Thirty Second Thoughts

Why Newt Won… and What It Means

2012-01-22T00:25:00.001-08:00

Newt Gingrich handily won the GOP South Carolina primary earlier today, with 41% of the vote to Romney’s 27%, followed by Santorum at 17% and Ron Paul at 13%. Gingrich’s late surge to victory was unthinkable even a week ago. How did he do it? How did he come from being a distant third to dominate the election, winning almost every county in the state? And what does this foretell for the rest of the primary campaign?

The reason for Newt’s victory is simply this: he has convinced the TEA Party faction of the GOP, those voters who are deeply concerned about the steep trajectory of our national debt and deficit spending, who are frustrated with the ever-increasing intrusion of government in terms of laws and regulation and their effect on every facet of American life from what we eat and drink to the type of light bulb, automobile, or health insurance we can (or must) buy, that he is the candidate who understands and respects their concerns. More important, he will do something to alleviate those concerns.

Newt has always been a policy wonk; someone who understands the intricacies of the interactions between government, industry, and the economy, and while voters respect him for his acumen that is not what has swung them over. After all, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are also smart fellows with considerable depth and breadth of knowledge about government and business. However, Newt does stand apart from the other candidates in his ability to marshall all of the facts and data to support his positions. That command of the facts gives Gingrich a confidence in the correctness of his answers that really comes across. Newt believes because he demonstrably knows.

That confidence is the reason why Newt won; not only can he unabashedly state his positions, but he can do so in a logical and straightforward way that is as instructive to his audience as it is persuasive. Newt’s decades of teaching experience is a key part of his ability to effectively communicate his positions, ideas, and vision… and that is something no other GOP candidate has. In uncertain times leaders who are intelligent, persuasive, informed, and confident are compelling to voters.

What happens next? I believed (and still do believe) that the SC primary outcome was a decisive inflection point for the GOP nomination battle. Here are my predictions:

Rick Santorum’s crushing defeats in New Hampshire and South Carolina effectively ended any chance he has for the nomination; barring a blow-up by Newt Gingrich before the Florida primary that allows Santorum to step up and assume the mantle of the anti-Rommey, he will go down to another resounding defeat in the Sunshine State and end his campaign shortly thereafter… and he will endorse Newt (you read it here first!).
Ron Paul, the irascible grandfather figure in the race, has been, is, and will be a non-entity, fading away before the convention even if he doesn’t drop out. Paul is right about many things, and especially right on the goals, but he is way off on the ways to accomplish his goal. Ron will not endorse any other candidate, before, during, or after the convention, but he also won’t run as a third-party candidate because doing so would end his son’s political career.
Mitt Romney, the all-but-inevitable candidate as late as last weekend has suddenly morphed into the candidate who has lost two out of the last three primaries. All of the air has gone out of his sails at exactly the moment Newt’s sails have been filled; the shift of momentum couldn’t have come at a worse time. Romney will never get the momentum back because he is lacking confidence in his positions -- the fundamental quality that voters are looking for -- and he no longer has the lock on electability. I expect Romney’s campaign and his Super PACs to go relentlessly after Gingrich, and I expect those efforts to look increasingly desperate and irrelevant. Romney will fight on until Super Tuesday, but it will all be over by the end of February, because the only candidate who will benefit from any Gingrich stumbles will be Santorum… and Gingrich isn’t going to stumble.
Newt Gingrich has gotten up from the second standing eight-count of his campaign, and he will not get knocked down again. He has taken everything his opponents and the media have thrown at him and has bounced back. The collapse of the ABC News efforts to use his wife’s allegations to torpedo him just before the South Carolina primary have insulated him from further attacks against his character based upon events in his marriages, and the Romney campaign’s attempts to use the politically-motivated Ethics Committee report against him will hurt Romney more than Gingrich. Newt will win in Florida and will end up getting the majority of delegates well before the convention. He will be the 2012 GOP Republican presidential candidate… and he will win convincingly against Barack Obama much as Reagan thrashed Jimmy Carter.

So, in short Gingrich won because most GOP voters love what he says, how he says it, and believe he could beat Barack Obama in the presidential election… and there’s nothing that any other GOP candidate can do to change this.

Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich,South Carolina primary,Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum,Ron Paul,GOP nomination,GOP,Republican

The Decisive Point

2012-01-20T00:07:00.001-08:00

Tonight’s GOP debate in South Carolina was a clear win for Newt Gingrich, from the cringe-worthy opening question to the final statement. Considered all but dead a few weeks ago, Newt has reached the decisive point in the race to be the Republican nominee: if he wins this weekend’s Palmetto State primary he will most likely win the the nomination, if he loses his campaign is over and the Romney freight train will roll on to the convention.

So, will he or won’t he? My bet is yes, Gingrich will win. Why? Because Romney showed again tonight the weakness that will keep him off the presidential ballot. He cannot withstand the Left’s attacks on his positions because he does not have an ideological foundation for his positions. His head knows he is right but he doesn’t feel it in his heart; he lacks the courage of his convictions. Romney knows there’s nothing wrong with being very successful, but he really doesn’t have the heart to not just defend his success but to throw it in his attackers’ faces and taunt them with it. I believe this also goes hand-in-hand with his unsuccessful and tepid defense of Romneycare. Mitt isn’t stupid; he realizes that Romneycare was a mistake, but he’s put himself in a position where making that admission means he has to admit he was wrong, and he doesn’t have the courage to do it.

Republican voters aren’t looking for a go-along-to-get-along candidate. They’re angry, fed up with the president and his incompetence, and genuinely frightened about the future of the country. They want a candidate who truly believes what he says, who can clearly defend positions to a hostile media, who will not apologize for holding conservative views. Rick Perry wasn’t articulate enough, Backmann and Santorum aren’t polished enough, Cain wasn’t knowledgeable enough, and Ron Paul comes across as impractical. So, that leaves Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, two men who represent the two conflicting spheres of Republicanism.

Romney represents the pragmatic, moderate sphere… Republicans who have lots of conservative Democrat friends, who generally agree with the Democrat perspective on social mores, who aren’t ideological. In short, the pragmatist sphere, who believe that the problem with government is that it lacks effective management and rational decision-making. Gingrich represents the ideological sphere… Republicans who generally aren’t willing to compromise on principle, who vehemently disagree with their Democrat associates, who reject Democrat social mores. In short, the people who believe the problem with government is that the fundamental direction is wrong, that a radical course of action is needed and now, that half-measures or tweaks aren’t going to fix it, that the proper tool is a chainsaw rather than a scalpel, and that going back to first principles instead of gentle course correction is what is needed.

I believe the massive support for the Tea Party movement among conservatives in general demonstrates the strong desire for a truly transformative president. Just as the disaster of Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan, the debacle that is Obama drives the need for the antithesis… and Romney for all of his virtues and strengths is more like Reagan’s vice-president George H.W. Bush than Reagan. Republican voters have realized this; Mitt Romney has had them looking for another candidate from day 1 to coalesce around… to believe in.

We’ll know on Sunday whether or not they believe in Newt.

Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich,South Carolina primary,Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum,Ron Paul,GOP nomination,GOP,Republican

Thoughts on the 2012 GOP Candidates…

2011-10-05T17:45:00.001-07:00

This afternoon, Sarah Palin announced she would not run for president in 2012. Her ostensible reason given was that she could have more influence as an outsider. Here are my thoughts….

First, Sarah Palin will never be president of the United States. This year was her best chance, but her power and influence came from the fact that she was seen as a central figure in GOP presidential politics having been the ‘08 VP nominee, and since the GOP of today doesn’t give second chances she took McCain’s place as one of inner circle of presumptive nominees. Four years later, she bows out of consideration, and the GOP is no more forgiving. Sarah will continue to have influence on the GOP field, and on the election, but from this moment it will be waning. She will probably spend another year or so in the public light, and then retire to Arizona with her family to enjoy the tens of millions she has made from her ‘fifteen minutes of fame,’ and I don’t begrudge her that reward; she has certainly paid the price for becoming a public figure and a lightning rod.

The interesting question is, why? I have to think that there were just enough to the revelations from the McGinnis book to make a presidential run a disaster for Sarah and the GOP. Certainly the Democrats are the champions when it comes to the politics of personal destruction, and in an environment where the incumbent Democrat president cannot reasonably run on his record, I fully expect Obama and the Democrats to go thermonuclear on their scorched earth progrom. The Democrats have no other alternative than to trash their GOP opponent, to persuade the electorate that no matter how bad they think Obama is, the GOP alternative is worse… and they will relish in making it personal. Maybe Sarah and Glenn Rice had a one-night stand, and maybe they didn’t, and maybe this is a he-said/she-said, and maybe like Monica it’s really no one’s business and has no relevance as to her suitability for the presidency… but it won’t play that way. I can’t say that I blame Sarah for not wanting to go through another year of what will make what has already occurred seem like nothing. I will say, however, that she had a good chance of winning as she was definitely the anti-Obama.

Chris Christie has also definitively announced that he won’t run in 2012, so we are left with the current slate of candidates. On the right we have Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann, a little further towards the center we have Rick Perry, with Mitt Romney by his lonesome in the center, Jon Huntsman to his left, and then on the fringe we have Ron Paul. I’ve deliberately left out Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich; both are extremely well-qualified and both are bonafide conservatives, but in this political climate neither is electable… and that is a real pity.

Mitt Romney is the polished, consummate professional in the race. His years of experience in closely-fought campaigns, winning and losing, plus his innate qualities as a businessman, have made him the best-performing of the candidates. He’s always ready with the perfect counter, he knows how to attack his opponents in a likable manner, and he has the appearance and demeanor of a leader. Of course, Romneycare, the Massachusetts universal healthcare approach that has proven to be suboptimal in Massachusetts and that served as partial inspiration for Obamacare, is the millstone around Romney’s neck; extremely unpopular with the constituencies Romney will need to win the nomination and the presidency. That issue combined with his occasional pandering and flip-flopping is why the GOP faithful want someone else to run that they can get behind. I believe he’d make a competent president in the way that George H.W. Bush made a competent president, but I don’t think he is the leader we need at this time.

Michelle Bachmann showed real promise earlier this year at the debates but her recent statements on Perry’s HPV vaccination program have, I believe, knocked her out of serious consideration for the nomination. In my opinion Bachmann wasn’t ready to run this time, but she will be a powerful force in Republican politics for the future.

Similarly, Jon Huntsman has a very good track record but he is seen as too liberal and a little too weird for the average GOP voter. Another person who would make a good president, but not an inspiring one.

I don’t want to waste time on Ron Paul, the Libertarian-leaning candidate. He’s very right on many things, and very wrong on many other things… certainly a good advisor but in my opinion he would make a poor president because the world doesn’t work the way he believes it should… and won’t any time in the near future.

Rick Perry came into the race as the Savior, the One who would save us from Romney. It hasn’t happened. No one gets to be a successful three-term governor by being stupid, but Perry often comes across that way just because he hasn’t taken the time to refine his messaging on his positions. While he has many good qualities that Republican voters are looking for, I think his positions on immigration, in-state tuition for illegals, vaccinations, etc., come across in the mold of a Nelson-Rockefeller-knows-what’s-good-for-you, and his declaration that people who disagreed with him on these subjects “didn’t have a heart” definitely hurt him with his target electorate. Perry is too authoritarian for my tastes; if I want to be lectured to I’ll vote for Obama.

That leaves Herman Cain. A mathematician by training, a businessman, an accomplished turnaround specialist, unassuming, with a bias for action and a willingness to put it out there. Cain’s rise among the other candidates is almost a fortuitous accident. Cain would make a good president, and might turn out to be a great candidate, and he will be able to come right at Obama like no other GOP candidate possibly can.

So, I think Cain will probably get the nomination as Romney and Perry tear each other up and take each other out and disgust the voters while doing so, and there is no other reasonable alternative. I’m looking forward to seeing him debate the One, because I think the American public is fed up with posturing and show over substance after four years of Obama.

My Addictions…

2011-06-18T19:35:00.001-07:00

I often get into new hobbies and activities after reading about them. My problem is, I never seem to be able to get into anything half-heartedly. It’s all or nothing.

A decade ago I happened to be browsing magazines in the local Barnes and Nobles, and ran across the ARRL’s QST with an article about building your own high-performance amateur radio transceiver. To make a long story short, I bought the magazine, read the article, and then thought How cool would it be to build a radio and then be able to talk around the world on it? Within six months I had obtained my Amateur General license with operating privileges on the worldwide HF bands, and bought and built the Elecraft K2 kit featured in that magazine. A year later I had several ham radios for HF and VHF/UHF, and had talked from Seattle to Tanzania, Kamchatka, Argentina, and the South Pole on 5 watts of radio power. Think about that for a moment… with less electrical energy than a powerful flashlight and without any infrastructure (read: Internet) I was able to communicate around the world. That is pretty amazing, isn’t it?

I won’t even go into my addiction for firearms that led me into opening what was, at the time, the state’s largest indoor shooting range and gun shop. Suffice it to say that I learned a very powerful lesson: never turn your avocation into your vocation. Why not? Because you spend all of your time working at what should be fun, and then when you have some leisure time you don’t want to spend it doing what you do all of the time.

My latest addiction is motorcycles. It started innocently enough, after watching a fly fishing video:

Western Alpine Fly Fishing for Bass

In the video, the fisherman gets into the remote lake by loading his gear onto a ‘80s-era Honda CT-110 motorcycle. While fly-fishing has also been a less intense addiction than most others for me, the motorcycle piqued my interest as a better way to get into remote areas than loading up a pack frame on my back and hiking a couple of miles from my truck (for those of you who don’t live out West, this is BIG country). So, I kept my eye open for a CT-90 (the original ‘70s-era version) or CT-110 at a reasonable price, and picked up a ‘70 CT-90 a few months later.

The CT-90 was an excellent motorcycle for a new rider. My previous experience had been as a teenager swapping out the use of my air rifle for an afternoon to a neighbor who had a CT-70; his parents were totally against guns, and mine didn’t want me to have anything to do with motorcycles, so we’d trade and each get to enjoy a little forbidden fruit. Later on, I rode a motorcycle just TWO times as a adult; once on a friend’s Suzuki 400 and another time on a co-worker’s Kawasaki 750 (the 750 was too big for me, and I almost put it down trying to get started… once I had sufficient speed up, it was easy to ride and turn, and I was able to successfully ride down to the end of the parking lot, turn it around and ride back to a stop). At any rate, the automatic clutch and bicycle-like brakes (a lever on each handlebar, plus a rear brake pedal on the right side) made it enough like a bicycle to make the CT-90 a good beginner’s bike. However, it’s low power and lack of a clutch, the attributes which made it good for beginners, became weaknesses as my interests progressed. (BTW, it’s for sale… a 1970 K2 with less than 1500 original miles in great condition.)

My next bike was a Honda CRF230L, a dual-sport (street-legal but capable of off-road riding) that I picked because it was a Honda dual-sport. Here in Washington state, you cannot operate an unlicensed (not-street-legal) motorcycle on the unpaved forest roads in the state and national forests, and that is a large amount of the unpaved roads and trails in the state and throughout the West, so a street-legal bike is a necessity unless you want to be restricted to your own land or the few crowded designated ‘off-highway vehicle’ (OHV) areas. I chose the Honda because of Honda’s well-deserved bullet-proof mechanical reputation, and I chose this particular bike instead of something larger like Suzuki’s DRZ400 or the Honda, Suzuki, and Kawasaki 650 dual-sports because of it’s light weight and low saddle height. I’ve owned the bike since February and it’s been an enjoyable way to work on my riding skills. It’s also a good tool for spending time with my son; he has a Honda XR70 that I bought him for his 10th birthday which allows us to go trail riding together.

Even though the CRF230L is a great motorcycle for what it is, my addiction made me want something more suitable for longer distances on paved roads. The 230L gets a little squirrelly at highway speeds with its knobbies, and the 223cc engine is not meant to be run at high RPMs for hours on end. I don’t mind throwing it in the back of my pickup and driving to trail heads, but what about riding around Mount Rainier, or around the Yakima River canyon for a day? Nope… I needed a road bike.

After test-riding various Harley Sportster-based bikes, plus a few Yamahas, Kawasakis and Suzukis, I decided what I didn’t want: anything super-high performance, anything that made me lean forward, anything that made it easy to lift the front wheel off the ground with some injudicious use of the throttle and/or clutch, anything with a high saddle height, anything that made its horsepower well up in the RPM range. That pretty much ruled out most of the sport bikes, and a lot of the ‘adventure’ bikes like the V-Strom, the KLR650, and the big Beemers. I found that I liked everything about the Harleys except for the fact they were Harleys: a fine motorcycle but I definitely do not fit the demographic of the typical Harley rider. That was when I stumbled across an article about Honda’s DN-01, a concept bike that was Honda’s modern interpretation of a sports/cruiser combination that had been brought into production. Honda calls it a ‘crossover.’

The DN-01 is a different beast. Unlike sport bikes it has a fairly long wheelbase (62” versus the mid-50” range), is heavy (595 lbs versus mid-400 lb range), and has a low saddle (28” versus 31” or thereabouts for most street bikes). It also has a 680cc V-twin engine, a great design for a cruiser that pulls well at low revs, unlike the typical high-revving inline-4 crotch rocket engines. Perhaps the biggest difference: there’s no clutch. The DN-01 uses Honda’s HFT (Human-Friendly Transmission) hydraulic automatic transmission that is much more like a car’s transmission than the typical CVT found in motor scooters. However like a CVT the gear ranges are infinite. The combination of electronics and mechanical wizardry in the HFT allows for 100% lockup for maximum efficiency yet the transmission ratios can be continually adjusted to provide the best combination of engine RPM for a given speed and power demand. The result is an incredibly smooth riding experience… just twist it and go.

I test-rode a DN-01 down in Oregon a month ago while on business, and decided to buy it after the dealer made me an offer I couldn’t refuse (about half the original MSRP). The DN-01 has sold well in Europe, but not so well here in the US, probably due to the fact that it was introduced during the middle of our Great Recession and at a fairly high factory MSRP. At any rate, the few that are left at dealerships are often priced very aggressively. A week ago I returned to Oregon on business, planning ahead by arranging a one-way car rental and bringing only soft luggage and a Giant Loop Coyote bag to cart everything home in.

While I was at the dealership I also picked up a new Shoei Hornet dual-sport helmet, as I knew my offroad helmet and goggles would be insufficient to multi-hour interstate trips. The Hornet is touted as a true dual-sport helmet, as it can be used on the street with a clear shield, or the shield can be easily removed and the rider can used goggles. However, the one drawback of the Hornet is that you must remove the visor before riding at high speeds, otherwise the wind resistance is so great that your head is pulled back. Don’t ask me how I know this! At any rate, I returned to the dealership before heading off to Seattle, removed the visor and stowed it in my computer backpack, bought a new Joe Rocket Ballistic 7.0 jacket as well to augment my inexpensive nylon mesh jacket, and after cramming the old jacket into the coyote bag, lashing the bag to the back of the DN-01, and then lashing my backpack on top of it, hit the road. Of course, by then it was almost 8 pm. No way to get home before dark, so I figured I’d head north and stop for the night when the twilight faded.

After a quick discussion with a few folks who were hanging out at the shop, I decided against heading northwest on Oregon Hwy 30 to Rainier Oregon and then hopping over the Columbia River on the Longview Bridge. I’ve driven this route several times, and ridden it on a bicycle several times also as it is the last 50 miles of the Seattle-to-Portland double century ride, but riding west into the sun on a two-lane road didn’t seem like all that good of an idea. Instead, I hopped on Hwy 26 back east 10 miles to Portland, and then got on I-5 and headed north.

At first I was very nervous, not having any experience riding on a controlled-access highway at high speed and on a new motorcycle, but that soon faded. Wind blast was an issue also; I was not used to the tremendous air resistance encountered at highway speeds, and the occasional gusts caused by semis. And, as I crossed the I-5 bridge across Columbia River north of Portland, the 20 mph wind coming through the Gorge from the Pacific to the eastern Oregon deserts had me leaning to the left just to keep the bike going straight. The temperature dropped as the sun set and by the time I hit Woodland, about 25 miles north of Portland, I was starting to shiver, so I pulled into a McDonald’s for dinner, a Quarter Pounder with Cheese and a medium hot chocolate. It took me a while to warm up, even sitting inside a warm restaurant and drinking hot chocolate, so I decided to ride for another 10 or so miles, and then spend the night in Kelso. I made it to the Red Lion before it got completely dark, and only realized after I had taken my helmet off to check in how many small bugs were stuck to my visor!

After a good night’s sleep, and a little sleeping in, I was a little worried about the remaining trip. Riding a motorcycle at highway speeds requires one’s full concentration, and is very fatiguing. Certainly this is something that can’t be done for several hundred miles without taking stops every hour or two… and I wanted to be in Seattle by 2:30 to make a phone call to the East Coast. I got everything packed up and headed north around 11 am, stopping to get gas and then deciding to eat just after noon in Centralia, about 100 miles and 2 hours from Seattle. Getting some food inside made me feel a lot more energetic and optimistic, so after taking a picture of myself in the window, and a picture of my loaded motorcycle, it was time to move on.

The last part of my trip went without incident. By now I was used to how the bike handled, and the wind blast. Running at 75 mph, the bike really ate up the miles, and the warmer daytime temperature was very comfortable. I made it back to Bellevue and up to my office with a minute to spare. As I rode the couple of miles to home on surface streets after the call, I already missed the exhilaration of leaning into the wind, and into the turns, of looking over my shoulder, signaling, and then accelerating into a lane change. Of being alone with my thoughts while being completely in the moment, of not consciously thinking anymore about maneuvering and countersteering but just doing, of being one with the motorcycle. That is my latest addiction, and I think I’ll need another fix very soon.

