesis of democratic capitalism with Judeo-Christian values -- which is basically an American, not a European phenomenon -- is not well known in the Islamic world. The America of churches and charities is poorly represented in the global mass media. Quite the contrary, what most Muslims see as standard Americans are the unabashed hedonists of MTV and Hollywood.

I am a former unabashed hedonist myself, but I agree with Mr. Akyol. However, I would like to point out that most Westerners, too, would say that Islam is not compatible with modernity. But again, most Westerners don't know much about Islam - or capitalism, science, and other aspects of modernity, for that matter.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

The Red Threat

The North Koreans were in the news again this week. This time, they were planning to test launch an ICBM. Keep in mind what the I and the C stand for in ICBM. Keep in mind also that North Korea has nuclear aspirations, though it would likely be a little while before they have a warhead small enough to fit on an ICBM.

Those crazy North Koreans. Most of their missile arsenal is of such short range that they could only hit South Korea and China - both of whom are probably more concerned by the fact that the North Korean army is the fourth largest in the world at about a million hungry soldiers. Their longer range missiles are time consuming to launch, and we know right where they are - as evidenced by the fact that we knew for several days about the plan to test an ICBM. If you would like more details on their missiles, check this Factbox article.

It is legitimate and necessary to be concerned about North Korea, but their bark is worse than their bite for anybody more than marching distance away.

But while reading about North Korea, I was reminded of China.

The Pentagon has recently expressed concern about China's military. You may have missed that in all of the noise about Iraq and Guantanamo. From SecDef's 2006 Annual Report on Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (found here):

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is in the process of long-term transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to a more modern force capable of fighting short duration, high intensity conflicts against high-tech adversaries...

In the near term, China’s military build-up appears focused on preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies, including the possibility of U.S. intervention. However, analysis of China’s military acquisitions suggest it is also generating capabilities that could apply to other regional contingencies, such as conflicts over resources or territory.

Several aspects of China’s military development have surprised U.S. analysts, including the pace and scope of its strategic forces modernization. China’s military expansion is already such as to alter regional military balances. Long-term trends in China’s strategic nuclear forces modernization, land- and sea-based access denial capabilities, and emerging precision-strike weapons have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region.
China’s leaders have yet to adequately explain the purposes or desired end-states of their military expansion. Estimates place Chinese defense expenditure at two to three times officially disclosed figures [officially $35 billion ~Wulf]. The outside world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and decision-making or of key capabilities supporting PLA modernization.

Notes from The Economist:

IF THE Pentagon is right, China's nuclear arsenal is on the verge of a big upgrade. As a deterrent against American nuclear attack, the Chinese have long relied mainly on a handful of intercontinental missiles that are slow to fuel and highly vulnerable. Now China is shifting to new types of missiles that are harder to detect and can be launched much more quickly.

The Pentagon says China has only 20 missiles capable of reaching the American mainland. These are DF-5s (also called CSS-4s), based in silos. They use liquid fuel, which is stored separately for safety and needs to be time-consumingly transferred to a missile before launch. Some analysts believe the warheads are stored separately too. It could take up to two hours to prepare them for use. China has another 20 or so liquid-fuelled DF-4s (also called CSS-3s) and as many as 50 DF-21s (CSS-5s) that can reach targets in Asia and Russia (click to see map)...

This year could see the first deployments of DF-31s (CSS-9s). These would be mounted on trucks or railcars, making them much harder to find. They would also use solid fuel, which would considerably reduce preparation time. A longer-range version, the DF-31A, could be in operation next year. The JL-2, a submarine-launched missile, could be deployed between 2007 and 2010. These would bring all of America within reach.

There are a lot of reasons to believe that these are deterrent moves, not plans to become aggressive. Either way, what should America do about a Chinese military buildup? Engage in another Cold War? Imagine trying to spend the next half century watching the American economy outperform China the way it did the USSR. No, seriously, imagine trying to do that. Heh.