Dear Nervous & Frustrated Liberal Pundit…*

2010-01-20T18:41:00.001-08:00

Dear Nervous & Frustrated Liberal Pundit,

It’s up to you.

Yesterday, after a year of angering the American people, the voters in perhaps the most Democrat-friendly state elected a conservative Republican to the Senate seat held by one Kennedy or another for more than a half-century.

You’re depressed: Massachusetts was supposed to be a shoe-in, a rubber stamp, a mere formality with Paul Kirk keeping the chair warm until a more permanent Democrat could be installed.

You’re angry. You’re wondering in disbelief how can the American people vote for a Republican after the 8 years of George W Bush? Have they forgotten already? In Massachusetts?

And let’s face it, you’re scared. Jonathan Cohn is right. If Obama, Bill Clinton, and Vicki Kennedy can’t get a Democrat elected to Ted Kennedy’s seat, in Massachusetts for God’s sake! then no Democrat Senator or Representative is safe from defeat.

Now you have a choice.

You can continue the denial, the self-deception. You can blame Brown’s victory on the process, the stomach-turning sausage-making that has resulted in what was once called health care reform, is now spun as health insurance reform, but what we all know as Obamacare. After all, what’s in a name? That which we call Obamacare by any other name would still smell most foul.

What about shelving the bill. The bickering and dickering, the horse-trading, backroom dealings, and outright bribery would stop… and these are among the things that have destroyed the Democrat brand in the eyes of the public. These are the things that Obama promised us he would end, and yet you, Liberal Pundit, are oblivious to the anger that has risen from Obama’s embracing of the corruption that he swore he would stop. Even CSPAN has had enough.

Giving up on this health care bill will not damage Democrats in the polls. Honestly, what could damage them any more than they are already? Liberal Pundit, are you really listening to what the American people are saying? It won’t fix the problem. It costs too much. How are we going to pay for it? When are Obama and the Democrats in Congress going to actually do something about the economy, and that doesn’t mean passing Stimulus II, Son of Stimulus, “Targeted Investment” or whatever the nom du jour of the warmed-over bucket of spit that Democrats are bandying around.

Liberal Pundit, the American people are willing to forgive incompetence in their leaders, to Move On if you will, as long as they think the leader won’t screw up like that again. After all, Bill Clinton won a second term after the ‘93 tax hikes, the ‘94 assault weapon ban, and the Brady Bill. Why not advise the Democrats to start over, to invite Republicans including Scott Brown to the table, to create a list of solutions that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Maybe it is only 80%, or 60%, or even 30%… but isn’t 30% of a loaf better than nothing? Especially when bipartisan support also means bipartisan ownership? I think it is, if you care for your country more than you care for your political party, if you’d rather do the right thing than be right, if you’re more interested in accomplishing something than stomping on your political opponents.

So, Liberal Pundit, do you have those qualities? Can you urge the Democrats to be good Americans instead of just good Democrats? To walk the walk and work in a true spirit of bipartisanship to solve the country’s problems? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

______

*A response to Jonathan Cohn’s letter earlier today

Technorati Tags: Jonathan Cohn,health care,Obamacare,Scott Brown

The End of The Beginning, or The Beginning of The End?

2010-01-17T01:17:00.001-08:00

Andrew Sullivan posted recently on how health care seems to be slipping away from the Democrats despite their unassailable supermajority control of Congress and the White House… a supermajority that possibly ends next week if the come-from-behind candidacy of Republican Scott Brown prevails over Mass AG Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate special election.

He had health insurance reform in his grasp and yet it may now be swiped away because they simply took too long to get it done.

The real story of the Massachusetts election, however, is what the outcome will mean in terms of the absolute ability of the Democrats to control Congress. If Coakley wins, it’s another year of one-party rule; the Republicans will continue to play the role of street urchins who can throw rocks at the passing train from behind the fence as it rumbles by but that’s it. If Brown triumphs, however, then the train comes to a screeching halt unless the boys are given some say as to where it’s going, and when. The Democrats will have to work with at least one Republican to get controversial legislation through.

Sullivan argues:

[A vote for Brown is a vote to] embolden every enemy Obama has, from Netanyahu to Ailes.

That’s the only reason to vote for Coakley on Tuesday.

She’s a dreadful candidate, but this race is now a critical battle in the war to rescue the possibility of effective governance.

Give me a break! If Martha Coakley is the one thing that will keep us from descending into chaos, then the battle is lost already and we’re doomed. Actually, the opposite is true. Removing the Democrat supermajority in the Senate is the only chance we have of stopping the bus from driving off of the cliff, of restoring effective governance in the form of ruling according to the wishes of the people.

A Brown victory means that Democrats will no longer be able to damn the torpedoes of public opinion and go full speed ahead on their unpopular radical agenda. They’re going to have to play ball. If healthcare reform is important (and I think that it is, just not in the way the Democrats are proposing), then perhaps adopting a Democrat idea (government as insurer of last resort) along with a Republican idea (allow insurance companies to compete across state lines so that insurance pools can be much larger, spreading the risk around, or tort reform, or both) might actually lead to a better bill, not for the Democrats or Republicans but for the American people. If getting the economy going again is important (and everyone knows that it is), then perhaps we can forego another $800 billion mistake by passing a ‘targeted spending’ bill that is Stimulus II in all but name only. Perhaps we can try making the Bush tax cuts permanent and reducing the corporate and capital gains taxes while also freezing federal spending to 2007 levels. Was government spending really deficient back in 2007?

Of course, if you’re fully invested in the Democrat agenda and believe the country’s finally headed in the right direction, but just not going fast enough, then Martha Coakley is probably your candidate and Andrew Sullivan probably reflects your thinking. Just recognize that most Americans disagree… and that the election of Scott Brown is the beginning of the end for Democrat control of the federal government as it likely presages a GOP landslide in the mid-term elections. The People are mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore.

Technorati Tags: Scott Brown,Martha Coakley,Andrew Sullivan,Massachusetts Senate race,Congress,supermajority

Plan B

2010-01-13T00:24:00.001-08:00

In the past few days, there’s been a couple of stories floating an idea by the Treasury Department to encourage people with 401(k) accounts to switch their investing out of securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) and into annuities:

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.

The purported reason for this is to ensure that those who plan to depend on their 401(k)s for the bulk of their retirement income will have a sufficient income stream, with the excuse given that investors lost an average of 31% of the value of their 401(k) accounts between January 2008 and March 2009. What is hidden in the story is the fact that these accounts recovered half of that loss in the past nine months, and at the current rate of growth in the stock market the average 401(k) will be back at January 2008 levels in another nine months. So, where is the crisis? What is the real reason?

I think the real reason is clear; the Obama Administration has an eye on all of that money and wants to grab it. Obviously, outright confiscation would result in an armed uprising by outraged Americans. However, what if the Congress pulled an Argentina and changed the 401(k) laws to force conversions of all of the funds in 401(k)s to government-backed annuities… T-bills… or face a confiscatory tax rate? Yes, there’d be a court battle that would drag on for years, and that might or might not be won by taxpayers, but in the meantime the government has all of that money. And what would they do with it?

Today, our budget deficits are funded by taking the surplus funds out of Social Security, and selling T-bills. The Social Security surplus is drying up as the number of retired recipients is approaching the number of working contributors. Buyers of our T-bills are similarly drying up; it’s a lot easier to sell a couple hundred billion dollars worth of T-bills each year than to sell more than a trillion dollars worth of T-bills each year… and as the economy falters and we buy less imported oil and Asian-manufactured goods the Arabs, Japanese, and Chinese have less dollars to buy our T-bills. More important, the Chinese, who are the largest purchasers of T-bills, have us over a barrel. They can use the threat of not buying our debt as a strategic lever against us. Certainly our economy would collapse if we were forced to either stop all deficit spending or print more than a trillion dollars to buy next year’s debt. As China’s domestic consumption grows, they need our markets less and less… and we’ve already funded much of their economic development. What if they decide to annex Taiwan, and they use the threat of cutting off purchasing our debt if we interfere? Will the Obama Administration risk economic collapse over Taiwan? I don’t know if the Chinese are willing to push us that far, but certainly we’re fools if we expect them to continue to buy our debt when our ability to repay that debt is becoming increasingly doubtful. So the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats have come up with an alternative, a Plan B, to take all of the money in our 401(k) accounts.

A prudent nation would forego more government spending than it collects in taxes. Prudent and Congress are two words that are seldom if ever found in the same sentence, however. The current Congress seems hell-bent on spending every dime they can get their hands on, and borrowing even more money to spend once that is gone. The current Administration will not stop them. Changing the law to put another $3.6 trillion in the hands of the Congressional spendthrifts and postponing the hard decisions about government spending for another couple of elections is the easy way out, especially if enough people buy the spin about how this is somehow looking after their best interests.

This is how a once-great country sinks into economic purgatory. This is how America, the strongest nation the world has ever known, with the largest economy and the highest standard of living, turns into a banana republic. Be afraid. Be very afraid. (HT: Instapundit)

Technorati Tags: economy,China,deficit,debt,401(k),Obama,Treasury

Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime?

2010-01-05T22:58:00.001-08:00

A letter from the RNC was in the mail tonight. Michael Steele is shaking the tree to help fund the RNC for the ‘10 campaign cycle. So what else is new?

Well, for one thing the RNC’s historical fundraising advantage is missing this year. The Washington Times reports that the RNCC has barely enough money to fund a single Congressional race, having raised $18 million less than the DNCC and with less than $2 million of available funds today versus over $15 million for the Democrats. Politico reports that Congressional GOP incumbents have been reluctant to turn over campaign funds to the RNCC; Democrat GOP incumbents have given $2 million more out of their campaign war chests to the DNCC. But this is really a smokescreen; the real reason that the RNCC is running on fumes has to do with GOP voter disaffection. (HT: Newsweek) Yet Republican Party leaders don’t seem to get it… or they don’t want to get it.

For too long, each party has treated much of its base like bastard step-children. But evidence abounds that the conservative voters are fed up with politics as usual, with party bosses who cavalierly dismiss supporters’ concerns and frustrations with a wave of the hand while snickering “Where are they going to go?” Well, guess what? They went and started their own political organization: the TEA Party. They’ve decided to take back their country and take on both Democrats and Republicans. TEA Party supporters played a major role in the Republican off-year election victories, but perhaps their biggest statement was made in the NY-23 Congressional election that was won by a Democrat after the GOP establishment insisted on supporting Dede Scozzafava, a liberal ‘RINO’, over a conservative candidate (Doug Hoffman) for pragmatic reasons (GOP elites didn’t think a conservative Republican could win in that district and wanted a liberal Republican, assuming that all of the Republicans and many Democrats would vote for her). The RNCC spent over $1 million to support Scozzafava, yet Hoffman’s endorsement by Sarah Palin brought the nation’s attention to his candidacy, a significant amount of donations from out-of-state TEA Party supporters, and overwhelming support in the district. Realizing she had no chance of winning, Scozzafava dropped out of the race… and then endorsed the Democrat candidate who went on to win. The real loser in this election wasn’t Doug Hoffman, who will run again in 2010 and who will most likely win, it was the GOP leadership.

So, “where are they going to go?” Well, as a volunteer who spent his own time and money to leave Washington state and go to Florida to help campaign for McCain last November, and as someone who believes the GOP leadership hasn’t learned its lesson from the past two national election cycles, I can tell you where I’m going to go… and it’s not to a GOP fund-raiser. I gave money to Doug Hoffman, and I’ve given to Joe Wilson, and I’ve given to Scott Brown… and I’ve given to them directly instead of donating to the RNC and letting them pick and choose. Millions of disaffected GOP voters are doing the same thing, bypassing the party and supporting only those candidates who agree with them.

The GOP leadership is in grave danger of losing their conservative base, and more ‘Scozzafavas’ (supporting establishment RINO Republicans) will only hasten the process. I personally have no intention of giving to the RNC for a while; if my campaign contributions are going to be thrown down a rathole then I’d just as soon pick the rathole.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich successfully ended 40 years of Democrat control in the House by understanding why the majority of Americans were angry at the Democrat-controlled Congress, and then getting GOP candidates (incumbents and challengers) to pledge to address those issue if voters supported them. The majority of voters agreed with the agenda and believed in the GOP candidates, and history was made. Sixteen years later, and four years after losing control of the Congress, today’s GOP leadership seemingly has no real clue as to why many of the folks who voted the GOP out are now gathering by the millions… and no clue as to how to obtain TEA Party support. Voter disaffection with the incumbent Democrats is nearly at an all-time high (and it is only going to get higher as the economy fails to recover), yet the Palins and Bachmanns who are inspiring the TEA Party supporters have little influence in the GOP.

Mr. Steele, with all due respect, you and the rest of the GOP leadership need to get a clue. And you need to get it quick. Otherwise, 2010 will be historical only in that future pundits and historians will wonder how the GOP could have blown such a great opportunity. Here’s a hint: listen to the TEA Party protests and come up with objective, measurable solutions for America’s problems and not just less of what the Democrats are promising. And tell us the truth! We can take it.

The World Leaders' Guide to Dressing One's Children at International Summits... or, what not to wear

2009-07-09T01:07:00.000-07:00

The London Daily Mail has an article on Malia's attire at the G-8 Summit, specifically on the political nature of the peace symbol displayed prominently on Obama's eldest daughter's shirt.

Perhaps the Obamas see this differently than I and many others do. In their minds, a peace sign is non-confrontational, and besides no one in their right mind can be against peace. Maybe they do understand the significance of the symbol and this is someone's way (Michelle?) of making a point. Or could it be that this is a cheap way to score points with the disaffected Left, the folks who are angry with Obama for not pulling the plug on Iraq, Gitmo, DOMA, etc. Yes, this is the cynical view.

Look at the bright side. Maybe Obama's daughters can hang out with fellow Democrat presidential offspring Amy Carter, famous for the shoutout she received from Dad during one of the Carter-Reagan debates for her role as one of her fathers's sought-after advisors on nuclear weapons policy. Sure, then Obama can be like Jimmy Carter, following Carter's example, consulting with the Obama girls just like Jimmy. Because we all remember what a smashing job HE did on foreign policy, economic policy, etc.

Oh, wait...

The Definitive Electronic Reader: Amazon gets it right with the new Kindle DX

2009-06-13T14:03:00.001-07:00

The new Kindle DX alongside an original Kindle

Although I was an early adopter of the original Kindle, I've eagerly anticipated Amazon's Kindle DX. The original device was, and is, well-suited for light reading of non-serious material, but its small screen size and lack of PDF support made it mostly a recreational device. I quickly realized that any serious technical book still worked better in physical form. That, combined with the original Kindle's inability to handle PDFs (Adobe Portable Document-format files, a rendering of a document's printed image via Adobe Acrobat and other converters) in a usable form (the conversion left a lot to be desired), made me look at other e-readers, particularly the iLiad iRex Digital Reader 1000-series. Unfortunately, the iRex 1000 ereader, at above $1000, was still a work-in-progress, with serious deficiencies in terms of functionality and reliability, and I didn't want to be an alpha tester of a device that might never be finished. Amazon's announcement of the large-format Kindle DX with native PDF support seemed like the answer... so I plunked down the money for a DX and the Amazon case and got on the waiting list.

Why would you want native PDF support? The small Kindles support PDF files via translation; you send a PDF document to Amazon and they convert it to the Kindle's AZW format and send it back to you, either to your desktop email account (free) or directly to your Kindle ($0.10 per document). However, if your document is anything more than simple text, formatting and imagery are mangled. What you get is readable but not nearly as readable as a Kindle document that was specifically prepared for the device. This is an inherent restriction caused by the difference between a document file structure that is meant to preserve formatting (PDF) and one that is meant to allow for text flow despite screen or font size concerns (AZW). The result was that you couldn't practically use either the original or 2nd gen Kindles for reading even reasonably complex PDF documents. Having an integral native PDF reader on the new Kindle DX (as seen to the left) solves this problem and opens up a HUGE world of documents to the Kindle owner.

I've had the Kindle DX for about a day now, and it's everything I was looking for. PDFs render beautifully, not like they did on the original (the same PDF on the original Kindle, at right) and Kindle AZW documents render even better than they did on the original Kindle due to the larger screen size and 16-tone grey scale capability. The large screen really elevates the new DX into something more than a convenient device for light reading. The Kindle DX shows the true utility of an electronic reader for the first time. It's what the Kindle should have been from the start.

What has improved? Performance is better, particularly the screen refresh rate. The new button design means not turning pages accidentally anymore (although I wish they'd kept buttons on both sides of the device for us left-handers). I don't like not having an SD card slot on the device, nor do I like not being able to change the battery without sending the device back to Amazon. Being able to turn the Whispernet modem on and off via software (menu item) is scads better than having to move a switch. The web browser's 'desktop' mode makes the browser very usable, especially when combined with the rotation feature. Speaking of rotation, the ability to rotate the device and view documents in either landscape or portrait mode is KILLER. Text-to-speech works well, but I have yet to try it for actually 'reading' (listening to) a document while doing something else, e.g., driving, to see if it is really useful or just a checklist feature. The Amazon cover (extra charge) is WAY above the original Kindle's flimsy cover; it actually holds the device securely, protects the screen, yet is easy to open (beware of the magnetic latch around external hard drives or near the bottom of your laptop).

Okay, so now I have two Kindles. My wife asked me why I need two, a good question. My answer is, the small Kindles are great for light reading... the latest fiction novel, public-domain classics, etc., but they're useless for PDFs or more serious reading such as technical books because the screen size is too small and images, formulas, etc., don't display well. The Kindle DX is great for any type of reading and shines with PDFs and more serious books, yet it is considerably heavier than the original Kindle (I'd say twice as heavy, if not more so) and not as convenient to stuff in a carry-on bag. I've already moved all of the technical books I own over to the DX, as well as many PDF documents. I had decided to not buy any serious books for my Kindle, using it only for light reading... but the new Kindle DX has changed my mind. The experience of reading a technical book is as good or better than the physical book, and that is something that could not be said about the smaller Kindles.

If I had to own just one electronic reading device, the choice is obvious: the Kindle DX. Amazon has gotten it right; the Kindle DX finally fulfills the 'book' paradigm in an electronic device.

"We Can't Manage The Federal Budget, So Let's Run The Automakers!"

2009-05-18T16:05:00.000-07:00

I don't get why Glenn Reynolds is picking on Chrysler, when the real villain/moron in the story is the Obama Administration. I understand Chrysler's attempts to stimulate sales on vehicles sitting at dealerships, including the soon-to-be-ex-dealers; Chrysler doesn't want to take the vehicles back. To be honest, the additional $1k is making me seriously consider buying a new Dodge Ram half-ton. I've owned two Dodge Dakota Quad Cabs ('00 and '04) and have found them to be well-designed and built, and trouble-free. Ford and GM also make great trucks, but I don't hesitate to recommend Dodge and to buy another one. However, if Chrysler goes under (fails to emerge from bankruptcy) then the value of any Chrysler product including a brand-new vehicle will drop significantly, and that is perhaps the main reason why I hesitate to buy. The blame for this will lie not with Chrysler, but with the Obama Administration and their botched handling of the bankruptcy. More specifically, the responsibility will be Obama's.

Although Chrysler's problems are not new, all of the automakers have suffered from the recession. People who are worried about whether or not they’ll have a job aren’t going to go out and buy a new car. What differentiates Chrysler is the FUD that has been spread by the Obama Administration and it's hardball approach to the Chrysler bankruptcy. Chrysler's sales have slumped more than the others due to concerns about the automaker's future viability. Throwing money, or Fiat, at the problem isn't going to fix it. Instead, the fix is to give Chrysler the same labor environment that successful US automakers (Toyota, Honda, BMW, VW) have, by breaking the UAW's stranglehold on the company. Of course, this one critical fundamental step is the one that Obama won't do due to his obligations to the unions.

What I don’t understand is, why is Chrysler shedding dealers? There is no ownership involved; dealers are independent businesses with a contractual agreement to buy Chrysler products and then support them. Automakers need dealers, because consumers won’t buy a car without a dealer to back the car up. Chrysler evidently thinks that their sales won't drop if they close these dealers. What they fail to understand is that the marginal cost of additional dealers is minimal. Dealers are truly the automakers' customers, so who cares if they buy 100 cars or 10,000? Each additional car sale is one that might not happen without that dealer.The economy will rebound, and it will be a lot harder to get new dealers than to keep the existing ones.

Can someone tell me how, if the desire was to kill Chrysler instead of saving it, would the Obama Administration's actions concerning Chrysler be any different?

What I've Been Discussing...

2009-05-05T20:37:00.000-07:00

I found a neat website that can parse through text and determine the relative frequency and contextual importance of the various terms it encounters. The website is Wordle, and I fed it my RSS feed from this blog to produce the following 'wordle'...

Pretty neat....

An Unfailingly Reliable Indicator

2009-04-27T12:23:00.000-07:00

Then-President Jimmy Carter defending himself against a crazy rabbit (upper right)

I see former president Jimmy Carter has an op-ed in today's New York Times calling for the re-enactment of the 1994 'Assault Weapon' ban, a useless symbolic gesture and perhaps the single achievement of the Democrat House that allowed the GOP to take that chamber back after a half-century (certainly Bill Clinton believed so).