So, how do we handle the new Red Threat? Well, we could try greater military transparency and cooperation. That's not something most people would expect from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld administration, but as Stars and Stripes reports today;

Three aircraft carrier groups — carrying a combined 20,000 personnel, 28 ships and 290 aircraft — took part [in] the largest carrier exercise since the Vietnam conflict...

The exercise’s size, [Rear Adm. Michael Miller] said, is a function of all of the carrier groups being in the vicinity at the right time. He said mustering the massive Valiant Shield forces — and expanding the former JASEX exercise from two to three carriers — is not being done to show U.S. military might in the Pacific.

Rather, he said, the Navy is reaching out to the region through military “transparency.” For instance, China — called a potential threat in a recent Pentagon report — was invited to attend; on Sunday, Chinese representatives came aboard the Ronald Reagan.

“They wanted to come out here because they are interested in the same things we are — the peace and stability of this region,” Miller said.

What? The Chinese want peace and stability in the Pacific? We share the same biology, regardless of ideology? This isn't a crazy idea, but it's not one we often hear expressed so clearly. Work with the Chinese. Hrm.

But this isn't just an opportunity for everybody to say that war is undesireable. This line from the story blew me away (and I've added emphasis to make that really clear):

The Chinese were “interested in the carrier from the bottom up,” said Ronald Reagan commanding officer Capt. Terry B. Kraft.
“We showed them everything,” Kraft said.

Okay, it's time for more imagining.

1) Imagine doing that for some Soviet admirals or shipyard administrators back in 1945, or 1965, or 1985. You know, to demonstrate our commitment to avoiding conflict. My, how times have changed.

2) Imagine doing that in 1995. Remember how upset the American Right was with Clinton over the sale of supercomputers, missile engines, etc? Remember the Cox Report? Dirty Communists! I'm curious to know how upset the American Right would be with "We showed them everything" if it had happened during a Gore or Kerry presidency.

By the way, some great photos of Valiant Shield here and here, found via an article at Bubblehead's The Stupid Shall be Punished blog.

The fact of the matter is that we have fewer secrets than we would like to. For one thing, our military has been much more on display than has China's since the end of the Cold War. Every time we use our military, the world learns what it can do. That is great if we are looking to display power, but it would be ridiculous to assume that other nations don't then emulate our successful weapons systems and Special Operations capabilities. According to the Pentagon;

Following observations of U.S. Special Forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the PLA began to place greater emphasis on expanding China’s own SOF capability, particularly as a force multiplier in a Taiwan Strait scenario. PLA researchers continue to study SOF involved in U.S. and Coalition operations. In 2002, the PLA reportedly set up a dedicated unit to monitor U.S. Special Operations activities, including target acquisition and use of UAVs, in Afghanistan. The PLA also studied the role of special operations forces in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

(here)

As transparent as our military has to be, and as transparent as our R&D is, it seems like good policy to see if we really can work with China, and not just pretend to. We can't ignore the fundamental differences we do have with China, and the horrible human rights record (try as we do). But the existance of fundamental differences in governance and respect for human rights does not stop us from cooperating with several other nations out there, and it shouldn't stop us here. All we need have to justify greater cooperation with China is a sense of national security and a common goal... like, say, peace and stability in the Pacific. So bravo to Valiant Shield and the observers from Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and the Russian Federation. Let's hope it does some good.

Side note on North Korea: Bill Gates has a net worth of about the North Korean GDP. Who would win?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

June 20, 2006

The Honorable Way Out

From the Economist:

Signing Hank Paulson, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, as America's treasury secretary was a coup for George Bush. The mystery was why Mr Paulson wanted the job. At Goldman, he probably had as much impact on the global economy as he will have in his new job. He certainly had less bureaucracy to put up with and was paid more.

When his appointment was announced, Mr Paulson explained that he was motivated by the “honour” of service. Doubtless he was, but the price of honour looked pretty high. His pay would drop from around $40m a year to $183,500 and he would have to sell his $700m-worth of Goldman shares—meaning, on the face of it, a gigantic bill for capital-gains tax.

Ouch. Which hurts more? Find out by reading the article, here. Here's a hint: The story ends with the line, At least someone in Washington understands the link between taxes and employment.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 14, 2006

Sniglet of the Week

Iteasement (aye-teez’-ment)
n.

a. The act of iteasing.
b. The condition of being iteased.

The act of impatiently nodding your head while standing over the shoulder of an IT professional as he or she runs through the exact same troubleshooting steps that you have already performed on your malfunctioning computer (i.e. rebooting, ipconfig /renew, etc.), knowing that you have already identified the problem and could instantly fix if only you had administrative rights.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 13, 2006

KFC Sued for Frying Chicken

Unbelievable. (Well, sadly, not...)

The Center for Science in the Public Interest sued the parent company of KFC on Tuesday to try and stop it from frying foods in an artery-clogging fat.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, in a suit filed against Yum! Brands, Inc. in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, said some KFC meals were "startlingly" high in artery-clogging trans fat from the partially hydrogenated oils used for frying.

Well cry me a river. How about taking some personal responsibility for what you shovel into your face? Fast food should be a treat, not a staple.

Is cheesecake illegal yet? 'Cuz I've got a craving.

Source: Reuters

Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 12, 2006

Robotic Touch

Attention, Science geeks.

So far, robots have a very poorly developed sense of touch. But researchers are taking steps in the right direction in the quest to build a robotic fingertip. If you haven't yet heard about the research that Drs. Vivek Maheshwari and Ravi Saraf, at the University of Nebraska, published in the most recent issue of Science, then you need to check it out. If you don't have access to Science, then check out Scientific American or listen to the story on NPR.

Using a self assembled electroluminescent thin film that glows in response to applied pressure, Dr. Saraf's team has built what should be the precursor to robotic skin.

The thin film consists of layers of gold and semiconducting nanoparticles that are produced out of solution, so the sensor can be built to conform to complex shapes, such as those on robotic appendages or surgical instruments.

A more detailed explanation from Nature (I believe this requires subscription):

The film is about 100 nanometres (100 x 10-9 metres) thick, roughly 1,000 times thinner than standard office paper. It is built like a sandwich of alternating layers of gold and cadmium sulphide nanoparticles, each separated by insulating polymer sheets just 2 or 3 nanometres thick.

The whole device is hooked up to electrodes that allow a current to flow through the film. When pressed onto a surface, the stress distorts the layers so that electrons can more easily hop across the insulating polymer layers and hit the cadmium sulphide particles. This makes the particles glow — the greater the stress, the more light they emit. A camera then measures the strength of the glow, which relates directly to the pressure felt by different parts of the film.

Of course, using a camera to detect the different levels of pressure may seem pretty impractical when trying to develop a robot skin. But obviously, fiber optics can transmit this information to a processing center (a novel approach). At that point, it would seem like a great idea to look into grafting this stuff onto humans with injuries. Years away, I know. Decades. But it could be done.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 8, 2006

Berg Watching

Reuters and CNN rushed to Michael Berg, parent of slain Nicholas Berg, for his absolute moral authority-laden opinion on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, thus reinforcing the point of this week's Ann Coulter brouhaha. This interview will undoubtedly be dissected by many who are far more qualified writers than I, covering such points as:

Nick Berg was a grown man and a civilian, in Iraq voluntarily for non-military purposes
Nick Berg was, in fact, not killed by George W. Bush
Michael Berg is running for Congress, and doing a splendid job of using his son's death to launch his political career
Papa Berg is the MSM exploitation-of-the-week

And so on. So I won't bother getting into all of that. But there's something else in the Berg interview that rang in the back of my mind. He said:

As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

[...] I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.

When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people.

This reminded me of an essay Carl Sagan once wrote called "The Rules of the Game." In it, he asks if there might be a scientific way of measuring the moral codes that have regulated the behavior of man "since the dawn of civilization."