What I don't understand is why anyone is pushing for this law, a law that had absolutely no effect on crime, that was never successfully prosecuted, and that is almost certainly unconstitutional in this post-Heller world. One of Carter's claims is that American-made and legally purchased 'assault weapons' are being smuggled into Mexico and used by the cartels in their war against each other and the Mexican government... a claim which has been proven false as the cartels' main source of weapons is from other Central American countries like Panama, where real full-auto assault weapons (not the semi-auto lookalikes we can legally buy here), rocket launchers, grenades, etc., are available. Actually, I do understand. It's not about the problem in Mexico, it's about not trusting the American people.

Carter talks about his hunting guns, and then derides the NRA for "defending criminals' access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers." What he is either too stupid, or too dishonest to mention is that any centerfire deer rifle, including the ones he claims he owns and uses, will penetrate "protective clothing worn by police officers" (body armor). In fact, a criminal with a hunting rifle is far more dangerous than one with a semi-automatic AK-47. If Carter were really concerned enough about the danger to police he'd voluntarily turn in his own firearms before they can be stolen and put to criminal use. Again, the claim to be a 'hunter' is only a badly-disguised attempt to portray himself dishonestly as a 'sensible' gun owner instead of the elitist bigot that he really is. (If you're thinking I neither like or respect the man, you're thinking right.)

I for one am grateful Jimmy Carter occasionally makes a return to the world's stage. This man is the most reliable indicator of the intelligent side of a position the world has ever seen. You simply have only to determine where Jimmy Carter stands... and then you know unfailingly the opposite side is correct.

Don't The Police Have More Important Things To Do?

2009-04-27T11:22:00.000-07:00

A perfect example of what is wrong with our country.

Santa Monica has hundreds of burglaries, robberies, dozens of rapes... and yet they have the manpower and money to go after this poor schlub?

The Seattle Tea Party

2009-04-15T23:23:00.001-07:00

I went down to Westlake Center in Seattle this evening to photograph the Seattle Tea Party, and to gauge the mood of the crowd.

I arrived just before the event kicked off, and watched the crowd from across the street, taking a few pictures before I decided to get into the audience for some crowd shots:

The primary organizer and Master of Ceremonies was Keli Carendar, who spontaneously organized the first Tea Party in the country here in Seattle back in February.

Ms. Carendar, dressed as 'Alice in Wonderland', did a great job of firing the crowd up, introducing the different speakers, and even offering a well-sung rendition of "Obama, Won't You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz" based on the Janis Joplin tune. It was pretty funny, and the crowd loved it.

There were perhaps a thousand Tea Party-ers with a wide variety of signs, mostly related to taxes and spending, but there was also a lot of anger about the TARP program, the Stimulus Bill, and the massive increase in the federal budget:

There wasn't much of a counter-protest, maybe a couple dozen disorganized folks who mostly came down to have some fun." I talked to a few of them and really felt like the two sides are talking past each other; one teenager/twentysomething couldn't understand why the Tea Party folks were against "fairness" because "after all, that's what Obama is trying to do, ensure fairness. I tried to explain to him that maybe these folks believed that making them pay for other folks' mortgages, or for bailing out companies that took huge yet foreseeable risks was unfair, and that they thought putting a $200k bill on their children was especially unfair... but of course the young man isn't paying taxes because he doesn't make enough and believed that only the "rich" would end up paying for these programs. Another fellow evidently thought the Tea Party-ers were hypocritical in that they "supported socialism when it benefited them." His counter-protest sign illustrated his point, and since he was being very polite and well-mannered I didn't bother to explain the false premise he was making (that government services such as the military or law enforcement are a form of socialism). You can read his sign and make up your own mind. And then there was this last sign representing the motivations of most of the counter-protesters, who came down to shock the squares and get some laughs. I thought she was cute, so I sure hope that sign belongs to her boyfriend!

I especially liked this poignant sign from a capitalist wondering what the heck happened to his country. A witty way of capturing the change that has happened in America over the past quarter century; while the GOP was winning at the polls, the Democrats were winning the hearts and minds of Generations X and Y. The minority view of the 1980s is the conventional wisdom of today.

Maybe it takes a Jimmy Carter, or a Barack Obama, for people to relearn the lesson of how There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch every generation, and that someone has to pay for all of these programs. Maybe it's a good thing the Democrats won everything, so that America can realize just exactly how Democrats govern (unapologetic big spenders, as opposed to apologetic big spender Republicans). And maybe the GOP needs some time in the wilderness to think about the butt-kicking they've taken since 2006 and for the lesson of what happens when you don't govern the same way you campaign to sink in.

There was a considerable police presence, with a half-dozen mounted police (on horseback), perhaps another dozen bicycle police, and a couple of patrol cars with another half-dozen officers distributed through the square. The crowd was well-behaved, though, and the police mostly talked to each other and enjoyed the afternoon.

The event ended around 7:30, with the last speaker getting the crowd fired up about throwing all of the incumbents out to send a message. I think the only way to solve the problem with our government is to get rid of the concept of career politicians by enforcing term limits on all federal elected offices. If eight years is good enough for the president, then surely twelve years is good enough for a Congressman or Senator.

It is unconscionable that a person who has never worked in the private sector can become a multi-millionnaire through public office, and this seems to be especially prevalent among Democrats, the prime examples being Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Finally, Ms. Carendar announced that more Tea Parties were scheduled for upcoming holidays, and promising to run them until the 2010 elections.

In summary, a surprisingly strong crowd of folks who don't ordinarily come out and protest, reflecting considerable anger at their elected officials. I don't think the GOP understands how much of this anger is pointed their way, either. The true test of the Tea Party movement is its longevity; will these Parties be a flash in the pan, or will they grow over the next two years and culminate in a changing of the guard in Congress and the states? I think the answer lies in whether or not a leader emerges who can effectively speak to this anger and inspire a following, and so far I don't see that person.

Note: All photos taken with a Sigma SD14 dSlr, and either a Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC Macro lens, a Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX DG lens, or a Celestron 300/5.6 mirror lens.

The Nightmare Scenario: Are We Paying For The Rope That Will Be Used To Hang Us?

2009-04-15T09:57:00.000-07:00

Let's say you were running a country with a huge population but a primitive infrastructure. For historical reasons, your population was not well-educated and your country was not industrialized; manual labor predominated. Your political-economic system provided security for the ruling elite and a docile populace, but the fundamentals of your economy could only change if you obtained money from other countries. More important to you as a leader, you believed your country was not treated with the respect it deserved given its historical accomplishments. How would you address these problems?

Let's say you realized that, although your economy was aligned with socialist principles, you were enough of a realist to realize that economic capitalism was the best way to bring prosperity and technical advancement to your country. So, you decide to utilize capitalism by exploiting your greatest resource; your people.

Fast forward a dozen years. Your country's factories produce durable goods for the world. Because you don't enforce intellectual property laws, much of what you value from other countries is used without compensation in your country... software, entertainment. You even turn a blind eye to the illegal copying of this, because it brings in hard currency. But all isn't rosy.

You realize that you need to not repeat the mistakes of countries like Japan, or England, Germany, or even the Unites States... manufacturing powerhouses who failed to control the natural resources that they depended on to keep their economies afloat. So, you bribe corrupt leaders of resource-rich but poor countries elsewhere in the Third World so you can develop and control their resources. You give guns and money to the Sudanese regardless of their deeds in Darfur, so you can get the oil you need. You do the same things in Nigeria and Angola. You go elsewhere in Africa, sending your people over to oversee the natives in places like South Africa and Zimbabwe. Like a drug pusher, you give poor nations cheap loans so they become beholden to you. You dump consumer goods in their markets, squeeze out the local competition for textiles, and you set up companies for these markets using mostly Chinese labor. In short, like the European powers you practice colonialism, but unlike your antecedents you have no religious or moral sentiments to make lives better for those you exploit, and you have no plans to leave. You don't stop in Africa, either. Iran and Venezuela need a friend who can sell them weapons, and you need oil. It's just business.

How do you handle your largest competitor, the Unites States? Well, you buy their debt so they can become beholden to you also. You give weapons technologies to proxies like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, so that America has to spend its time trying to do something about proliferation... and each time its efforts fail American prestige suffers another blow. The Islamists leave you alone, because unlike the Americans you really don't care about world opinion, and they know it. Not that you can project power... yet... but you've ensured that countries like Iran understand that it is in their interests to be aligned with you, to sell you oil and buy your technology, while they rail against the West. You don't care if the Islamists want to fight with the Americans. It only weakens both, and that benefits you. You don't care if the North Koreans or the Iranians get the Bomb. They won't use it against you, and it only weakens America.

So, here we are in 2009. China holds almost $2 trillion in US debt, in the form of treasury bonds. Foolishly, we have borrowed money from them to buy from them. And, we are counting on them to buy another couple trillion over the next few years. What happens when China calls in that debt? Or, even worse, what happens when China decides on a course of action that we find objectionable, and their response to our objection is to threaten to destroy our economy? Will we fight for Taiwan, for instance, if the cost of doing so makes our current economic woes seem like a bank holiday?

I don't think we've woken up to the fact that we are currently losing an economic war with China, and if we don't change course quickly we are going to be destroyed as a country. The evidence is there; all one has to do is to look at the contrast between Detroit and Shanghai, and to realize that the money that used to support America's industrial areas (the Rust Belt) has been sent overseas and has built China's shining cities and manufacturing facilities. It's not China's fault, of course. We gave them the opportunity by deliberately choosing to be non-competitive, and they have capitalized on our stupidity. And we're continuing down this road, further stifling our competitiveness because of shortsighted policy decisions. Americans were naive enough to believe that economic prosperity and political freedom had to go hand-in-hand, but that isn't necessarily true in a modern industrial society. Unlike us, the people who govern China don't have to worry about fractious political battles, and unlike us they have learned from their past policy mistakes.

Look ahead a few years. China is preparing a blue water navy, and there's only one reason a country needs a blue water navy: projection of power. China is working on a ballistic missile 'carrier killer' to deal with our blue water navy. China understands the latest GPS and computer technology, because they manufacture it for us, so there's no smart weapon in our arsenal they can't build. And China will have 32 million military-age men for whom there are no Chinese women, so these men will not be able to marry in their own society. All of these things will come to a head at the time we finally run out of money because China can choose when it will stop financing our debt... and then we are broke.

That is the nightmare scenario, the game of Risk in the real world: a China that has sewn up its natural resource needs, that has built a powerful military, and that has brought our economy to a halt. What if they go into Siberia? Only we could possibly stop them, and I don't think the American people will accept the risk of a nuclear strike against an American city to do so. The Russians don't have the population or the military to stand against them, even with nukes. Once China gets Siberia and has a few years of rest to rebuild what they lost in the Sino-Siberian War, who will be next?

The Second Rule of Gun Fighting

2009-03-24T20:51:00.000-07:00

The First Rule of a Gun Fight is 'Have a gun.' What is the Second Rule?

There are four possible outcomes of any gun fight:

No one gets shot (showing a gun gets compliance).

Now, this may be a 'win' and it may not be. If you point a gun at a bad guy and he goes face down on the ground until the police arrive to haul him away, score it a win. If the bad guy makes you comply, e.g., steals your wallet, rapes you, ties you up and throws you in the trunk of his car, you lose... and the scenario dictates how much you lose.

You shoot the bad guy.

He loses. You may or may not win, depending on whether shooting him was the correct thing to do.

The bad guy shoots you.

You lose.

You both get shot.

You still lose, even if the bad guy loses worse.

So, the Second Rule of a Gun Fight is 'Don't get shot!' because winning a gun fight isn't strictly a matter of shooting the bad guy, it's surviving the encounter intact. It seems obvious, but a quick perusal through the 'Lessons Learned' archives of this site alone shows that most gun fights are lost because the good guys fail to faithfully follow the Second Rule.

Let's look at the Miami Burger King shootout that happened today. The bad guy walks in complete with ski mask (thanks for the target identifier, buddy!) and holds up the place. A good guy, complete with concealed carry license, pulls his gun and confronts the bad guy. The bullets start flying, and when it's over the bad guy is dead and the good guy is seriously wounded. Ask yourself, did the good guy really win?

Let's see... he won a trip to the emergency room, several hours of emergency surgery, months of painful convalescence, and perhaps some permanent disability... if he survives. Doesn't sound like much of a win to me.

I'm not saying good guys should never fight back. Quite the contrary. What I want to emphasize here is to keep the goal in mind. The goal is not to protect Burger King's till. It is to protect your life, the lives of your loved ones, and the lives of innocents... in that order. Don't place one day's sales of a small business above your life and the well-being of a family that depends upon you.

Before getting involved in a gun fight, ask yourself is this necessary? As Clint Smith is fond of saying, life will give you plenty of chances to show your heroism, so don't volunteer unnecessarily. Sometimes, however, there are no good choices. Sometimes you will have to get involved, because the cost of not engaging is too high. If you find yourself in such a situation, then remember the Second Rule of a Gun Fight: Don't Get Shot!

Remember also that weapons are merely tools that we use to accomplish a task. Strategy and tactics are really what ensures success with the tool at hand. Have a plan, and develop the skills necessary to carry your plan out to a successful conclusion. In the case of the Miami Burger King shootout, the good guy had the initiative, and he had a gun. But did he have a sound strategy, a plan that would ensure success? No.

From reading the news reports, it appears that the good guy pulled his gun and confronted the armed robber. At this point, the good guy has thrown away every advantage he has, and given the advantage to the bad guy! The lesson here: don't confront armed bad guys, shoot them... or don't get involved! If I was in a similar life-threatening situation where deadly force was warranted and felt I had to intervene in order to save my life or the life of others, rather than confront the bad guy I'd get behind cover if at all possible... something that would have a good chance to stop a bullet, like a counter or a booth partition. However, once I made the decision to shoot, I'd pull my gun out and aim it at the bad guy, and then I'd shoot him until I was absolutely positively sure he no longer posed a valid threat. No challenge, no "Drop your weapon!" or "Freeze!" I am not going to give any bad guy a chance to shoot me if I can help it.

I understand that sometimes you can't seek cover, because there isn't time. Sometimes all the choices stink. Sometimes you have to resign yourself to the very real possibility that you will get shot, but the alternative of doing nothing and getting shot, raped, or killed is much worse. Your strategy doesn't change. Once you've made the decision that deadly force is warranted, then don't hesitate. Draw and shoot, and keep shooting until there is no longer a threat. Putting the bad guy down, now, is your best chance of minimizing harm to yourself and other innocents. It may be your only chance for survival. At the Burger King today, the first shot from the good guy could have ended it all. Make that first shot on your time, with all deliberate speed ("take your time, fast" as Bill Jordan wrote), and make it count because it may be the only shot you get.

He who hesitates is lost. Don't hesitate. Make your decision, and then carry out your plan vigorously.

Is The Glass Half-Empty?

2009-03-23T15:17:00.000-07:00

Over at The Right Coast, Maimon Schwarzschild ponders on Things To Be Depressed About, asking who is right, optimists or pessimists and more pessimists? ht: Instapundit

I gotta go with Scott and VDH on this one. It's not even close.

You know, the really bad thing about reality is that it has a way of catching up to people who refuse to face it, and then smacking them in the chops until they do. As my dad said, "Life is hard, but it's a lot harder if you're stupid."

America as a nation is stupid. We elected a charismatic, attractive, apparently-intelligent person to the President, ignoring the fact that the man had very little experience actually running things and making decisions... and the experience he did have wasn't illustrative of brilliance as a leader or manager (his management of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge oversaw the spending of almost $150 million! with no apparent quantitative results - no improvement in child or school performance). We could have elected a man with tremendous experience, and proven leadership and management abilities, but as I said, America as a nation is stupid.

Now we have this resultant mess of the economy, which a strong, confident hand on the wheel could have prevented. We have trillion-dollar deficits stretching out as far as the eye can see. We have a Congress that is too lazy to actually read legislation before passing it... and then too stupidly arrogant to realize that passing unconstitutional bills of attainder are no substitute for due diligence. We have insulted our strongest allies, left important friends who trusted us at our word hanging by themselves, and kowtowed to our sworn enemies, earning not peace but a dangerous lack of respect that will foment more trouble around the world. But give the Obama Administration credit for one thing: we did all of this in 60 days! Yep... we made history alright, and let's pray that it's the history we wanted instead of the second coming of Jimmy Carter, or worse.

We needed the best and brightest, but instead we elected the glib and facile, the popular kids in high school who got all the dates but ended up working where they could use their connections rather than innate ability to go farther... and we are going to pay for it.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives: It's Not What You Think...

2009-03-17T00:40:00.001-07:00

So, I've been playing with watching streaming video over the Internet on my TV, through my XBox, and found a program called PlayOn. Playon lets you set up a PC to receive video streams from a variety of sources, including Amazon Video-On-Demand, Netflix, and YouTube. It's pretty easy to install, costs $35, and mostly works well (there are a few glitches but the PlayOn folks release updates often and the software has improved even in the past month or so that I've been using it).

One of the YouTube channels I've subscribed to has been TEDtalksDirector, the video stream for the various TED presentations available. TED, which stands for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design' is a yearly conference series that brings together movers and shakers from a variety of different areas including high tech, education, politics, business, and entertainment. The conferences offer a multitude of presentations on a variety of subjects, from how the world began to the use of rock chords in progressive jazz... in other words, a very eclectic mix. Although some of the presentations are controversial, and others are just fluff, the occasional nugget of gold can be found.

I'm embedding a TED Talk entitled "The Real Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives" by Jonathan Haidt. I just watched this, and at the beginning I was thinking yet another biased presentation, yet by the end my opinion switched to thinking that this was perhaps the best TED Talk I've seen yet.

Here it is. Please watch it and then feel free to leave a comment on what you thought.

As for me, it made me think about the various discussions I've had with my liberal friends... and the political combat that seems to be growing even harsher with every passing year regardless of who wins the White House or Congress.

The Economy Will Remain Broken Until Washington Is Fixed

2009-02-10T20:21:00.000-08:00

Glenn Reynolds, over at Instapundit, links to a Politico article on how the Democrat activist organizations are starting to attack the Republican Congressional leadership in an effort to turn around public perception on the Stimulus Bill. Fine... that's politics after all, but I don't understand Reynolds' comment that he's "tired of it." Tired of what? The GOP leadership? Or, attacking the GOP leadership? I think many Americans were hoping that Hope and Change meant hoping for true bipartisanship, for putting country above party, and for changing the way things were done... but despite all the hope nothing has changed. Certainly the Democrats haven't changed.

The Democrats own the Stimulus Bill. Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrat leadership wrote the bill, and Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrat senators put together the Senate version. Democrats will control the conference committee that ends up deciding what the final outcome will be. As Obama, Pelosi, Reid, MoveOn, DailyKos, etc., are so fond of reminding us, they won. They are going to use their control of the Legislative and Executive branches of the government to ram this spending colossus through and nothing is going to stop them... not public opposition, not the CBO report that shows doing nothing is a better strategy, and certainly not the greatly outnumbered Republicans. Chances are the eventual bill won't even be made public until after Obama signs it.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if we were just talking about the fate of one or the other political parties, which after all are really just associations of like-minded folks banding together to move things in the direction they want. Who gives a fig? However, the Stimulus Bill is more than just partisan politics. We're talking somewhere north of $800 billion dollars here. Do you realize just how much money that is?

Here's some comparisons that will help you wrap your mind around the enormity of the $800+ billion we're going to print and spend, and obligate ourselves:

We could select 16,000 random folks (yes, 16,000!) in each of the 50 states, and give them a million dollars
We could give 10% of the population of New York City a million dollars each
We could give every man, woman, and child in the country a new computer, a new iPhone, a new digital camera, and a 42" LCD HD TV... and still have enough money to pay their cable bill for a year
We could give every American family a three-month paid vacation, at the average salary

Does anyone really believe that the way to get out of debt is to indebt oneself even more? Of course not. The first thing a smart person does when facing a shortfall is to cut spending, not raise it. After all, if spending like a drunken sailor would get us out of our difficulties, we would never be here in the first place.

The Financial Times had a great article on the cause of our current economic woes, and the possible solutions. What I don't understand is, if Tim Geithner is the financial genius who is uniquely qualified to fix the problem, then why didn't he cover these points in today's press conference... you know, the one that drove the Dow down several hundred points, because investors realize the Obama Administration doesn't have a clue about how to proceed and is flailing desperately. What was their solution? Let the bad banks fail, and stop throwing good money after bad. Yes, bank investors will lose money. That's what happens when you invest in a business that makes bad decisions.

All of the political posturing we've seen over the last week is just so much kabuki theater. The truth is really rather simple: the Dems want Republican support so that everyone owns this stinker of a bill... and no single party can be held responsible.

What I Did This Weekend...

2009-02-08T22:49:00.000-08:00

I went to the Seattle Startup Weekend 2 held at Google's Seattle office over in Fremont to pitch an idea... and got 27 votes and a dozen folks to help me make it happen. After two days of hard work, we actually have a catchy domain name and a prototype website.