He begins with, but dismisses, the Golden Rule as being too forgiving:

"The most admired standard of behavior, in the West, at least, is the Golden Rule, attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Everyone knows its formulation in the first-century Gospel of St. Matthew: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Almost no one follows it. When the Chinese philosopher Kung-Tzu (known as Confucius in the West) was asked in the fifth century B.C. his opinion of the Golden Rule, of repaying evil with kindness, he replied, "Then with what will you repay kindness?" Shall the poor woman who envies her neighbor's wealth give what little she has to the rich? Shall the masochist inflict pain on his neighbor? The Golden Rule takes no account of human differences. Are we really capable, after our cheek has been slapped, of turning the other cheek so it can be slapped? With a heartless adversary, isn't this just a guarantee of more suffering?"

Sagan went on to describe other morality rules, such as the Silver, Brazen, and Iron rules (and Tin, of his own devising). But he also dismisses these as being either too lenient or too unforgiving:

"The Golden and Silver Rules seem too complacent. They systematically fail to punish cruelty and exploitation. They hope to coax people from evil to good by showing that kindness is possible. But there are sociopaths who do not much care about the feelings of others, and it is hard to imagine a Hitler or Stalin being shamed into redemption by good example. Is there a rule between the Golden and Silver on the one hand and the Brazen, Iron and Tin on the other which works better than any of them alone?"

Sagan ends up settling on "The Tit-for-Tat" rule, which is essentially the Brass or Brazen Rule (Do unto others as they do unto you), except this rule always employs an initial, peaceful approach to all others, right up until you are grieved. Indeed, the Tit-for-Tat "involves an interesting mix of proclivities: initial friendliness, willingness to forgive, and fearless retaliation." But this rule loses its effectiveness if everyone playing doesn't fully understand the latter half: Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you.

Whether Berg believes his rhetoric or not is a matter of speculation, and largely irrelevant. What does matter is his broadcast that we are somehow in solidarity in our sole employment of the Golden Rule, and no fear of retaliation is warranted if someone should assail us. This endangers us equally if not more so than overt acts of aggression, but the Left chooses to only view a single side of this issue: unmitigated peace, at all costs.

Whatever Berg's personal and political motivations may be behind condemning Iraq, his son was killed by al-Qaeda. The very mentioning of Saddam Hussein is setting up a straw man, one easily devoured by the media and the Left. Kudos to his political savvy, granted, but it's also a clear window into this man's character. While Ann Coulter might be tempted to say that she's never seen a grieving father enjoying his son's death so much, for my part, I'm just wondering: If Michael Berg cannot "be glad that another human being is dead," then how can he not have - at the very minimum - a desire for justice to be served to the murderer of his son?

Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you.

On a semi-related note, this man's a socialist.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Milledge Just Trying To Have Fun

To cheer or not to cheer, you make the call.

Lastings Milledge is an outfielder for the New York Mets. He was their number one draft pick a couple years ago and has been developing in their minor league system. Many consider him to be the entire package, and whenever a team talks trade with the Mets, they try to include Milledge in their deal somehow to get him. Those close to the game have already made comparisons to a young Barry Bonds and Ken Griffy, Jr. Yes, he’s that good. When the Mets’ starting right fielder had to go on the disabled list, Milledge got called up to the bigs for the first time in his young career last week.

On Sunday (I know, I’m a few days behind) Milledge got his first home run within his first 17 at bats. But it wasn’t an ordinary home run. The Mets were down by one run in extra innings, and Milledge hit a two out home run to tie the game and keep the Mets alive. His first ever big league home run, a pretty special occasion for any young player. It got the crowd very excited and he even got a curtain call out of it. As he took the field in the next inning, fans were reaching out to him to give him high fives. Milledge obliged on his way out to right field. This is what stirred up the “controversy.” Some players and coaches on both teams frowned on the actions. They thought he might have been showing up the other team and the such (the Mets did go on to lose two innings later). He even got called into his manager’s office to have a talk about it, and in interviews he did say that he got caught up in the emotions of it all and it won’t happen again.

So I ask…what’s the big deal? The kid just hit his first home run in the Major Leagues! Celebrate! I bet those same players looking down on him for it celebrated in some way on their first home run. Give the kid a break. Is MLB turning into the NFL where you are not allowed to have fun anymore? Here’s a guy who got the fans excited and he’s getting blasted. Well I applaud you Mr. Milledge. Way to have fun like the game is supposed to be.