What's the idea? Bringing consumers and service providers together, using geolocating to improve efficiencies by utilizing available bandwidth. In layman's terms, we allow service providers to take advantage of opportunities near their current location while they're otherwise unoccupied. Think of a plumber, for instance, who has to travel for a half-hour to do a two-hour job, then has a couple of hours until his next appointment. If a plumbing service call opportunity a mile or two away from his current location comes to his attention, he can choose to take that service call without additional travel time. A consumer's example would be, say, a need to haul a load of yard debris from last weekend's cleanup to the dump... but it would take several pickup truckloads, the dump's ten miles away, and the minimum dump fee is $15. Why not post a job for someone to come and haul your stuff away, for a maximum fee of $25? Some enterprising landscaper who is working in the neighborhood already has half a dump-truck load... and can spend 30 minutes picking up another four trash piles (you and others in the vicinity), and make a quick $100. You save money and time, and the landscaper collects an extra $100 for the same actual overhead. Win-win.

It was a lot of fun, with some frustration at the intermittent Internet service and blowing circuit breakers. We ended up spending almost all of Sunday at Peet's Coffee and Dad Watson's (both offering free Wi-Fi to customers), returning to Google at the end of the day to report on our group, watch what others had done and show off our own work.

Grace Under Pressure

2009-02-05T21:54:00.000-08:00

By now I'm sure everyone knows about US Air Flight 1549, the Airbus A320 that took off from New York City's LaGuardia Airport enroute to Charlotte, North Carolina but ended up floating in the Hudson River after encountering a flock of geese shortly after takeoff. The jet lost both engines due to ingesting geese, and was too low (3200' and 90 seconds into the flight) to make it back to LaGuardia. I've embedded a CBS report featuring a simulation of the flight, including radio transmissions plus some security camera footage showing the jet landing in the river.

Captain Sullenberger, the pilot-in-command, has been singularly recognized for his coolness in the face of emergency, and his presence of mind in rapidly exploring and then discarding all of the alternatives as unviable until only one remained... landing in the Hudson River. As he explained it to the NTSB during his deposition concerning the incident, he didn't want to crash catastrophically in the dense New York metropolitan area, couldn't make it to a runway, and so the only choice left was to land in the river.

I don't want to take anything away from Captain Sullenberger, who I think exemplifies Hemingway's definition of courage as 'grace under pressure.' However, the NTSB's full audio of all ATC transmissions does show Sullenberger's stress as reflected in his voice, and his anguish at realizing the impossibility of making a safe landing at Teterboro Airport (just to the west of the river). To his credit, once Teterboro is no longer possible, Sullenberger focuses on his only remaining choice, landing in the Hudson, and then works with his aircrew to put the plane down safely. Great credit goes to Captain Sullenberger, but also to his aircrew including copilot Jeffrey Skiles (who was busy trying to restart the engines and implementing other emergency procedures while Sullenberger flew the plane), and flight attendants Doreen Walsh, Sheila Dail and Donna Dent who prepared the passengers for the crash landing and then helped to evacuate the jet quickly and safely. All of them deserve every bit of praise for miraculously saving the lives of all 155 passengers onboard.

Another unrecognized actor in this drama is the air traffic controller handling the flight. I can't find his name, but he is trying everything he can to help the pilot... clearing traffic, suggesting alternatives... and then his voice is filled with resignation and despair as he loses the plane on his radar and knows that it has gone down. Another controller steps in to relieve him shortly thereafter, and understandably so. I would have given anything to have been a fly on the wall and have seen his reaction once he learned that everyone survived. Listening to the audio gives one a glimpse of how it must feel to be a first-hand witness to a tragedy. I know I had to sit and digest what I heard for a minute or so, even with the benefit of knowing how the story turned out.

Captain Sullenberger and his crew are heroes, ordinary people who rise above circumstances, who keep their heads in a crisis and calmly do the right thing. Yes, we admire grace under pressure in, say, a Super Bowl quarterback, but football isn't life or death where one wrong choice means the deaths of hundreds or maybe thousands... and you can always call a timeout and go to the sidelines for advice. Our true heroes are found in airline cockpits, and military cockpits, on the battlefield, or in ambulances and firetrucks, running towards danger rather than away from it. I think as a country we forget this too often, and it takes a 9/11 or a US Air Flight 1549 to remind us of what we should gratefully acknowledge on a daily basis.

Everyone who risks their life in the service of others is a hero. More important, every hero who gives his life for our country is bestowing a priceless gift to the rest of us. How often do we think of their sacrifice? How often do we honor it by giving of ourselves, by being better citizens and better people... by "earning this?"

The Stimulus Bill Won't Work... and Obama Knows It

2009-02-01T01:37:00.000-08:00

After passing the House of Representatives last week without a single Republican 'aye' (and 11 'nays' from Democrats), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is on the way to the Senate for approval.

However, there are already signs that support for the stimulus bill is waning, particularly among Democrats. And no wonder, because as the public learns more about what is actually in the bill, public support has dropped to 42%, or to put it another way, the majority of the public is against the stimulus bill in its current form while expecting it to be enacted.

The lack of public support for the stimulus bill, which turns out to be a $900 billion funding package for a hodge-podge of Democrat-supported pet programs, most of which have very little to do with economic stimulus and a lot to do with rewarding Democrat supporters and entrenching Democrat control of the federal government, has grown as more of the bill's provisions have been publicized. The American public isn't so stupid as to believe that funding abortions overseas, or providing billions of dollars to Democrat-supporting activist groups such as ACORN, or spending hundreds of millions of dollars on condoms, will pull us out of the deep recession we find ourselves in. Nor do they believe that a spending bill that spends less than half of the appropriated money in the next two years will have a significant impact on the economy. In short, the public is starting to see through the smoke and hand-waving, and that is not good news for Obama or the Democrat Congress... which brings us to why support from Congressional Republicans is wanted.

Obama is not stupid. He knows that he owns the economy now and voters will hold him and the Democrats responsible if things haven't turned around by 2010, and if he doesn't get a full recovery by the end of his first term he will not be re-elected. I'm sure that Obama would prefer that Congressional Democrats had written a cleaner bill. And, I'm also sure that Obama is deathly afraid the stimulus bill won't work... and without Republican support he will own that failure. You see, if Republicans also vote for the bill, then its failure can't be used against the Democrats. This is why Obama went to Capital Hill last week, not to prove his ability at generating 'bipartisanship' but to get the needed political cover for this mess of a bill. It didn't happen. And, Obama needed that cover because the stimulus bill is about everything except stimulating the economy. It's not going to work.

Here's why: the bill is predicated on the assumption that government spending is a net positive, that each dollar spent by the federal government results in more than a dollar of GDP growth. In other words, there's a multiplier effect. Obama's economic advisors are stating that the multiplier is 1.6 or above, meaning that each dollar spent will create $1.60 in additional spending. Other economists aren't so sure, arguing that the multiplier may at best be 1.0 and most likely it will be even less, meaning that the stimulus bill will drive us even deeper into recession as it takes money out of the economy that would otherwise be used by the public for investments and spending. Who is right? It seems obvious that, if deficit spending would prevent a recession, then we would have a booming economy given that the federal government has been spending money like a drunken sailor. No, the result of this pork bill will be another $1 trillion added to the national debt, massive inflation as the money supply (the amount of cash in circulation at a given time) is almost doubled, and a devastating impact on the national economy as the country spends several decades paying this money off. Think about it: how can the government boost the economy when the government is taking money from the public and then passing it back out?

This is why many economists are in favor of an immediate payroll tax reduction; the money stays in the hands of the public who will pay down debt and buy consumer goods with it, boosting the economy and raising the tax revenues. So why are the Democrats opposed to this program, which will have no administrative costs, and has repeatedly been proven to have a large multiplier effect? Perhaps because they vociferously opposed the Bush 2003 tax cuts which caused the economy to boom, just as the 1983 Reagan tax cuts caused the economy to boom... and perhaps because once the public gets used to having more money in their paycheck it will be politically difficult, if not impossible, to raise taxes. The argument reflects what's wrong with American politics in a nutshell: the majority party can't do what works because they've opposed it before solely for political reasons, and they don't have the courage to admit they were wrong.

Surprising everyone, the Republicans stood firm on principle (and good politics) and told the Democrats to take a hike. Obama's "I won" comment, and Speaker Pelosi's deliberate exclusion of Republican input, didn't help, but really, what was the upside to supporting the bill? If it passes and it works, Democrats will get all of the credit, and the Democrats don't need a single Republican vote in either house to pass it. If it passes, and fails, Republican support means it's off the table as a campaign topic. However, since there was no Republican support, the onus is on the Democrats and many in Congress will live or die, electorally speaking, on whether the American public views the stimulus bill as a success or failure. Unfortunately for the country, the Democrats have chosen to write and pass a bill that doesn't address the problem.

Now, the stops are all out. The Democrat PACs are gearing up to intimidate Republican senators from blue-leaning states, and you better believe that Obama and his political advisors are behind it. They also know that several Democrat senators from red-leaning states are very worried about political survival if they vote for the stimulus bill. If Obama can't get 50 votes in the Senate, he is in for a very rough four years. Even it the bill passes, if he can't get at least a half-dozen Republican votes, then the Democrats will own the bill... and woe betide them if it fails.

You see, the goal here was to use the recession and the fear-mongering that the press has been generating around it to ram through three decades of Democrat pet programs, several of which would aid Democrat support groups and help to ensure electoral success for the next several decades. This was never about stimulating the economy, it was about building an impregnable Democrat majority, with the help of the Republicans. But the Democrats were too greedy, and the plan is unraveling. I wonder if we're going to look back in four years, after what seemed like a repeat of the Carter Administration, and see that it all started to fall apart these first few weeks.

Knowing When To Fold...

2009-01-07T22:47:00.000-08:00

I came across this photo by David Proeber, one of a series of an armed robber during the last few moments of his life, on Mike Johnston's 'The Online Photographer' blog.

Reading about this guy's backstory (in the second link, to the news website) makes one wonder. He wasn't a hardened criminal, just a guy with a temper and an ego. A guy who liked to play poker, and thought he could bluff his way to other people's money... and thought he deserved that money if he was audacious enough to take it. Not a professional (he's holding a piece-of-crap Makarov Russian pistol, and holding it as someone who doesn't know much about guns would). Problem is, his balls were bigger than his brains. He never thought about what would happen if he didn't get away. Probably even driving his own car.

So, here he is on the last day of his life, his front tires flat and police cars close behind, looking for a way out, when the way out was to put the gun down and lie face down on the pavement. He didn't have the balls to do that, though, and he couldn't bluff the police because they don't bluff. Armed robbers waving pistols around! Talk about an invitation to get shot.

The poker player refused to fold on a losing hand, and instead went all in... and lost. A sad epitaph.

The Day After

2008-12-20T01:38:00.001-08:00

In yet another sign of global warming (or is Al Gore visiting Seattle?), we here in the Pacific Northwest have been hit by more cold weather. A freakishly cold (for Seattle) wave has hit us, resulting in below-freezing temperatures and snow. We had about a foot of snow late Wednesday evening into Thursday, and according to the weatherman we'll get another foot or so dumped on us later today and tomorrow. Oh, joy.

I awoke early this morning, intending to go out to the Golf Course at Newcastle to try and get a winter version of a previous image, but it wasn't happening. There was a low layer of scud across the city and the Olympic Mountains were barely visible in the distance. I decided to try and get a good image of Bellevue, the largest suburb of Seattle and a major city in its own right. Not as easy as it seems, though, because although you can get glimpses of Bellevue's skyline from many different areas, it's difficult to find an unobstructed view. I even went by the local Lexus dealership, on a brand-new building just east of I-405, the north-south 'bypass' freeway that splits Bellevue down the middle, and managed to get access to their rooftop... but I couldn't get the image I wanted there. On the way home I happened across a spot behind some industrial buildings, and on an impulse decided to grab the camera and tripod. As you can see, it worked pretty well. Unfortunately, what you can't see is the full-sized image... it's almost 77 MP and a full-size print @ 240 dpi will be around 20" x 60" with great detail. Almost like being there....

The sub-freezing weather is supposed to stick around for most of next week, giving us a White Christmas. Thankfully, unlike the usual result of winter storms here in western Washington, we haven't lost power... yet. The approaching storm is forecast to have high winds, though, so we're not home-free. Time to get the axe sharpened!

Mt St Helens, Post-Apocalypse

2008-12-07T14:55:00.000-08:00

Apocalypse Now - 4-image panorama taken with a Fuji F30, stitched using Hugin/Pano Tools, post-processed in Adobe PS Elements

I took this picture in the fall of 2006, at an overlook on 504 just over a mile due west of Coldwater Lake. Here's where I took the photo (see the map centered on the overlook).

My first visit to Mt St Helens was in the late spring of 1992. I had purchased a '91 Corvette convertible earlier in the year and had driven around Mt Rainier, enjoying the day, when I came to the sign off of Hwy 12 that said "Mt St Helens" and decided to go take a look. I followed the road south through the trees as it rose above the valley floor, and then as I crossed a ridge the trees disappeared. To be more exact, I left the green forest and came to an area where there were trees... blown down like the hand of God had swept them away from the volcano. Of course, there was no sign of life, the ground was grey and desolate. I followed the road up to the Windy Ridge viewpoint, where the pavement ended, and got out to look at the open crater that gaped at me from less than four miles away. To say the sight was awful is to use 'awful' in its original sense... one is filled with a sense of absolute awe at the devastation. Looking left and right, there are tens upon tens of thousands of dead trees, stripped of their limbs by the blast, the fallen trunks pointing outward from the crater. Spirit Lake, below, has a raft of logs covering a large portion of the surface.

I went to Windy Ridge once more, back around 2003, and happened to get there near sunset on a summer day. It was just myself and my sister, visiting from London, and she was as awestruck as I was. Even though it had been more than a decade since my last visit, not much had changed, in terms of nature restoring itself.

The picture above was taken after an abortive trip to Castle Lake (you can see the lake to the left of the volcano). To get there, you have to drive 20 miles off of the nearest paved road, and that puts you on a ridge about 2,000 feet above the lake. Going straight down is very steep with knee-high scrub. I tried to go there on a Saturday afternoon, got down to the end of the pavement just before sunset, and ended up getting lost and turned around in the middle of the night so I slept in my truck. I woke up at dawn Sunday to hear the sound of bugling elk. With daylight the chance to actually see where I was, I was able to deal with locked gates and finally made it to the ridge above the lake around noon... too late to hike down and fish.

I haven't had the chance to go back, but plan to go back in 2009. It will be a 3-day trip, and I'll bring a friend and my tri-band HT (ham radio). Cell phones don't work out there, and it's big country... a broken leg without a way to call for help would most likely mean death.

Lessons Learned: Terrorists At The Train Station

2008-12-03T12:30:00.000-08:00

Azam Amir Kasab, the only one of the ten terrorists to be taken alive, in the main Mumbai railway station (Sebastian D'souza/AP - fair use)

In an armed encounter, the opportunity to end things early and go home often occurs... but all too often isn't acted upon.

Take a look at the 1:30 video above, or right-click here for a separate window, taken by CCTV cameras at the Mumbai train station at the beginning of the terrorist attacks. Note the two Indian Police (IP)officers to the lower right of the screen, one with a Lee-Enfield battle rifle. The terrorists first appear around 11 seconds into the video, and the police duck into a hallway to the right. The police appear again around 18 seconds and the terrorists shoot at them, the shots going high (note the dust from bullet impacts in the window above the entranceway frame). Note how one policeman actually tries to shoot the terrorist but evidently misses! He ducks back into cover, where they stay while the terrorists shoot some more and then move off out of view of the camera. The rest of the video shows them moving on to a restaurant section and opening fire on unarmed people who flee in terror through the kitchen. Several dozen innocents were killed by the terrorists until they were taken out (one killed, one wounded and captured) by responding IP and Army personnel, after a considerable delay.

The IP shown in this video had a perfect opportunity to end this incident within the first 30 seconds... yet they failed to act. Why? The IP have complained about being outgunned, but as the video shows, firepower wasn't the issue, and neither was bravery (although common sense might have been lacking in that the IP in the video evidently were in a state of disbelief until they were shot at). Instead, as the video shows, the IP we see had absolutely no clue as to what to do.

I'm not faulting the individual IP here; panic and general cluelessness is the untrained person's natural reaction to a deadly force situation. The stress is tremendous, adrenaline is pumping and the fight or flight reflex is fully engaged... and flight is the rational choice as opposed to a futile effort of resistance that only results in one's death.

Why did this happen? I assume that because India has very low rates of gun-related crime, and because Mumbai is over a thousand miles from the Punjab, the threat of terrorism was seen as very low. Additionally, India has inherited its philosophy of law enforcement from its British colonizers, where the gun is seen as a symbol of the authority of the state to use force instead of as a tool to enforce compliance. Therefore, there is no perceived benefit to train the IP beyond a minimal competency to ensure there are no accidents. The IP plan was more along the lines of, "This is India where Hindus are non-violent. We don't need a plan." So, what you have is a police force that has all of the drawbacks of being armed, and none of the benefits. The result is shown on the video.

What the video also shows is the lack of training among the terrorists, and how aggressiveness and motivation count for a lot. Again, this is the same sort of recklessness we saw in Iraq, where several Fedayeen (literally, 'self-sacrificers') would cram into a Fiat and charge a US armored column... and get shredded. Brave, but suicidal, because prepared and planned aggressiveness beats reckless aggressiveness. Of course, if your opponent hasn't prepared or planned....

What if this had happened in America? In New York? We all know that the police would come running, guns out, and quickly (maybe a little messily) end this. The Transit Authority police would have handled the two shooters at the subway station, and the Emergency Services Unit (NYPD's SWAT team), joined by their federal counterparts (since terrorism is a federal crime), would have gone in and cleaned out the terrorists. Would innocents have died? Yes... because the attackers seize the initiative. But not as many.

What if this happened in your hometown?

Bad guys always have the initiative. The lesson learned here is, Have A Plan. In the video above, if the IP with the rifle had shown the initiative to merely aimed and fired it at a terrorist 50 feet away he would have killed the terrorist, and doubled his own odds of getting the next one. What if two IPs had worked together, from opposite sides of the station, communicating by radio, and caught the remaining terrorist between them? One of them would have gotten a shot, and the second terrorist would be down. End of story.

Here in America, many states have recognized our right to keep and bear arms by providing for hassle-free concealed carry. How many people reading this have a concealed-carry license? Of those, how many actually carry? Of those, how many practice with their carry weapon and have a minimal level of competency? Of those, how many have taken armed self-defense training? Of those, how many have actually thought about what they would do when confronted with a deadly force situation such as terrorists opening up in the local mall or subway station?

Have. A. Plan.

See earlier articles in this series under the 'Lessons Learned' topic...

Fall in Seattle

2008-11-24T21:43:00.000-08:00

Enough about politics, the economy, etc. Time to enjoy the beauty of fall in Seattle.

These images are from the Fremont district, north of downtown Seattle, due west of the University district (and the University of Washington), and east of Ballard and the locks, along the Ship Canal.

It was a beautiful day, but the weather has turned colder although it is still surprisingly clear for Seattle in the fall. The leaves have mostly fallen, and winter is near.

"I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith." - Sen. Jon Kyl, quoting 2 Timothy 4:7

2008-11-04T22:01:00.000-08:00

A very disappointing evening tonight to those of us who supported John McCain's presidential campaign. Obama has made history as the first American of African heritage to be elected president.

McCain's concession speech was as gracious as it was eloquent, and as touching. Unlike his Democrat predecessors in the '04 and '00 elections, McCain called for his supporters to stand behind Obama, to put partisanship behind them, and to work with the president-elect instead of working against him. It was a class act, yet another example of the patriotic selflessness typical of McCain, and perhaps the last major action of his political career. Certainly, at 72, this was McCain's last presidential campaign.

How did Obama do it? By persuading enough voters that he was the person they were looking for as president. I won't go into the merits of Obama's campaign, or his positions; this is his night and he has earned it. I do agree with McCain that the election of a Black man is clearly a sign that, in American, opportunity is not dependent upon one's race or economic background... and that is a good thing. In fact, I can't help but wonder if this spells the end of Affirmative Action; clearly no one can argue that minorities are unduly handicapped by the fact of their race.

Unlike the reaction of most Democrats eight years ago, who angrily proclaimed "Bush is not MY president!" Republicans must accept the will of the voters and our new president. It's the only way we can, hopefully, move beyond the partisan politics that have made honest discussion of serious issues impossible not only in Washington but throughout the country. Obama is our president, and America is our country. Yes, Republicans need to hold Obama accountable but they also need to work with Democrats.

At any rate, I know that Obama's treatment by his political opponents will be far more respectful and positive than Bush's treatment by the Democrats. And, as an American, I hope that Obama can be effective as president, and that he performs well in office. His biggest obstacle will not be the Republicans, it will be the extremists in his own party... and Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al will not be able to blame Republicans for their failures. He certainly has his work cut out, what with the financial crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the certain challenges that will be thrust upon him by our adversaries. As Biden pointed out, Obama will be tested, and for America's sake I hope he passes.

So, I wish you the best of luck and I wish America great success during your term, Mr. Obama. And, I hope you have the grace and humility to govern wisely and effectively, for our country's sake.

A McCain Rally...

2008-11-03T20:10:00.000-08:00

I drove down with several other out-of-state volunteers to attend the last McCain rally in south Florida. Held at the BankUnited Center on the University of Miami campus in Coral Gables, the turnout was amazing for a midnight rally on a Sunday evening. The auditorium holds 8,000 in the seats, and by the time McCain arrived the seats were full and the floor was also packed. I believe there were at least 12,000 people there, and remember this was at midnight on a Sunday with only a day's notice.

The rally opened with several local Latin bands playing salsa and mambo music, and the crowd came alive with people dancing and singing and waving campaign signs. Obviously, in Miami, a disproportionate number of attendees at a Republican campaign rally are going to be Cuban-Americans, but there were numerous folks from many Latin American countries. I talked to a woman who expressed her love for Cuba to me, along with her love for America which she considered her "second mother, the one who embraced me when I fled Casto and everything I had." There was another, older man whom we met, who had been a political prisoner in Cuba for almost thirty years(!), and who had made it to America a few years ago who was as effusive in his praise for McCain as he was vehemently disdainful of Castro. The ache for Cuba that is still present among second- and even third-generation Cuban-Americans, along with their open love for America, convinces me that they would like nothing better than to return to Cuba... and quickly add it to the US as the fifty-first state. Alexandra, the Colombian-American woman who came to the rally with us, told me that the Cubans in many ways were blessed by their forced emigration to America; even though they came here with nothing they worked hard, helped each other to save and invest, and took full advantage of the opportunities here in America to prosper. Ironic, isn't it, that perhaps the people who really understand America and what makes this such an exceptional country are those who came here with nothing.

Another frequent comment by the many people who were originally from other countries was about how Americans really don't understand what socialism means, and what it will do to the US. Many Cubans remarked how the Cuban people originally supported Castro, believing him to be moderate and an improvement over the petty corruption of the Batista regime, and believing his promises only to realize what 'social justice' really meant. No Che Guevara fans here, that's for sure. I heard much the same from a Venezualan-American concerning Chavez. Our Colombian-American companion Alexandra remarked how Americans didn't understand what it was like in much of the world. Her stepmother was kidnapped and ransomed by the guerrillas in Colombia, and she remarked on the level of violence in that country for much of the past three decades. Bombings, assassinations, the kidnapping and murder of judges and other political figures, the rise of the paramilitaries (extra-legal groups of military and police) to combat the terrorists and drug lords who used bribes, extortion, and violence to evade judicial punishment.
Americans, she said, don't understand what it is like to live in such an environment. Perhaps maybe only our military, who have fought against much of this in Iraq, can fully appreciate how good we have it here in America.

After several hours of discussions, dancing, and great music (the above is the third band led by Albita Rodriguez who put on an incredible show), the McCain entourage finally arrived, to thunderous applause and cheering. As McCain has been quoted on television, "Maybe we should have all our rallies at midnight!" In addition to his wife Cindy and his daughter Megan, Kelsey Grammer and his wife Camille, and Joe Liebermann were present. (I have to ask, if Obama is the Great Uniter, why aren't Republican senators at his rallies?)

McCain delivered his rally speech, polished to the bare essentials, and hit his talking points. "Commander-in-Chief versus Redistributor-in-Chief." "If Barack Obama wanted to run against George Bush, he shoulda run four years ago!" He even tried an ad-lib, telling the crowd that, perhaps in Little Havana, "we would have a 'Pepe uno Plumbero'!" It was corny, but the crowd loved it. McCain was interrupted numerous time by thunderous applause, chanting of "John McCain!" and "USA" and clearly seemed to relish the warmth and enthusiasm. Not that I've been to a lot of campaign rallies, but I've been to a few, and this one was by far the most enthusiastic one... just look at the faces in the crowd to understand how strong McCain's support is in south Florida.

After about 20 minutes, McCain wrapped it up with his "Never give up! Fight!" closing, which brought the crowd to its feet throughout the auditorium. The applause and shouting went on for almost a minute, and it was deafening. McCain and his family then made a quick circuit near the stage to shake hands, and then exited stage right to thunderous applause and cheering. The whole experience beat any rock concert I've ever been to.

All in all, a very inspiring event, and one that gives me great hope for McCain to win Florida and then the election.

Idiotic Obama Supporter

2008-11-01T22:01:00.000-07:00

So, there I was, taking Exit 104 off of I-95N in south Florida, on my way to the Martin County GOP headquarters to help get out the vote for the presidential election, when a sudden flicker of dark blue on the other side of the boulevard catches my eye. I look over to the other side of the road. There's a male cyclist, . dismounted, leaning over by a series of political signs. He didn't just pull out a McCain/Palin sign, did he?

On a whim, I pull a u-turn at the next break in the median and head back. The cyclist has ridden off before I get there, but I pull over anyway and walk over to the signs. Everyone but McCain/Palin... so I walk over into the weeds and there it is. I put the sign back up and then headed down the road after the cyclist. As I'm approaching him, he stops at another McCain/Palin sign and starts to tug on it. I blow my horn and he turns around, seeing me. I shake my head firmly, pointing to him to stop, but he pulls the sign out and tosses it. I hop out of my car as he rides away on the sidewalk, and put the sign back up, and then follow him again, my camera at the ready. I pull up beside him and take a couple of photos. He acts as if he doesn't see me at first, and then yells "Leave me alone!" After my second photo, he pulls over and stops... and so do I.

ME: Hey, what are you doing??!! You can't be damaging campaign signs!
IDIOT: Uh... a police car saw me and didn't do anything.
ME: That doesn't make it right! What is wrong with you? Don't you understand how unAmerican it is to interfere with a campaign? Don't you respect freedom of speech?
IDIOT: I'm really angry, man. You don't understand!
ME: Your anger doesn't make it right!
IDIOT: You don't understand!
ME: I understand that if someone who hasn't made up their mind sees you damaging McCain signs, that's likely to make them angry enough to vote for McCain. Is that what you want?
IDIOT: No, I don't want that. But I have to stop McCain. I hate him!
ME: What has John McCain ever done to you?
IDIOT: I need to get my wisdom teeth out and if Obama loses I can't afford it. I'm gonna die on the streets if McCain wins!

Now, this guy is riding on a new bike that is in excellent shape. His clothes are clean and fairly new, and he's listening to an iPod. He looks to be a teenager, so am I supposed to believe his parents can't afford $300 a tooth to get his wisdom teeth pulled? Give me a freakin' break! I'm even more convinced that this drama queen is just another immature asshole. So, I have two choices: be an asshole right back or try to get him to admit that what he was doing is wrong in the hope of changing his behavior.

ME: What does that have to do with freedom of speech? Do you think Obama would condone pulling signs out?
IDIOT: Well...
ME: How about Martin Luther King? Do you know why he was beaten and finally killed? Because people didn't like what he was saying and wanted to shut him up. Isn't that what you're doing?
IDIOT: (Crestfallen) I see what you're saying.

With that I let him go. He rode into a neighborhood and I rode on into Stuart. Turns out that the GOP office is constantly having McCain/Palin signs vandalized or stolen, and this costs a lot of money and time. They were interested in the pictures.

Do I think I made a difference? Probably not... but what are you going to do?

Gigapanning...

2008-10-19T01:30:00.000-07:00

While I've been creating panoramas by stitching multiple digital images together for several years now, I've always wanted a robotic panorama head to ease the workload. The image pictured above is actually comprised of 44 individual images, four rows of seven images. As you can imagine, moving a tripod head manually while ensuring that the spacing is correct and not missing a 'frame' is cumbersome, tedious, and very error-prone... and you don't realize you've made an error until later when processing the images. Don't ask me how I know this!

Gigapan.org, a spinoff from the Global Connection Project project from Carnegie-Mellon University, aims to provide a site where individuals can use high-resolution images from multi-row panoramas to explore distant parts of the world. The hope is to bring people together.

In order to facilitate creation of multi-row panoramas by the average photographer, CMU worked with an external company to create the Gigapan robotic panorama head. Thru the miracle of modern microprocessor technology, and a couple of stepper motors, this mount allows the user to use a small point-and-shoot digital camera, using the viewfinder to indicate the camera's field of view, identifying the upper-left and lower-right corners of the desired panorama. Once this is done, the user presses a button and the Gigapan robot head automatically starts taking pictures, continuing without human input until the job is done. Gigapan.org also supplies a free panoramic stitching software package that automates the creation of a single, huge image from a series of individual images, and will also upload the resultant image to the Gigapan.org website.

Now, the creation of a robotic panorama head isn't news; units like the Peace River Systems' PixOrb and the Rodeon VR have been around for years... but we're talking anywhere from $4000 for the Rodeon to over $11,000 for the PixOrb. Definitely out of the reach of the average photographer. The Gigapan head goes for under $300, but as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. Although it is a solidly build product, it is sized for point-and-shoot digital cameras. The unit is physically too small to handle a dSLR with a long telephoto lens (although the image show above, of Seattle, was taken on a Gigapan using my Sigma SD14 and 70-200/2.8 lens, a heavy combination that really overpowered the unit and required me to physically assist the head in order to prevent the stepper motors from 'slipping' due to the weight, missing 'steps' and thus getting out of sync). Gigasystems, the spinoff company that was formed to market the Gigapan robot head, is planning to eventually introduce a larger, more powerful head suitable for dSLRs and 'bridge' digital cameras.

However, all is not lost. I've picked up an Orion TeleTrack astronomical alt-azimuth robotic mount, designed to support computer control of a telescope, and am working on a control unit that will give this much more robust mount the same capabilities of the Gigapan, with dSLRs and long, heavy, powerful, sharp lenses. Some European hackers have adapted this head to work with homebrew software on mobile Linux devices, but I'm currently building a self-contained controller that will mimic the functionality of the Gigapan. The goal is to create a self-contained unit that has the same ease of use, while supporting a quality camera at an affordable price (well under $1,000).

I'll post more information as my project progresses. Until then, feel free to look at Gigapan.org.

Don't Know Who To Vote For? Look At Their Records!

2008-10-19T00:15:00.000-07:00

In "Torn Between Obama and McCain" Dane Stangler, a senior research analyst at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, writes on his dilemna in choosing which candidate deserves his vote.

If this article is an example of the caliber of analytical thought found in our nation's best and brightest, then no wonder this country is in the mess it's in... and may God help us.

Stangler's dilemna can be summed up thus: Although I disagree with most of Obama's policies and positions, and agree with most of McCain's, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP is so indefensible on the merits and such an egregious example of political pandering that it virtually compels me (and all intelligent people) towards Obama.

The sheer idiocy of such a statement astounds me.

First, despite all of the criticisms directed against Palin by the chattering classes, the woman is an elected governor of a state with approval ratings above 80%, and has a clear track record of confronting and cleaning up corruption in government even when she encounters it in her own party. Can any of these things be said about Obama, much less Joe "J-O-B-S is my favorite three-letter word" Biden?

If McCain's selection of Palin reflects badly on him (and I disagree), then what does Obama's selection of the gaffe-ridden incompetent Biden say about him? Biden is a man who has been wrong about almost every major foreign policy issue in the past two decades, from opposing the first Gulf War to suggesting giving Iran $200 million after 9/11 in order to get "Arabs" to like us to opposing the surge and proposing the breakup of Iraq into three separate countries in violation of the country's sovereignity. Yet Obama selected Biden specifically for his 'foreign policy expertise.'

Don't even get me started on the character issue. Biden had to drop out of the '88 presidential campaign because he lied about his background and his record. Here's a man who bragged about his IQ, his college "scholarship" (that he never received), his award as the outstanding Poli Sci student (that he never received), etc., and he still lies as evidenced by the astounding number of whoppers he uttered during the Biden-Palen VP debate. If the choice for VP is between a confirmed liar with a track record of bad judgment or an inexperienced governor with a decade of executive experience and who has risen to every challenge and succeeded against the odds, I'll take Palin any time.

Similarly, we have a charismatic candidate with an impressive resume and a solid record of accomplishment... and then there's Barack Obama. What has this man actually done? Yes, he worked with Bill Ayers and the Annenburg Challenge, spending over $150 million(!) on Chicago schools... and are the schools any better? Not according to the people who have to send their children to them, or standardized test results, etc. This is the sum total of Obama's executive experience: $150 million spent with nothing to show for it. Contrast that with the much-maligned Sarah Palin, who runs a state with a budget surplus, who negotiated additional royalties on oil from the oil companies and gave that cash back to the residents of her state. Or with John McCain, who capped his Navy career by commanding the largest squadron in the Navy, receiving an excellent fitness report (and the Navy isn't a forgiving grader... just ask John Kerry).

Here's a simple test for a president: would you hire this person to manage your business and give him access to the company checkbook? How would you answer this, Mr. Stangler?

Joe Biden??!!

2008-08-24T21:09:00.000-07:00

So, Obama has chosen his VP. What does his choice say about Obama and where the Obama campaign thinks it is stragegically?

First, choosing an 'Establishment' politician, a Senator who first went to Washington when Obama was just 11 years old, is a clear sign that Obama and his advisors believe they need to compensate for their weaknesses in terms of maturity and experience. McCain has been hammering Obama over his lack of foreign policy credentials, and picking Biden was clearly an attempt to counter this hole in the Obama resume. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Team Obama thinks it is losing, and that it had to do something to regain credibility.

Second, all of the hype about 'Hope' and 'Change' has been shown to be just that... hype. Obama is 'in it to win it' and will do what he thinks he needs to do at any time to gain the presidency. Now, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing; successful politicians need to win, and recognizing a problem and correcting it are good qualities. However, when the pivot is seen to be on principle instead of on strategies or tactics, and the excuse of expediency won't cover pivots on ideals. How does Obama explain now that McCain's judgment to support the Iraq War disqualifies him from the presidency when his own VP voted alongside McCain?

What about Hillary? Turns out she wasn't even seriously considered. What does that say to the PUMAs... the die-hard Hillary supporters? Picking Biden is a clear shot across the Clinton bow, a statement that Biden is more qualified than Hillary. Do the Democrats really think this is true? Certainly Hillary's supporters don't... so much for party unity.

All in all, choosing Biden was a strategic mistake by Obama. The man has a deserved reputation for opening his mouth without thinking, and he has left considerable ammunition for the Republicans to use in the fall campaign. No one who was unsure about voting for Obama has their concerns addressed. And, Biden is at best an average debator.

Who should Obama have chosen? Well, certainly not Hillary... because of her baggage and her antipathy to Obama. Who'd want to be president with Bill and Hillary just down the hall waiting like vultures for misfortune to strike? Not Gore... ugh! Certainly not Biden, or Bill Richardson.

How about thinking outside the box? What about... Joe Lieberman? The people who like Hillary tend to like Lieberman, and certainly McCain can't go out and bash the candidate who has worked for him. Yes, it would have upset the netroots, but are they really going to vote for McCain? Especially after the Great Uniter explains that Lieberman on the ticket brings all of the Democrats under the Big Tent? The only question is, would Lieberman have accepted? Other good choices include Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, certainly acceptable to most Democrats and a good way to bring the Hillary supporters back.

Either choice would have been better for Obama... if Obama thought he was perceived as being ready to assume the role of President. It's going to take more than Joe Biden to fix that.

John Clifford For President

2008-08-21T23:35:00.001-07:00

A friend sent me this...

http://tinyurl.com/6nd2gq

Obama: In Need of a Game-Changer

2008-08-21T22:41:00.000-07:00

The upcoming presidential election is getting more interesting by the day... depending upon who you want to see win and who you listen to among the punditocracy. This is supposed to be the Democrats' year, and by extension Obama is our next president. He's certainly been all-but-appointed to the office by a largely sympathetic media.

However, the McCain campaign isn't just sitting there. McCain and his staff have done a good job of analyzing Obama's weak points and hitting them, reducing Obama's large lead in June to either a statistical tie or an actual McCain advantage depending on which poll you look at. Historically, because of the polling methodology that is used, the Democrat has a statistically significant lead in the summer; both Kerry and Gore had double-digit leads at this time during their campaigns. Democrat spokespeople shrug off any concern, either denying or decrying the polling data. The Obama campaign is worried, though, and that is the best evidence of how effective the McCain strategy to define Obama has been.

Enter David Gergen, the onetime Bush Sr. and Clinton advisor, who has written a column today on what Obama needs to do to 'change the game.' Gergen's advice can be summed up as follows: pick Hillary for VP, or pick Gore, and then pick Clinton-era advisors. Huh?

Picking Hillary will be the kiss of death for Obama in '08. Is there any person who is more polarizing in politics today? Obama could get more votes by picking George Bush! If Hillary is Obama's VP, the 51% of the electorate who can't stand her will vote for McCain... and that includes many among the Obama supporters who will feel utterly betrayed if Hillary gets the nod. Strike one...

How about Gore? Yes, Democrats like Gore. Does anyone else? Will Obama get any more votes? Certainly not the PUMAs who are pissed about what they see as a total diss of Hillary by the Democratic leadership. How about Hillary herself? Does anyone with half a brain think that the Clintons will campaign more effectively for Obama/Gore this fall than they did for Gore/Lieberman in 2000? And, is Gore stupid enough to wear another 'Please kick me' sign for the next few months? I don't think so; his ego is way too fragile to chance losing yet again. What's in it for him, anyway? He's already been VP for 8 years! He'll get savaged over his ecohypocrisy... his huge house with the huge electric bill and the inadequate solar panels, his continual private jetting, his fleet of Suburbans, etc. He'll have to divest himself from all of those profitable investments. The chances of Gore being asked, and then accepting, the VP slot are nil. He and Obama know it, and that's why he's emphatically disavowed any interest in being selected. Strike two...

Okay, so Obama can't pick Hillary or Gore. What about the idea of announcing his Cabinet picks before the election? Not bad... unless he listens to Gergen and selects the same old retreads from the Carter and Clinton Administrations. Madeline freakin' Albright for SecState? I can see the campaign ads with Obama and Madeline... and then Madeline and her favorite party-boy Kim Jong-Il... and then images of North Korean missile launches, nuclear tests, etc. The McCain campaign just has to be praying for this like the dog in a Gary Larsen cartoon waiting for the cat to jump in the dryer... "Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please!"

That's three strikes, for three lousy ideas. If you want Obama to win, that is. Because nothing Gergen suggests addresses Obama's problem. (BTW, what is really amazing is how much people like Gergen can get paid for truly horrible advice. It's not like he helped out the Clintons, or Bush Sr. -- maybe Gergen clients didn't read the memo about doing the opposite of what he suggests -- ed)

Here's the game-changer that Obama really needs: how about realizing that your equivocating, evasion, and prevaricating is a real turn-off for people who were looking for something different from you. You promised a new type of politics, but your actions belie that. The Saddleback appearances by you and McCain were a real eye-opener, and if you don't change McCain is going to eat you for lunch during the upcoming debates. Yes, Clinton got away with it but that was 16 years ago, before the Internet and the rise of alternative media. We've seen that movie.

In all seriousness, I don't think Obama can 'change his game' at this point, because 'the game' is all he knows. The panic we're seeing in the media and among many on the Left is buyer's remorse. The netroots were able to 'game' the Democrat primary rules (the same way they beat Lieberman with Ned Lamont only to see Lieberman win as an independent) and put Obama ahead on Super Tuesday. The Idea of Obama was too seductive. Too late, they're starting to realize that there is no 'there' there. Every Democrat leader has to be agonizing about whether or not it's too late to pick Hillary... and about what will happen to the party if they do (convention chaos and a fragmented party), and if they do not (electoral disaster).

Look forward to a very contentious Democrat convention, and the very real possibility of a Republican landslide this fall. Far from being a Democrat year, this election is rapidly becoming McCain's to lose. Who would have thought?

How to Solve the Energy Crisis: Part 1

2008-06-22T19:08:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about America's energy crisis for a while now, and believe I pretty much have it figured out. A post on solar power , about adding 3kW of solar panels to a house in order to move their net electricity usage down into the lowest price bracket, sparked the idea for a series of articles on how America can solve its energy crisis. It all comes down to one thing: cheap electricity. This is the first article, on how a lot of little things can add up. Facts were obtained by Googling appropriately.

A 3kW/h system should generate more than 15 kilowatts on a sunny day. The average house uses about 500 kilowatt/hours per month, meaning that this system would be able to replace most, if not all, of the energy used by the house it is installed on.

Interestingly, power is consumed at the highest rate during the day, especially on hot, sunny days. That's because, while household usage is down, business usage is at its highest. So... if every house in CA had just enough PV generation capacity to provide 10% of its daily use, or 1.5kW/h worth of generation, there would be no electricity crisis in California.

How much would this cost? Well, figure 8,000,000 homes, x 1500 watts x $4, or about $48 billion, for 12 gW of generating capacity. There's 30 million people in CA, so about $1500 per person, or $500 per family. Now, this would be a one-time investment that could be amortized over the life of the PV generation systems, or about 20 years... so figure $25/year per person.

I know, $48 billion is a lot of money... but how much will it cost to bring an extra 10% of power generation capacity online thru a generating plant (coil, gas, nuclear), and pay for 20 years of fuel, pay for the infrastructure (high power lines, towers, etc.) to support the new plant, and pay for the staff to run and maintain it?

For the sake of comparison, a 1.34 gW coal-powered generating plant, with a coal mine on-site(!) that provides 70% of the coal needed for the plant, was purchased in WA state for $554 million. So... you're looking at a little over $2 per watt for coal-fired generation, or about half that of PV. However, the $200 million required for new smoke scrubbers needs to be factored in, plus the cost of the 30% of coal needed daily to generate the power, plus the cost of the staff to operate the mine and power plant, plus the cost of the new transmission line infrastructure needed to support the plant and hook it to the grid, plus the cost of maintenance, etc., and what happens to the operating costs when the mine runs out of coal? By the way, this plant just added two natural gas-fired turbine generators, so perhaps they know more about coal costs and availability than we do.

The state of California takes in over $1 trillion of tax revenue each year. Surely it could offer a 3-year tax break (give people a tax credit for 1/3 of the cost each year for 3 years), and ensure this gets up by requiring every house to add this within a 5-year window.