Jim Caple writes a column on ESPN.com called Page 2. Usually some very good stuff. He has a great humorous take on the whole situation here. Be prepared to chuckle.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 7, 2006

Top Ten Ways to Destroy Earth

Want to destroy the Earth? Look no further! Just follow the link below.

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy...

Having shamelessly quoted most of this article, I'll take a second here to say, I personally believe that some of the things man is doing and has done, have indeed affected the Earth adversely, contrary to the gist of the quote above. But I think the linked article is interesting nonetheless.

Click here, if you dare.

Image: LiveScience

Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 6, 2006

Nordic Tracking

Last year I wrote about tracking "good" socialism in the Baltic region (Bunch of B.S. (Baltic States)):

This article made me realize something. Something very obvious now that I look back on it. PJ O'Rourke had written an article on some of the more annoying Baltic States [sic] who seem to be prospering in their socialism. It seemingly contradicted everything that I believe, that no socialist state could survive long-term. So I've been a little perplexed by this.

I went on to suggest some reasons for their teetering success, and was quickly rebuked by a few Swedish commenters. So I feel somewhat vindicated reading that things aren't quite as rosy over there these days then when O'Rourke had last visited.

Per Bylund writes:

While in the early 20th century the Social Democrats, a hegemonic power in Swedish politics throughout that century (and beyond), had demanded tax cuts to liberate workers from unnecessary burden, it now swiftly changed into a tax-raising, welfare-embracing party calling for more "liberating" social reform. The voting masses, children of the welfare state dependent on its system of logic, supported the tax hikes, which quickly climbed to 50% and higher. And they demanded social benefits at taxpayers' expense to cover for and exceed these higher taxes.

Gee, why does that sound so familiar?

Read the whole thing: How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 4, 2006

Animal Husbandry

I have made the argument several times (though I can find little reference to it on the Atlas Blogged archives - I must have been arguing in email) that despite what so many believe, gay marriage does not necessitate polygamy or bestiality. I did take a little convincing about the polygamy part - see Kip, Esquire for a great argument that helped me figure it out.

But the bestiality part in particular I have always though was a pretty ridiculous, reactionary, Chicken Little argument. I mean, seriously... If two men have lived together and loved one another for years and years, the legalization and legitimization of that relationship is not a compelling bestiality argument in any way. It's not a slippery slope.

Having said all of that, this story is a little disturbing. Thank you, Lawyers, Gun$ and Money for the laugh.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 1, 2006

Perez Dispenser

Behind County Executive Doug Duncan and Councilmember Phil Andrews, no one quite embodies Montgomery County Maryland's socialist agenda like Councilman Tom Perez. Having nothing intelligent to add to the discussion about Minutemen, illegal immigration, and the county's day laborer centers, Perez falls back on racism:

There’s a regrettably long history of xenophobes who oppose immigration. The good news is that they have always remained a small fringe group, and they will continue to be.

Racism. Montgomery County is paying $125,000 a year to operate these day laborer centers, and any questioning of this is dismissed as racism by Tom Perez, former President of the Board of Directors for Casa de Maryland, a group dedicated to the Balkanization of Maryland and "the resentful questing for group-specific rights." As Keith Thompson says, there's a word for this: pathetic.

Tom Perez defines himself and his political career by his race, undoubtedly having "Dominican-American" printed on his business cards, despite being born in Buffalo. But hey, whatever helps you pander to the races, amigo. But if you take away everything race-related on his biography, all you have left is his phone number and that he once worked for Ted Kennedy. And that should tell you everything.

The issue of illegal immigration has been discussed extensively on Atlas Blogged's mailing list, Atlantico, over the last few months. The subject fairly evenly divides us, and I am sure there will be many posts to come on this in the future. The one thing that I am confident in speaking on behalf of Atlas Blogged is that the Montgomery County government should not be spending taxpayer money on these day laborer centers. If Casa de Maryland and Tom Perez feel that strongly about the centers, then they should be pursuing the raising of private funds instead of county hand-outs.

Call me xenophobic.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)