I know, it's a great idea. Figure the odds of it ever happening.

The Winning Hit

2008-05-18T23:23:00.000-07:00

(May 18, 2008) - Jose Lopez connects with the ball to knock in two runs, putting the Seattle Mariners in the lead at the bottom of the 8th inning. The Mariners would hold that lead for the next half-inning, defeating the Padres 3-1.

How often does a photo catch the bat making contact with the ball, much less on the winning hit? This is the first time I've ever done it. Pretty neat!

'Thanks, Bro...'

2008-04-30T21:46:00.000-07:00

Who would have thought that the Republicans had a chance of holding on to the White House in 2008 a few months ago? After the '06 Congressional election, the Conventional Wisdom held that the Democrats would win the White House in a walk. Hillary was the Heiress Apparent. Then, we saw the rise of Obama as the New Messiah, sent to assume the mantle of Leader of the Free World, an unstoppable force. Hillary or Obama? At any rate, most certainly not a Republican.

Things started to change after Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign (I believe Bill gets the credit for this strategy) came to the sober realization that if Hillary was going to win, it could only be by dragging Obama down into the dirt and making him seem like just another politician. Better yet, by painting him as the stereotypical Black Candidate instead of the candidate who happened to be Black. There is a crucial difference here; a Black Candidate, such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, represents only Black Americans (and only the more radical ones), while a candidate who happens to be Black can legitimately claim to represent all Americans... and Americans of all ethnicities can identify with him. This was the Clinton strategy first used after the South Carolina primary, where Bill Clinton made an oblique reference to Obama's support from Black voters as to be expected, "like Jesse Jackson's support." Tie your opponent with someone who is highly unpopular, in the same way that "Dole-Gingrich" was used to tie Dole in with Newt Gingrich during the '96 presidential campaigns.

Obama's only hope for mass appeal was not to be identified as the Black Candidate. Mid-America might well vote for a candidate who happened to be Black, but a Black Candidate has no chance. He was very good at resisting this characterization... until the radical sermons of Jeremiah Wright, his pastor at his Chicago church, came to light. Obama's speech on race was more of an evasion than a response, but it was well-worded and accomplished his goal of receiving the benefit of the doubt from the majority of Democrat primary voters.

Then the 'bitter clingers' comment came to light, and the Clinton campaign waisted no time in using the comment to paint Obama as an out-of-touch elitist, again making it easier for White lower- and middle-class Democrat voters to view Obama as a 'Them' instead of an 'Us'. In my opinion these comments cost Obama his chance to put Hillary away in Pennsylvania.

The fatal wound, the stab in the back, came this previous Monday courtesy of Reverend Wright and his speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club. Wright gleefully stripped his defenders of their claim that outrage towards him was due to taking his statements out of context, defied those who challenged him, and worst of all portrayed Obama as a liar who repudiated himself from Wright solely for reasons of political expediency. In other words, Obama's own minister publically declared him to be just another say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Imagine the political ads! This damning statement from his own pastor cost Obama any chance he has at the presidency, at least for this election. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

I don't know who will get the Democratic nomination. I think it will still be Obama; the nomination will be decided by the superdelegates before the convention and they have have no good choices. If they stick with Obama, they're going with a candidate who will not win against McCain, because he will not get the moderate white Democrat vote. If they switch to Hillary, Obama's young activist supports and especially his black supporters will be outraged, perhaps to the point of destroying the Democrat Party, and a mixed Clinton-Obama ticket with Obama as VP won't fly for the same reason. Their only choice is a different nominee, and who are they going to choose from? The primary losers who were eliminated early? McCain will cream them. Al Gore? Even Al isn't stupid enough to run against McCain? John Kerry? The fake war hero couldn't win against a reservist; does anyone think he'll do better against a real war hero, especially since he hasn't repudiated the SwiftVet charges because he can't? Joe Lieberman? A rational choice, yet unacceptable to the Progressive Kossacks, who will revolt. They have no bench.

Why did all this happen? Why did the glorious dream turn to ashes? Two words: the Clintons. The Clintons want back in the White House. No... make that the Clintons believe they are entitled to return, and they will do anything to win. Even if it means destroying the Democrat Party. Hillary's worst nightmare is for Obama to win in November; that will end her presidential aspirations. She knows that she can't win the nomination this year, and the superdelegates will not give it to her for fear of the consequences (blacks and progressives leaving the party in droves). Far better to destroy him now, to weaken him so that he can't win, and then run again in 2012, saying "You should have picked me in '08!" You just know Hillary's pissed at Obama for costing her a sure thing... "Damn him anyway for running!" (I'm sure that's the kindest thought she's had about Obama in a long time!)

The Democrat Party never forgives a loser. What Obama should do now is to realize that a Democrat can't win in '08! so let Hillary take the fall! My advice: bow out now! Hold a press conference saying something along the lines of "For the sake of party unity, and because this country that I love is greater than any one person, we have to end this fight in order to beat the Republicans. I am going to cede the nomination to my opponent Hillary, and I will work to get her elected." And then, work as hard for Hillary as she and Bill did for Al Gore and John Kerry (not very hard at all), while letting a few choice friends in the media know why you withdrew (because the water was poisoned by Hillary and Bill and their scorched-earth tactic of using race to divide the Democrat Party). Put a bug in Jeremiah Wright's ear about all this, and let him go forth and trumpet about the Clinton racist conspiracy to deprive a Black man of his legitimate chance. Suppress the black vote, and Hillary cannot win. Then, watch the Party turn on the Clintons after the loss in November, and drive them out.

The activists will love this noble self-sacrifice. The party leaders will shrink in fear and know they have to make a gesture to regain black support, and they'll do it. Obama will be lauded from every Democrat mountaintop. He will be a shoo-in for the 2012 nomination. He'll learn from his mistakes this year, and the public will largely forget those mistakes. If McCain is very popular, wait until 2016... Obama is still young. If not... the office is his. If he plays his cards right.

Obama's only chance to be president is if he gets out now while he is still relatively unscarred, letting Hillary get clobbered. It's nervy, though. Does he have the courage to do it? Most likely not.

Just For Now

2007-12-08T15:07:00.000-08:00

Imogene Heap's "Just For Now" recorded at a Philadelphia radio station, is without a doubt the most incredible live performance I've ever seen, by a true virtuoso. Note that none of the song was pre-recorded; Heap assembles the song as she goes, recording and replaying the various layers to create a perfectly-crafted acapella.

Heap has a beautiful voice, is a talented lyricist and musician, and her ability to perform live a very challenging act (if she had made one mistake the song is over) is superb. Celine Dion can sing, but I much prefer Heap's voice, and I can't stand watching Dion perform. I could watch this video over and over. Heap's virtuosity is as fascinating as it is magical, and her raw talent that is so well-showcased on this video staggers the imagination.

I honestly don't see how she can become any better.

DRM and the Kindle

2007-11-30T00:38:00.000-08:00

One of the most contentious aspects of Amazon's new Kindle e-reader is that it will not allow users to read copy-protected (also referred to as 'DRM' or digital rights management, a fancier way of saying the same thing) eBooks from sources other than Amazon. This seems like a really bad idea, but maybe it's necessary.

First, a little history. The .MOBI eBook format, the most popular eBook format prior to the Kindle's introduction, was developed by a company called MobiPocket for use by their MobiReader software. MobiPocket used to charge a nominal fee for the MobiReader application, and another nominal fee for popular public domain eBooks like the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Mark Twain, etc. The appeal of this, a decade ago, is that one could read books on various PDAs and computers. MobiPocket ended up being the largest publisher of eBooks, and was able to entice mainstream publishers to get on board by offering them protection against unauthorized copying, via DRM. MobiPocket also made their eBook creation software available for free to prospective publishers, so it costs almost nothing to create an eBook from the textual source. MobiPocket (the company) was purchased by Amazon a few years ago, by the way.

After thinking about this on and off, I now understand why Amazon decided not to support DRM .MOBI and went with a new DRM format, .AZW. (Interestingly enough, .AZW is almost identical to DRM .MOBI, and why not? After all, Amazon owns DRM .MOBI.)

Current DRM schemes do not account for selling and transferring ebooks. In fact, since it is impossible to tie a DRM .MOBI ebook to a particular reader (because users might get a new reader), it is effectively impossible to enforce DRM if the original purchaser is willing to provide the key to another person.

The Kindle, on the other hand, is a closed system. The Kindle's serial # is tied to the user on the Amazon website. Although, like MobiPocket, creating eBooks costs nothing, unlike MobiPocket the creation software is not downloaded to one's computer but instead resides on Amazon's servers (so they can control it fully). A record of all DRM ebooks purchased is also stored on Amazon, and associated with both the customer and the specific Kindle. Amazon could institute a firmware feature that would automatically verify each DRM ebook on the system with Amazon's server on a regular basis, and inform Amazon if a pirated file were found. Maybe they're doing that now. Who knows what data goes up to Amazon?

However, a closed system has advantages. Amazon could institute an ebook trade-in program, where you get partial credit for 'returning' a book to Amazon (removing it from your purchased book list), and they could enforce this by having the Kindle verify the 'ownership' of any .AZW book when you try to read it (by storing a copy of your purchased book list on your Kindle). Or, Amazon could facilitate 'selling' of used ebooks to other Kindle owners, by taking a bite of the 'selling' price for themselves and the publisher... call this the eBay model. The Kindle would certainly support this.

So, because Amazon can't guarantee that an individual is the owner of a particular DRM .MOBI ebook, it is perfectly understandable why they don't want the hassle and liability of supporting that format. And, because they control the Kindle, they could have all sorts of flexibility with .AZW ebooks... flexibility that is impossible with DRM .MOBI ebooks.

P.S.: Why have I written a lot about this device? Because I believe the Kindle will revolutionize the book industry, and it will also transform Amazon, the company, into what it originally promised to be back in 1995. Stay tuned for further thoughts on this device...

An Open Letter to Amazon About the Kindle

2007-11-22T14:38:00.000-08:00

Dear Amazon Kindle Support:

I’ve purchased a Kindle after looking at a friend’s beta-test version, and think you guys really have a winner here, and I feel I can say this as someone who had spec’d out the ideal eBook, as a dream project, back in the late ‘80s at a large Redmond software company (the needed technology wasn’t available yet).

However, I do have a problem, as a customer, with the Kindle’s lack of support for DRM content downloaded from Mobipocket. After all, Amazon owns Mobipocket, and to not support purchased Mobipocket files while supporting open Mobipocket files seems weak.

I understand that, from a business point of view, Amazon wants to differentiate the Kindle and to raise the barriers against other content providers, but what Amazon is really doing is forcing me and other customers to buy two different electronic books. If I have to do that, then I’ll probably end up only buying the content I can use on both devices, and failing that I’ll end up buying only the content I can use on more than one device… which means I’ll eventually sell or abandon my Kindle and go to something like the iRex iLiad as soon as someone implements support for .AZW (the Kindle’s ‘native’ eBook format).

If you really want to kill off the Mobipocket format, then do so by only publishing new titles in .AZW, not .MOBI DRM, and then offering a conversion from DRM Mobipocket to .AZW. Amazon has the marketing clout to ensure that it can publish what it wants. But, really, does Amazon want to be in the hardware business? No. Amazon was founded to be in the book business, and the twelve years of building a tremendous infrastructure was forced upon it by the demands of the market and of the products it chose to sold. Everything else is just productizing what Amazon needed to build in the first place (web services, storefronts, etc.). If only books didn’t need to be printed… but people aren’t going to want to have to worry about the Tower of Babel (different formats for electronic books, and devices that purposely choose to exclude the most popular format for business reasons).

Amazon wants, no, needs to be in the virtual book business. Leading the transformation away from physical media, of any type, should be Amazon’s goal. The best way to do this is to remove impediments to customer adoption. Do this by offering free .MOBI to .AZW conversions for 90 days after a new owner gets a Kindle, and then charge a nominal fee thereafter. Then no one has a reason to buy any other eReader.

I guess Amazon has the data for it’s decision to leave current electronic book owners out in the cold (no support for rights-protected .MOBI files), but what does this really buy you? If you don't offer conversion to .AZW, someone will figure out how to provide DRM’d .AZW files even if you don’t publish the specifications, just as Real Networks found out how to produce iTune-compatible protected music. Far better to make a few cents for conversions than to watch your competitors start offering content for the Kindle that you won't get any money for.

Democrats! Shut Up! Europe! Grow Up!

2007-11-20T23:53:00.000-08:00

Anne Applebaum has an article in Slate about how Iraq was/is a net loss for the United States:

Though I don't especially want to perpetuate anyone's stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren't improving in Iraq—it seems they are, at least for the moment—but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have yet realized. It isn't just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. Far worse is the fact that—however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy becomes a decade from now—our conduct of the war in Iraq has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we've paid is too high.

The price we paid isn't the almost 4,000 Americans who gave their lives in Iraq fighting Al Qaeda fanatics and Sunni intransigents. It's not the tens of thousands of wounded, some of whom are permanently disabled, and all whom have gone through hell. Nope... the price we've paid is the fact that no one likes us enough anymore to listen to us:

From the start, however, all negotiations between Iran and the "EU-3," as the group is known in diplomacy speak, have been haunted by Iraq. Certainly, there is no expert committee in existence that could successfully convince Europeans (or anyone) that Iran really does have nuclear weapons, or even that Iran intends to build them. So fresh are the memories of American claims about the extent of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so vast, therefore, is the skepticism about any assessments of anybody's nuclear program, that even a report bearing a United Nations or European Union label would fail to convince, even if Iranian nukes were on display in downtown Tehran. All analysis coming out of the United States is, of course, automatically discounted.

News flash: They weren't listening to us anyway! The folks that opposed us in 2003... folks like Hans Blix, Gehard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac... opposed us because they believed it was in their best interests to oppose us! Whether those interests revolved around money (as in keeping the Oil For Food cash coming), political ambition (as in using the US as a whipping boy to distract one's own voters away from a dismal political record), or strategic ambition (as in utilizing general angst over war as a club to beat the US with in the hopes of weakening America strategically so that we would no longer project power) is just additional grist for the mill.

So, here we are, almost five years later, with yet another crisis fomenting in the Middle East over a terrorist-sponsoring state that is developing WMDs, and even the critics of America admit that they do not wish to confront Iran. Hell's bells! Why on Earth should Iran change its course of action? What is the downside of their current direction? Can the Europeans not see that their very ambivalence is what is causing the crisis? And, that if they would just grow a pair and stand up, just once, to a totalitarian regime, then perhaps they could prevent yet another dictatorial miscalculation that "democracies are too weak and decadent to fight?"

Hitler started World War II because he truly believed that Britain and France lacked the will to oppose him. Oops. Kim Il Sung started the Korean War because he and Stalin believed that Truman lacked the will to oppose them. Oops. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he believed the US lacked the will to intervene. Twelve years later, he defied US and UN demands because he again believed that the US would not intervene because his bought-and-paid-for 'friends' would prevent UN approval of any attack. Oops yet again. Anyone else spot the "wars are often started by miscalculations" trend here?

I have to tell you; I think Iraq was worth the cost, and I further believe that history will agree with me in a very short time. September 11, 2001 was the culmination of several decades of escalating terrorist attacks on America... attacks with no consequences. The Bush Administration correctly analyzed the situation in the Middle East, recognizing that things weren't going to change unless we changed our response. That's a bad neighborhood, and people over there needed to realize that business as usual was over. If that meant invading a few countries, then so be it. Of course, our enemies doubted our resolve, having seen eight years of Clinton pusillanimity. We all knew their game plan: kill Americans violently and hold on until they give up and go home. But it didn't happen, despite the tremendous cost in blood and money, because we were uniquely blessed with a military, a president, and a majority of the American people, all of whom possessed the courage and resolve to see it through, and to ignore the naysayers. That resolve is what finally made the Iraqi people choose America. Osama bin Laden was right: Arabs always choose the strong horse. We showed the Middle East that, contrary to popular opinion, we are the strong horse, not Al Qaeda and its minions. If Clinton had done his job, and those who hated us believed this in 2001, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

We've won in Iraq. Now we need to finish the job, and that means confronting Iran instead of avoiding it. This is when the Rest of the World needs to grow up and get with the program. Europeans need to realize that Iran is a real threat, and that once Tehran has nukes the possibility of nuclear war increases dramatically. Iran sends all types of munitions to their Hamas and Hezbollah proxies for indiscriminate use against Israeli civilian targets. Does anyone really not think that a small nuke is off the table? Does anyone really think the US wants to go to war with Iran? Evidently, many Europeans are in a state of denial.

And whose fault is this really? Whose fault is it that the US and specifically the Bush Administration is seen as less than credible? I think that some Americans, who have attacked the motivations of the current president in their scorched-earth effort to regain political power by any means necessary, bear a good part of the blame. There's been way too much irresponsible politicking. After all, most of our enemies are merely repeating the Democrat Party talking points. This is why, once upon a time, political attacks stopped at the water's edge. Maybe, if a Democrat does win the presidency in 2008, they'll soon regret the bitter harvest that two terms of irresponsible political attacks have sown.

The Politics of Personal Destruction

2007-11-17T15:14:00.000-08:00

I'm proud of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign, and how they're refusing to go negative during the primary cycle. What am I talking about? I'm talking about taking the high road. Robert Novak (he of Plame fame*) has once again chosen to help the Clintonistas show their high moral and ethical standards as they explain they have the dirt on Obama, yet they refuse to release the details because they're such decent outstanding folks.

Yes, having the right to face one's accusers is fundamental to our system of justice... but how can Obama answer such charges? How do you defend yourself from such allegations? It's like asking him when he stopped beating his wife. What is important, to the Clintons anyway, is not the substance but the allegations themselves. What I don't understand is why the media doesn't tell the Clinton campaign, and Hillary herself, to either put up (disclose the evidence) or shut up (apologize to Obama for slandering him)**. The Clintonistas get to have their cake and eat it, too. I guess what they really want is a public outpouring of gratitude from Obama for not actually disclosing the dirt. Never mind the smear.

Am I the only one who remembers the venality of the Clintons? The attacks against Monica Lewinsky, characterized by Bill as a 'stalker' and by Hillary as part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' The demonization of Ken Starr. The selling of pardons to upstanding folks like Marc Rich? The destruction of an innocent man's character (Billy Dale) in order to enrich political contributors? The lies?

And now this. Thank goodness the Clintons and their supporters are such upstanding folks. I mean, they're decent enough to annouce to all and sundry that they're not going to use shockingly scandalous information about Obama against him.

What a crock.

*Novak knew Richard Armitage, a Clinton administration holdover in the State Department, was the source of the Valerie Plame leak and not Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney... but did he come forth? No. Better to let an innocent man be crucified by yet another Democrat holdover (Patrick Fitzgerald) with political motivations.

**Of course, I understand. The drive-by media will not do anything to threaten the coronation of the Rightful Heiress to the Throne.

Aviation Nation 2007The Nellis AFB-Las Vegas Air Show

2007-11-11T23:29:00.000-08:00

The US Air Force celebrated their 60th anniversary with a spectacular two-day air show at Nellis Air Force Base just north of Las Vegas. As an air show fanatic, how could I not go?

There was a wide variety of static displays, including one of my favorites, the Lockheed C5-A Galaxy:

The C5 is designed to carry three(!) M1 Abrams tanks, and as you can see it is huge outside and inside:

There was also a sample of airplanes from the 1940s on, including several Stearman biplane trainers in both Navy and Army colors, an AT-6, a C-47, a B-17 Flying Fortress, and a B-25 Mitchell. Here's the nose art from the B-17 and B-25:

There was also some examples of Korean War-era planes including a Mig-15, an F-86 Sabrejet, and it's immediate predecessor the F-80/T-33:

The F-80 actually was sent to Korea but proved to be no match for the Mig-15; the F-86 was rushed into production forthwith and proved to be a very fine Mig killer.

While the jets were fine for air-to-air combat, the bulk of ground support was done using reciprocating-engine propellor-driven airplanes. The Marines used the F4-U Corsair, while the Navy and the Air Force both used the Douglas Skyraider:

The Skyraider served on into Vietnam and was very popular. As an aside, my father flew these off of straight-deck carriers back in the late '50s and early '60s.

Speaking of the Navy, they did have a minor presence here with a static flight simulator trailer and a recruiting booth. The Marines and the Army were present also, with recruiting booths, but the Air Force kept its fellow services well back from the flight line! Even more notable (to this ex-swabbie) was that although the F-18 Hornet put on a show, it was a CF-18 Hornet from the Canadian Air Force:

I could have sworn I heard someone whisper, "Better a sister in a whorehouse than a brother flying for the Navy!" Probably my imagination....

The civilian flyers weren't left out, both with the classic military planes as shown above, and with purpose-built sport acrobatic aircraft. The Red Bull Flying Team put on one awesome display, with pilot Kirby Chambliss and his Extra 300 doing everything from the mundane to the incredible... check out this Lomcevak:

You can see from the trailing of the smoke how the plane is tumbling, instead of flying, moving horizontally in the direction that the bottom of the plane is pointed. The Red Bull helicopter was doing loops and barrel rolls, too, and it literally dove after the skydiving team while Chambliss was doing rings around the whole formation as the helicopter and skydivers free-fell. I've never seen a crazier aerobatic show.

Of course, what Air Force celebration would be complete without one of the BUFFs making an appearance?

The aircrew opened up the bomb doors for a simulated run, with special-effects explosions on the ground (the EOD folks were having a field day blowing off C-4 underneath jugs of diesel fuel for that 'napalm' effect).

Of course, all of this was merely a prelude to the main event... the Thunderbirds:

Note that the pilot in the F-16 below is Major Nicole Malachowski, one of two female Thunderbirds (the other is Major Samantha Weeks, flying the #6 Opposing Solo (the upside-down plane, above):

All good things must come to an end, as the Thunderbirds park their steeds on the Nellis flightline, with Las Vegas in the background:

But wait, the Air Force wasn't done yet... seems that something had been watching us all day (a Predator drone, complete with Hellfire missiles!):

The Air Force's ground attack community put in an appearance with the A-10 Thunderbolt II, also known as the 'Warthog'. This tank-killing plane was designed around its 30mm 6-barreled electric Gatling gun, shooting projectiles the size of Coke bottles at a rate of 70 per second. Ouch!

Interestingly, there was not a single F-15 Eagle at the air show. I believe that all F-15s are grounded due to concerns about fatigue after an F-15 came apart during a training flight in the midwest a few weeks ago. The Air Force couldn't let the celebration end without some fighter presence. The best surprise of the airshow was an appearance by the brand-new F-22 Raptor:

Note the unique exhaust signature with its multiple rings:

The Raptor was joined by a little bit of Air Force history in the form of a P-51 Mustang from WWII, an F-4 Phantom from the Vietnam era, and an A-10 Warthog from the Gulf War, for a final flyby....

And thus ended a fantastic airshow.

Fuggetaboutit!

2007-09-20T20:46:00.000-07:00

So, the pissant president of Iran wants to go to Ground Zero to lay a wreath for the victims of the Twin Towers terrorist attacks, and is "amazed" that Americans would take offense?

Give me a break!

Ahmadinejad just wants to go in order to obtain a photo op. The only "victims" he plans to pay his respects to are the terrorist hijackers, whom he has stated acted with the knowledge and assistance of the US government. This man is the president of a country that, at his orders, is participating in the killing of Americans on a daily basis. This man has openly called for the destruction of the United States, the "Great Satan" as he refers to us. This man was one of the "students" who took American diplomats hostage back in 1979, yet he understands that he is safe in America with his diplomatic credentials. And he wonders why Americans don't like him, or Iran? Puh-leeze!

I've got a better idea. I understand that the US is bound by the agreement with the UN which requires us to let anyone with diplomatic accreditation from a foreign government come to New York to visit the UN, and that's fine. No one says that visitors get the freedom to move about the City, however. Meet this wretch's plane with a pair of F-15s when he approaches US airspace, ensure his flight path stays over water and unpopulated areas until it arrives at the airport. Meet his plane with a security detail, for his protection of course. If he stays overnight, escort him to his accomodations and station security outside of his room. Do not allow him to leave his room without US-provided security, and then only to go to and from the UN. Once he's there, let him make his speech, meet with representatives from other countries, etc. When his business is concluded at the UN, take him to the airport, put his sorry butt back on his airplane, and then once again escort that airplane with a pair of F-15s until he is well beyond US airspace. Make sure he understands that, once his plane touches the ground back home, our promise to guarantee his safety ends and the next US airplane he sees might well have already dropped the smart bomb that will send him to his own special place in Hell.

If he has a problem with that, remind him that he is still alive at our discretion, and that if he would prefer, we can treat him the same way he calls for the treatment of his enemies.

Update: I called into a local radio talk show today to give them grief about the liberal host's position that perhaps this was a missed opportunity to "connect" with Ahmadinejad. Give a listen and see what you think! If you get a 'page not found' error when you click on the link, just hit 'refresh' and that should start up Windows Media Player and start playing the MP3...

The First Leaf of Autumn

2007-09-14T20:15:00.001-07:00

Taken on Labor Day in the Lisabeula area of Vashon Island, Washington.

Does the tree wake up from summertime drowsing to notice the first dead leaf, and only then realize its mortality? Regardless of how bright the sun or how warm the day, winter eventually comes to us all.

Seafair 2007 Sunday Airshow

2007-08-05T16:33:00.000-07:00

I have too many long telephoto shots at airshows, so I thought I'd try something a little different. These photos were taken from just above the I-90 tunnel on the Seattle side of Lake Washington, using my Sigma SD14 and either the 18-50/2.8 EX DG Macro or 50-150/2.8 EX DG lens. I don't know who the first group is (I think it's a group of private pilots who own ex-European military trainers... update: it's the Patriots Jet Demonstration Team), but the second group are the Blue Angels in their very recognizable F-18s.

This first group was actually very good, but they have (had?) the misfortune of going before the Blue Angels in front of a crowd that is used to the levels of performance that only a world-class top-of-the-line military fighter can give... and that only a government can afford to operate! Very precise flying, and the group was fast, but not quick (very slow to accelerate, rejoin, etc.).

Another great hour filled with sonic booms, turnin' and burnin', etc. Until you viscerally feel the vibration from an F-18 making a high speed subsonic pass maybe 100' overhead, watch them go from sea level to 15,000 feet in under 20 seconds, etc., you can't appreciate how astoundingly fast and agile... and loud these planes are.

The 'smoke' (condensed water vapor) above the inboard leading edges of the wings is a sign that the plane is really pulling some 'G's (the air pressure above the wing is dropping so low that the water vapor condenses). I meant to bring my 70-200/2.8 EX and use the TC with it... but my son was in too much of a hurry this morning so I grabbed the small Lowepro instead. No big deal... all's well that ends well.

Tranquility...

2007-07-30T17:55:00.000-07:00

I spent last weekend in the San Juans, having rented a house with my family for the week, but alas, we are still trying to ship the product that was supposed to be done at the end of June, so I'm back by myself for the week.

At least the ferry ride back was beautiful.

Update: I did get to go back on Thursday evening and go fishing, bike riding, and just relaxing for a couple of days. I took this picture at sunset on the south end of the Deception Pass Bridge, while I was waiting for the last ferry of the night. A little post-processing magic, and voila!

Getting Ready for a One-Day STP...

2007-04-22T22:46:00.000-07:00

I've started training to ride the Seattle-to-Portland, a two-day double-century that goes from (you guessed it...) Seattle to Portland. About 9,000 people start the ride, about 90% finish. Somewhere around 20% do it in just one day. Actually, make that 16 hours or less because the official start time at the University of Washington's parking lot is 5 am on Saturday morning and the finish line checkpoint in Portland's Halliday Park closes at 9 pm.

I've ridden it for the past three years, but now I've been dared to do it in one day, so I've started to train in earnest. First, I realized that the bike I'd ridden for the three previous rides, a RANS V-Rex with a Rohloff Speedhub (a 14-speed internally-geared hub), just wasn't the bike to do this in one day. The V-Rex, especially one set up the way mine is, weighs around 31 lbs. The new bike to get was obvious: a Bacchetta Aero.Why was it obvious? The Aero started the high racer recumbent craze, it weighs 22 lbs, has a titanium frame, and is one of the lightest and fastest recumbents out there. After dithering over 24" or 650c wheels, I went with the latter (better tire choices, lower rolling resistance) despite worries over seat height (I'm 5'6"), and I'm perfectly happy with my choice.

I've had the Aero since early March and have found that it is easily 20% faster than the V-Rex on the flats and perhaps twice as fast climbing. I should have bought one of these when they first came out.

I went on a quick 30-mile training ride tonight. Here's the details, courtesy of my Garmin Edge 305 GPS/Cyclecomputer (ah... gadgets!) and MotionBased.com:

If you want to follow my ride, click on the 'View Activity' link above, then select the orange 'Player' tab at the top far right, then select 'Satellite' and set the speed to '0.5x', and hit the Play button.

Note the elevation graph, at the lower right. I live at the south end of one of a series north-south ridges (a result of glacial activity during the last Ice Age), and I have to descend almost 400 feet to get to the valley below (near sea level). Of course, there's lots of ridges in this neck of the woods, so I have to climb back up a 500' high ridge, then descend down the other side, ride in the Sammamish Valley for a while, and then climb back up the ridge I live on. If the hills don't kill you, they make you wish you were dead. Any wonder why I miss south Louisiana, where the highest hill is a highway overpass?

Why am I writing about this? Because now that I've put this goal in writing, I'm obligated to do it. Ouch.

Making the World Brighter Through Conversation

2007-03-16T01:42:00.000-07:00

I ran down to the local Barnes & Noble this afternoon to pick up some books on Scrum methodology for my new feature team leads. After waiting a few minutes in the checkout line, the young sales clerk invited me over with the usual "I can help the next customer down here!"

As I put the books on the counter, the sales clerk started her banter. "How is your day going?"

"Fine," I replied.

"I just know today will be a good day for me, too!" she said. "The past several days have been really bad, so today has to be good, doesn't it?"

"That's an interesting question," I said. "Are you familiar with statistics?"

"No, I'm not."

I warmed to my subject. "Well, let me explain something to you. Let's say you flipped a coin a thousand times, and ended up with a thousand 'heads'. The odds against that are astronomical, right?"

"Yes, I know that much!"

"Okay, but did you know that the odds of your getting heads on the next flip is still 50:50? In other words, regardless of how lousy the past few days have been for you, the odds are just as likely that today, and tomorrow, will be just as lousy, or lousier."

The poor woman visibly deflated, but bravely tried to recover as she handed me my books and my credit card back. "Have a nice day!"

"You, too," I replied as I left.

Anniversary of the Decisive Gulf War Tank Battles

2007-02-23T15:27:00.000-08:00

Take a look at this image, from Google Earth. I found it while dinking around this afternoon. It's the location of the Gulf War Battle of 73 Easting, almost sixteen years ago to the day, on the night of February 25-26 1991, when the US VII Corps caught up with one of the three Iraqi Republican Guard armored divisions, the Tawakalna Division and literally kicked their butts in a few hours. Click on the image to see it larger, and use the coordinates to help you zoom in with Google Earth if you want to check out the battlefield. This particular image is, I believe, the graveyard of the Iraqi 12th Armored Division, left behind to guard the rear of the Tawakalna Division while the Republican Guard units tried to retreat back into Iraq. I believe this division was destroyed mostly by Apache helicopter, with some assists from M1A1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

I've looked further to the north, where the three Tawakalna battalions got theirs, but the density of destroyed vehicles is very low although there are hastily prepared fighting positions where they're suppsed to be. Perhaps the Iraqis salvaged the destroyed tanks after the war, starting at the north and working their way southward.

Despite the impression that we have of Iraqis being most militarily adept at surrendering, the Guards divisions were actually pretty tough customers who tried to slug it out with the American forces. Remember, these are the same tank units that defeated the Iranians for a decade. Their biggest handicap was lack of intelligence; looking at the most-southern fighting positions shows that they were expecting the attack from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to the south and east, and were completely surprised by our forces to the left. Coalition forces also had the advantage of superior equipment, training, and communications. Our tanks could detect and destroy their tanks beyond the range that they could even see us through their gunsights. In these battles, the first indication the Iraqis had that US armored forces were nearby was having one of their tanks blow up spectacularly.

One of the tactics used by the Iraqis as the battle raged on was to not power up their tank, instead letting it remain at the ambient temperature and thus be mostly invisible to our thermal sights. One of the US units reported coming over a small ridge and seeing 'basketballs' appearing and disappearing... and realizing these were the heads of Iraqi tank commanders coming in and out of their turrets quickly spread the word to shoot below the basketballs... ouch!

The smarter Iraqis kept their tanks cold and their heads down. After US vehicles would roll past these dormant tanks in the night, the Iraqis would crank their turrets around by hand and shoot us from behind. It was an effective tactic, but once a shot was fired the tank's temperature changed enough to become clearly visible on our thermal sights and most of these tanks only got off one shot before they were destroyed. Unfortunately, US tanks adjacent to those hit turned their turrets around to engage the bypassed Iraqis, leading to several incidents of fratricide, or "friendly fire" deaths when their gun flashes firing westward were mistakenly identified as enemy fire and engaged by oncoming US tanks to the westward.

After the destruction of the Tawakalna Division, the next Guard unit encountered was the Medina, leading to the Battle of Medina Ridge, the largest tank-on-tank battle in the history of the US Army. I think that only the WWII Battle of Kursk between the Soviets and the Germans was larger.

I think a case can be made that the Soviet Union collapsed as a result of the Gulf War and the lopsided US victory. Why? Because the Soviets were in Iraq supporting their client state with technical advisors and the latest and greatest Warsaw Pact armament. The Soviets always outnumbered the US in Europe, just as the Iraqis outnumbered us in Iraq, however US military strategy was predicated on the fact that large conventional battles would always be against numerically superior enemies like the Soviets and the Chinese. And yet, we defeated the fourth largest army in the world in less than 100 hours, while suffering more casualties in traffic accidents at home than we did on the battlefield. I think the Soviet leadership saw that all of their military spending, the decades of deprivation of their people, the lack of progress in their country's standard of living... it was all a waste. They'd never be able to conquer us militarily, they lost 40,000 troops and wrecked their army in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and they were getting left further and further behind, while their earstwhile junior partner China was making great economic strides. Despite the Soviets' best efforts, the US was less than 100 kilometers from downtown Baghdad with nothing in the way but sand. And so we saw the coup attempt fail shortly thereafter, and the Soviet Union was no more.

One wonders about the lost opportunities of the 1990s, starting with our running from Somalia to our ineffective responses to Al Qaeda. What would the world have looked like with Bush had won instead of Clinton? Would 9/11 or something similar have happened?

In A Post-9/11 World...

2007-02-23T11:06:00.000-08:00

...Americans are refusing to be victims. We saw it when the airline passengers beat the snot out of the Sneaker Bomber, and we see it again when a group of American senior citizens, including at least one retired military, were confronted by three Honduran bad boys with knives and a gun during a cruise ship port visit. When the dust settled, two of the pendejos were running and the third bandito was permanently hors de combat, having suffered a broken collarbone and then death via lack of blood to the brain from what was probably a rear naked choke, a ju-jitsu hold taught in military combatives training.

My favorite part of the article:

The tourists left on their Carnival cruise after the incident and Hernandez said authorities do not plan to press any charges against them, saying they acted in self defense.

"They were in their right to defend themselves after being held up," Hernandez said.

Honduras is a pretty cool country.

Lesson #1: When your life is threatened, fight back with an overwhelming amount of force and definitively eradicate the threat. Mercy can wait until you identify the perp in the ER or the morgue.

Lesson #2: Picking on Americans can be hazardous to your health.

On The Morality of Clubbing Baby Seals

2007-02-23T01:22:00.000-08:00

Don't ask me how I wandered on to this, but I thought it was powerful enough to share.

I've never heard of Craig Ferguson before, but he seems like someone worth watching.

The Perils of Shooting Your Mouth Off

2007-02-18T14:15:00.000-08:00

Jim Zumbo
c/o Outdoor Life

Dear Jim:

I've met you at sportsmen's shows and at the SHOT Show. I've read your work for a couple of decades now. I'm really pretty disappointed in you, because I don't think you get why people are so upset.

I've hunted for almost 40 years, and owned guns for the same amount of time. I've been in the military. I've shot competitively. And, I've owned a gun shop and shooting range.

People could care less if you do, or don't, hunt with an AR-15, or Mini-14, or AK-47, or SKS, or whatever. That's your business. When you start denigrating people over their choice of hunting firearms, then it becomes a problem. When you call them "terrorists" and call for banning their weapon of choice, then it really becomes a problem. And, in today's political climate, where those who work to ban all firearms look for any and every opportunity to divide the gun owner community on the basis of cosmetics so they can gradually ban all guns by banning this type and then that type, you just handed anti-gunners some potent information. "Why not ban AR-15s from hunting?" they'll say. "After all, noted hunting authority Jim Zumbo says that they are unsporting and don't belong in the woods!"

Jim, the problem isn't that you didn't realize people hunt with AR-15s. It's that both your original post and your apology demonstrate you truly do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and that it extends to beyond what type of firearms may be suitable for a week-long elk hunt in the Rockies.

So, going on a hunt with Ted Nugent and using AR-15s isn't going to fix the problem. How about writing an article on how people who don't hunt also have a right to own firearms, including AR-15s, and maybe then following up with another article specifically for non-hunters who own semiautomatic rifles derived from military weapons, directed at how to get them to start hunting with those weapons. After all, we need more hunters!

Hunting as an activity is decreasing in popularity. I'd venture to say that, unlike when I was a boy, the majority of gun owners are not hunters. If you, as a recognized authority on hunting (certainly not guns), dismiss these people for their taste in firearms, then in a few years don't be surprised when hunting as a legitimate sporting activity is ended. After all, we don't need to hunt to feed ourselves, and we can farm elk and deer if we like the taste of venison. It's just a cruel blood sport, isn't it, and no one needs to kill a poor cute defenseless prairie dog or a clever and handsome coyote.

Gun owners and Americans in general are pretty forgiving, if they think you're sincere and if they see that you've changed. But the burden is on you, and not on them. If your apology really is sincere and you really don't think these guns should be banned from hunting, then you need to start writing... and soon.

Sincerely,

John Clifford

ht: Instapundit

The Perfect Birthday

2007-02-15T23:41:00.000-08:00

I ran across a photo on an Internet site that reminded me of my eighth birthday, my best birthday ever, and my first true love.

I learned to ride a bike when I was five, on my own. My parents had bought my oldest sister a red Schwinn on her sixth birthday, and my other sister Sue and I spent the afternoon running behind my father as he attempted to mentor Amie in the art of cycling by holding the bike with her on it, running with it for a few steps and then launching her to wobble across the drive. She never really took to it and the bike ended up in the garage, unused. Sue never expressed any interest in the bicycle and so it languished for over a year until one day, after watching some of the older boys in the neighborhood ride and pondering on the subject I decided that I was going to learn.

I spent a few days on the sidewalk besides our house, starting at the top of the block and coasting down, dragging my feet at first until I finally figured out what to do in order to keep from falling... turn in the direction that the bike starts to lean. Shortly thereafter I was up and running, or cycling. I spent the rest of the summer cycling on my own without anyone being the wiser... and as the youngest child and the only boy that is just how I wanted it.

A week or two after school began, I made an offhand comment as we passed a bicyclist on the way home in the car with my mother and sisters. "What do you know about bicycles?!" Sue challenged. "Why, I'm a year older than you and I can't ride and I know more about bicycles than you do!" "I can too ride a bike!" I responded. "No, you can't!" And so on, until my mother told us both to stop arguing.

I slumped back in my seat and challenged her, "I bet you a quarter I can ride!" Now, a quarter was a lot of money in the mid-1960s. It was two week's allowance, and would buy five Cokes in those little glass bottles, or five candy bars, or any combination of the two. We're talking serious money for a five year-old... or a six year-old, for that matter. Sue had to put up, or shut up... and, really she had no choice; I had called her bluff. She could hardly wait to get home to take my quarter.

The car had barely stopped before we all piled out. I ran across the yard to the door under the porch and pulled the bike out, and then proudly rode it across the yard and up to the car. My mother was speechless with astonishment, and both of my sisters were calling, "Teach me! Teach me!" (I tried for a few minutes, but they wouldn't listen, and I eventually realized that they would have to learn on their own the same way I did, although being outdone by their younger brother was powerful motivation. I don't remember getting the quarter.)

A couple of days later, my father pulled up while I was sitting on the back steps. He stepped out of the driver's seat and pulled a brand-new 24" boy's bike out of the back. I was totally surprised; I guess my mother must have mentioned that we would need at least one more bike. This was a typical Sear's cruiser with lots of chrome plating, the taillight behind the seatpost, a swooping gas tank on the main tube, a headlight and a big spring shock absorber on top of the front fender. I immediately tried to ride it and ran into a problem. Either Dad overlooked my height, or lack of it, at five years of age, or more likely he bought a little bigger bike figuring I would grow into it. My father showed me how to start by stepping on the left pedal with my left foot, scooting a few steps, and then swinging my foot over the main tube, and I was able to ride it, but even at its lowest I couldn't pedal while sitting. I quickly learned how to stop the bike and get off without falling; ride into our hedge and then climb off as the bike was held up by the front wheel!

As you can imagine, with very little clearance between the top tube and sensitive portions of my anatomy, not being able to sit, and having to find a hedge in order to get off, I quickly parked the new bike under the porch and returned to riding my sister's 20" candy apple red Schwinn mixte (girl's bike). It didn't help that a few weeks later some cretin opened the door under our porch while we were out and made off with the bike. I was upset, but more with the idea that it was stolen than with the fact that I couldn't ride it anymore.

A while later, my father came home with a decades-old mixte with 20" balloon tires, painted pea green with a brush. I hopped on and rode it and fell in love. Everything fit, it was comfortable, no bar to crunch myself on, and it was mine. I don't think the manufacturers even considered using anything besides the same stuff you'd find beneath your bathroom sink for frame tubing, and the bike had to weigh at least 50 lbs. It was ugly, but it never let me down. I rode that bike for three years, until my eighth birthday... the best birthday of my life.

All that fall I had been entranced, dreaming of a bike in the Sears catalog. As you may remember, Sears had a good marketing habit of having at least two items in any category and often three... "Good," "Better," and "Sear's Best." The bicycle marketer must have understood small boys, because he had two Stingray-type bikes in full color. I lusted after the "Sear's Best" model, the 'Scream' with its butterfly handlebars, its 5-speed shifter in a console on the main tube, its banana seat, and its dragster-type slick rear tire. It was too much to hope for, but I would hold the catalog and walk in circles around my room at night when I was supposed to be in bed, dreaming. I literally prayed about that bike, even offering to take the "Better" model if that's all God thought I deserved... but I really figured there was no way I'd get any bike for Christmas. After all, even the cheaper model was $50 and the "Scream" was $80. The number was beyond comprehension to a person who got a quarter for his allowance. It might as well have cost a million dollars.

I remember my birthday, that December day in 1969, very well. It was raining and cold, and my father wasn't home for dinner so we all ate and waited for him to start on the cake. I heard my father pull up around 6:30 and ran to the front door to open it for him, and as I did the bike of my dreams appeared as he wheeled it inside.

I couldn't believe it. If you've ever really wanted something, figured you'd never get it, and then, lo and behold, it's yours, you understand. Nothing would do except that we go outside and ride it, in the cold December rain at night, so we did. And then we brought it back inside and I lovingly dried it off with a towel. My father even brought it upstairs that one night so I could sleep with it in my room. To this day, it was the best birthday present I've ever had.

But, like most love stories it ended badly. Six months later I went up to stay with my stepsister and her husband for a couple of weeks. Despite my repeated demands, backed up by my parents, that my bike not be taken out while I was away, my sisters did take it out, and left it out for a couple days in the rain. By the time I returned home it was rusted, the chrome flaking off. Once the paint blisters and the steel corrodes there is nothing that an eight year-old boy can do with Naval Jelly to restore his pride and joy. I still rode it but things were never the same. I'd look at the rust and the flaked chrome and alternate between depression and anger. A year later someone stole it from our garage, and although we came across the thief on the bike and stopped him, I could not get my father to take it from him even though I positively identified every scratch and defect down to the traces of Naval Jelly still remaining on the chainguard. We went home and called the police but the thief had hidden the bike by the time they came and I never saw it again. I was heartbroken.

That was the last bike I owned until I was an adult. I had forgotten what it looked like until I ran across a picture of it while Googling random stuff. Here it is... my first love.

I know, it looks ridiculous. I wonder what I ever saw in it. And then I realize that when one is in love common sense goes out the window. I've owned several bikes as an adult, some costing in the thousands, made of titanium with top-end componentry... and yet, no bike has ever made me happier. No photo can possibly reproduce the experience, the emotion, of owning my dream bike. Laugh if you will, but how many of you would have given everything for such a bike when you were eight?

Tragedy Isn't Funny: An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh

2007-02-06T11:01:00.000-08:00

Hello Rush,

As a listener of yours since the late '80s, and a member for the past several years, I think you're going a little overboard on the astronaut.

I joined after the press was ganging up on you over your issue with painkillers. I didn't think it was fair, and I wanted to show my support.

Similarly, I think the story of Lisa Nowak and her actions this morning is really a tragedy. Captain Nowak is an Annapolis grad with a regular commission, three young children, and is at the pinnacle of her career as a test pilot and astronaut. Now, all of that is over. Regardless of the legal outcome, her career is ended and she will have to resign her commission because she can no longer be trusted behind the controls of a fighter aircraft much less in command of an aircraft carrier or in the Space Shuttle.

If she is acquitted of all charges, she will still be unemployable; no defense contractor or airline will have her for the same reason that the Navy and NASA no longer will. She will almost surely be court-martialed; if she is found guilty she will most likely lose her pension. Her marriage is most likely over as well. And, if she is convicted in a criminal court she will spend at least a decade in jail.

I don't know why Captain Lowak did what she did. I don't know what pushed her to act this irrationally. My point is, regardless of the reason this is a tragedy that has and will harm many innocent people, from the intended victim to the male astronaut to the Nowak children to Captain Lowak herself. The woman has lost everything. There's nothing funny about that.

Give the woman a break, okay?

Jane, You're Playing a Game You Never Can Win, Girl...*

2007-01-29T22:38:00.000-08:00

It's amazing how time changes everything, how a new year, a new Congress invigorates one into thinking that perhaps they were right all along. Or, at least it must seem that way to Jane Fonda.

In a reprise of her antiwar youth, Jane Fonda finally came out and spoke to an antiwar rally in Washington DC last weekend. "I haven't spoken at an antiwar rally in 34 years," she said. But, "Silence is no longer an option."

Oh, yes it is! Hasn't this woman learned anything? After all, she apologized at least twice for her actions supporting the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, acts which she acknowledged caused harm to other Americans and which gave aid and comfort to the enemy. In other words, treasonous acts that at any other time would have seen her prosecuted. Haven't you learned to keep your ignorant mouth shut yet?

Maybe Jane and her Fellow Travelers should reminisce a little further back, and ponder the words of an American president who was himself attacked for leading the country into an unpopular war, who was savaged by his Democratic opponents, and yet whom, unlike Jane Fonda, was proven to have been on the right side of history:

“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.” -- Abraham Lincoln

Jane, we know your game. Silence is no longer an option... it's mandatory. Shut the hell up and let the President win the war.

Read this for more on Hanoi Jane and her avowed appetite for her own foot.

*apologies to Jefferson Starship

...And the Democratic (Non-) Response

2007-01-24T09:22:00.000-08:00

After stewing on James Webb's response to the SOTU overnight, I felt compelled to write about what was said, and as important, what wasn't. I'm going to focus on Iraq because that is the primary subject in front of the country.

Many people who identify as Democrats think that Webb really put the wood to Bush last night. Yes, he was very eager to blame, but was anything really accomplished. I don't see it. Come on! What did Webb really say?

Whether or not you believe invading Iraq was necessary back in 2003 (I do), the fact remains that we did. All of the finger-pointing, blame-gaming, insulting, etc., is irrelevant. Yeah, I know it's red meat for the Democratic base, but it's basically just so much BS. The question is, what do we do now?

Some are urging that we leave Iraq as quickly as possible. They say that achieving our objectives is impossible, that those objectives aren't worth another American's life, or both. Some, e.g. Michael Moore, say that, because we shouldn't have invaded in the first place we deserve to fail and we should give up, retreat, and accept the consequences as our just desserts. What I haven't heard these types fully explain is their understanding and acceptance of what will happen should we heed their urge and abandon Iraq immediately.

Others realize that, as Hillary said (unfortunately not about Iraq), we must be "in it to win it." Whether or not we were right to invade Iraq, whether or not we've made mistakes, we have to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it would be. And, the reality is that abandoning Iraq would be disastrous for the US and for the rest of the civilized world.

Abandoning Iraq would leave it to be controlled by Iran or by Al Qaeda after a fierce and bloody war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Abandoning Iraq would mean we'd leave the sanctuary of a nation-state with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil to be used as a resource by those who have repeatedly sworn to destroy us by any available means. Abandoning Iraq would give our sworn enemies a new, and much better base than Afghanistan ever was. Abandoning Iraq means the War on Terror (the war against Islamic extremists of both Sunni and Shia persuasion) would come to our shores, as it did on 9/11.

Webb held up the Korean War and the way it was ended as a desirable solution. The Korean peninsula is a mess today because we didn't finish what they started back in 1950. More than 50,000 Americans died and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in Korea over the past half-century. Now, North Korea is frantically working to develop nuclear weapons to go on top of their ballistic missiles, even though they can't feed their population. So, offering the way we handled Korea as being a good way to settle Iraq is woefully ignorant at best, and dishonestly disingeneous at worst.

When I hear Webb mention that the Dems will "show [us] the way" I think about how they showed us the way out of Vietnam... and that way led over killing fields strewn with millions upon millions of bodies. Or, how they showed us the way out of Somalia... and that way led to an emboldened Al Qaeda and increasingly effective terrorist attacks against us culminating on 9/11. We've seen the Democratic way, and it doesn't lead to peace and stability. It leads to war and instability because the Democratic way tells our enemies that we can be attacked with impunity.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: the "cut-and-runners" believe that there's no way we can win in Iraq, there's no way we could win, and that we've already lost so we might as well cut our losses and get out now. This begs the question of why is it that the US can never win a war anymore while the our dilapidated and rag-tag enemies are inevitably victorious? Why is it that the most powerful nation in the history of the world can't win a war, while the weakest and most disorganized states can never lose? Why is it that Ethiopia can completely rout the Islamists in Somalia in a couple of weeks but we can't rout them in Iraq in three years? The answer is obvious... different rules of engagements. We can't win, these people believe, because they can't bring themselves to do what it takes to win.

I used to think James Webb was a smart man. Now, I wonder if he really did learn anything from Vietnam, or is he just embittered and angry and looking for someone or something to, as we rednecks say, whup up on. That's not what the country needs now. Why don't people realize this?

The State of the Union

2007-01-23T19:11:00.000-08:00

George Bush gave one of the best speeches of his presidency tonight. It was cogent, coherent, and well-delivered. The question is, was it well-received? Only the pollsters know... maybe.

Watching his speech tonight via a live Internet video stream, I was struck by the reactions of the various members of the audience in the House chamber, especially to Bush's statement of "Whatever the people voted for, they didn't vote for failure [in Iraq]." Unfortunately, the Democrats seem to be circling like sharks smelling blood in the water, Bush's blood. They think he's fatally wounded (and he may be), but Bush isn't giving up yet. "Lame duck" status is a matter of perception, and Bush has the advantage of strength of character; he really doesn't care what people think of him as long as he believes he is on the right path. So... regardless of whether Bush's positions on the issues have merit, too many of his opponents will seek to act in whatever manner gains them the most political advantage whether or not the country is helped or hurt.

I also watched the Democratic response, given by Senator James Webb. Now, I have been a Jim Webb fan ever since I read "Fields of Fire" and especially "A Sense of Honor" while I was an NROTC midshipman. I thought George Allen's attack on Webb based upon the father/son scene in "Lost Soldiers" was pathetic; it cost Allen the election as it should have. However, James Webb the Senator is not as impressive as James Webb the author, or James Webb the Vietnam-era Marine war hero. In many ways it seems he has become the type of politician he reviled in "Something To Die For" when he pontificates on the mistakes that were made as "reckless" instead of acknowledging that mistakes are the "friction of war" as von Clausewitz noted.

Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. Two years later, it's blindingly obvious what should have been done in the aftermath of the Iraq War; declare martial law, clamp down on Iraq as we did in post-WWII Germany and Japan, set up the country as a US protectorate and get the civil institutions up and running before we turned Iraq back over to its citizens. However, at the time, there was little popular support for a long occupation just as after the Clinton Administration there were insufficient numbers of troops to successfully fully occupy Iraq while meeting our commitments across the globe. More important, what is accomplished by continually harping on our mistakes and publicly threatening the Administration with a Congressional fight over the war? Yes, I know it's good for partisan political advantage, but is it good for the country? Imagine how much harder it would have been for FDR to fight World War II if the Republicans had continually pointed out the mistakes that were made, from failing to reinforce Wake Island, to letting the Philippines fall, to the disasters in the Solomon Islands, Anzio, etc. We would not have won that war in this political climate.

Do I think the surge in Iraq will work? Evidently both Al Qaeda and al Sadr do; the former has evacuated Baghdad knowing that to stand and fight means losing, the latter is desperately trying anything and everything to avoid the coming smackdown. The problem I have with the Democrats and their views on the surge is, as John Kerry so aptly put it, they were for it until they were against it. There is no reason to the Democratic opposition to Bush's plans, unless one considers it acceptable to seek partisan advantage by any means necessary regardless of the troops it endangers and the harm it does to the country.

The Republicans lost the Congress because they failed to live up to their campaign promises and took their constituencies for granted. "Where else are they going to go?" was the attitude. The Republican leadership knew that most conservatives wouldn't vote for liberal Democrats. What they forgot is that their base might not go anywhere and choose to stay home and not vote at all. This is what happened in 2006; the Republican turnout was very light while the Democratic base showed up at the polls and voted. The same thing happened in 1992, with the same results (the GOP lost everything). However, I don't think 2006 portends a continuance of Democratic Congressional rule after 2008. Just as they did in 1992, the Democrats are well on their way of reminding the voters why they were kicked out in the first place, and we all know what happened in 1994.

Despite their missteps and blunders, the Republicans have brought the country a long way from where it was in 2000, from the start of a recession with an administration that refused to face the oncoming economic and terrorist storms. We weathered the recession and 9/11, and the country is stronger with more jobs, a better economy, and reduced deficits. The terrorists who were gaining strength in 2000 have been largely obliterated and the few that are left are hiding in holes in remote regions of the world. Most of us no longer worry about terrorist attacks on our country, and that goes a long way to explain why Democrats won (we don't se the threat). But our troubles and travails aren't over yet, despite wishful thinking on the part of the majority of Americans.

So, the State of the Union is that we are both stronger, and blinder, than we have been in a long time. We have a president who still believes we are threatened, and not only does the opposition disagree but many from his own party are starting to distance themselves as well.

Who's right? Unfortunately, I think we'll find out sooner rather than later.

Winter Windstorm Aftermath

2006-12-17T19:12:00.000-08:00

It was no Hurricane Katrina, but the worst winter storm in more than a decade hit us last Thursday evening, eventually turning out the lights on more than 1.5 million people in the Pacific Northwest.

You don't realize how much modern society depends upon electricity until you are forced to do without it for several days. It looks like our power won't be on until at least tomorrow (Monday) and perhaps even Tuesday, and many people have been told that it will be until after Christmas. We who are without power are not the unluckiest ones; several people were killed by falling trees.

The picture to the left shows a house in our subdivision that was hit by a falling tree. Luckily, no one was hurt but the house was extensively damaged. The woman who lived there with her family had arranged to have the remaining trees on her lot removed. She told me that the falling tree had hit her children's rooms and scared everyone to death, and that she was cutting every tree on their lot down. "It's going to look like a desert." I can't say that I blame her.

Why do so many trees fall? The Pacific Northwest's ubiquitous evergreen is the fir tree, and these trees have evolved to survive in thickly-timbered forests. The root systems of these trees goes maybe a foot into the ground, but spreads out to the diameter of the widest limbs... wide but shallow. Fir trees survive windstorms because a grove of them have interlocking roots so each helps support the other. However, all bets are off when people come along and thin out the trees in order to put things like houses and roads and powerline right-of-ways.

The reason we are without power for so long is shown, to the right. The high voltage feeder lines that run into the area substation were knocked out by several falling trees in a quarter-mile stretch. The damage was extensive; a couple of poles will need to be replaced and several of the feedlines will need to be re-rigged. This will take a couple of days and only started this morning.

The strategy for coping with widespread power outages is to go for effectiveness... make the quick fixes that will restore power to the most people with the least amount of work. The harder problems, or those that affect fewer people, are handled later.

Our problem is a time-consuming mess, and affects a few thousand people, so it had to wait while the easier or more wide-reaching problems were taken care of first.

Even though this is an inconvenience, it does point out some things I need to add to the emergency kit. The number one item is going to be a generator, followed by an electric cooler. The food in the fridge was the first thing to go; opening the door on Friday morning quickly let the cold air out and the milk spoiled by the evening. We have natural gas, but the furnace is useless without the blower motor, so the second thing is to get an electrician to set up the breaker panel so we can run a few things off of the generator. It would be nice to be able to do a couple loads of laundry, or run the dishwasher, or watch the television, and we don't need to do everything at once.

This was a good wake-up call, for those of us who are only inconvenienced. My condolences go out to those who fared worse.

On Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

2006-08-02T22:50:00.000-07:00

This article was inspired by a fellow blogger's post about her latest present.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on knife fighting (far from it). But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

In all the hoopla about the utility of guns, particularly handguns, for self-defense, many seem to forget about knives.

We've all heard the old saw about "bringing a knife to a gunfight" as a warning about being outgunned, as it were. However, knives do have a place in one's defensive armory, and every professional man-at-arms that I know carries a knife at all times. Especially when they can't carry a gun.

Knives have many characteristics that make them as good, or perhaps even better, than a gun for close-range self-defense. These include:

A knife never runs out of ammo
A knife never jams (especially a fixed-blade knife)
A knife is quiet
A knife is scary, because everyone has been cut and we all know it hurts
A knife is seen by many as not as dangerous as it truly is, making its possession less threatening to the general public

Knives has some disadvantages, as well:

You must be within arm's reach to strike your opponent
Using a knife effectively requires a modicum of training (as much as a basic handgun course)
Most people find that stabbing or cutting an attacker to be much harder from a psychological viewpoint than shooting an attacker, because knife fighting is up close, personal, and brutal
You will get bloody, even if you don't get injured
If the other person also has a knife, you both will be cut; the winner just gets cut less.

In other words, if you intend to use a knife as one element of your self-defense plan, then you need to be tactically and psychologically prepared to have a reasonable chance of success.

While the use of the sword reached its peak in Renaissance-era Spain, the development of knife fighting techniques and tactics reached its zenith in the Phillipines during the first part of this century when, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent suppression of the Moro Rebellion, practitioners of Escrima, the Filipino martial art of armed and unarmed combat, traveled, interacted, and competed thus exposing each subgroup's unique techniques to examination and adaptation by all. During four centuries of Spanish rule, the open practice and instruction of Escrima was punishable by death. As a result, Escrima practitioners trained with sticks of varying lengths, first as a substitute to knives and swords and later in addition to them as the utility and effectiveness of stick fighting became apparent. The real beauty of the style is its superficial simplicity and adaptability of the techniques to swords, knives, and the empty hand; a true Escrima master is always armed.

Escrima spread to the Hawaiian Islands and then to the US West Coast via Filipino workers, where it was generally only taught to persons of Filipino descent. Eventually, the style was learned by dedicated Western martial artists.

An Escrima master is someone that you certainly don't want to anger. The speed and skill of a true master is extremely scary, and very effective. Take, for instance, the elderly Filipino man who was accosted by a gang of youths who attempted to rob him a few years ago. When the police arrived, they found one innocuous-looking unharmed old man with a bloody pocket knife, and a half-dozen bleeding youths, each bearing numerous assorted painful yet superficial knife wounds. The old man was arrested and charged, but was found not guilty at his trial by a judge who couldn't fathom how a slight aged senior citizen could defeat several juvenile delinquents with extensive violent criminal records. Before letting the old man go, the judge asked for, and received, a short demonstration of Escrima from the old man in open court, and acquitted him after realizing that the master could have easily killed all of his attackers if he so chose.

So, bringing a knife to a gunfight isn't always a losing strategy... especially if your opponent doesn't realize that you have a knife, and you can lure him close enough to eliminate the advantages of a gun. Tactics, not weapons, win fights.

The Final Solution: Will It Be Ours, or Theirs?

2006-07-30T22:06:00.000-07:00

We're never going to have peace in the Middle East until we get rid of the problem.

That means getting rid of present-day Syria and Iran, the financial and logistical supporters of terrorism in the Middle East and the world.

That means killing the leadership of these two countries, and anyone else who just doesn't get it.

That means actively helping Israel hunt down and kill Nasrallah and his Hezbollah henchmen hiding like cockroaches.

That means killing Hezbollah fighters. No quarter asked or given.

The US should use Syria's continued support for insurgents and terrorists who kill American in Iraq as the cassus belli and do a little dance on Damascus.

If we're lucky, Iran will honor its mutual defense pact with Syria, and we can go there and rearrange the furniture, B2-style. But, I think the Iranian mouth has written a check its ass can't cash. A couple of days after we went into Syria, sitting in Baby Assad's former throne, the Iranians would be scared shitless, cringing in fearful anticipation of the upcoming bitchslap. They wouldn't be talking very tough then.

Could the US and Israel do this? Militarily, yes. Who's going to stop us? Not the mullahs. Not the Russians... they'd probably take the opportunity to smack Chechnya. Not the Chinese. They're not going to get started in a war they can't win.

I'd tell you who'd stop this, though. The American Left. There'd be screams about impeachment, massive (paid) protests by International ANSWER and their fellow-travelers, and of course the media would happily equate Bush with Hitler.

Never mind, of course, that the course of action described above IS going to happen... it's just a question of when, not if. And, the longer we wait, the readier they'll be and the harder it will be.

It's 1938 all over again. Except the starting gun isn't going to be the invasion of Poland. It's going to be a mushroom cloud over a Western metropolis.

Casus Belli

2006-07-14T05:28:00.000-07:00

While most in the West have been going about their business, enjoying the summer, and generally living their lives, momentous happenings have occurred in the Middle East.

The Iranians, having stalled for as long as they could, have finally run out of time diplomatically. The US-led diplomatic efforts to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions has reached an impasse due to Iranian intransigence, and the European powers have finally admitted that the matter must move to the UN Security Council and sanctions imposed on Iran.

The Iranians know that at the end of the day they'll lose in the UN, despite the assurances of their Russian and Chinese protectors. Therefore, anything must be done to move the story of Iran and its nuclear weapons program off of the world stage. Anything, that is, except stopping their development of nuclear weapons.

So, the puppetmasters start pulling the strings. North Korea launches numerous mid- and long-range ballistic missiles in an impromptu test. Hamas terrorists dig a tunnel under the border with Israel, attack an Israeli army outpost, and kidnap a soldier, dragging him back through the tunnel into Gaza and into hiding, and Hamas spokesmen claim responsibility, offering to trade him for hundreds of Hamas terrorists that Israel has imprisoned. Israel launches a massive military strike into Gaza, destroying Hamas-occupied Palastinian government offices, destroying infrastructure, and dividing the territory, as they search for their missing soldier.

The Israelis have tried bargaining with the Palestinians, and that didn't work. They've tried disengagement, withdrawing from Gaza and building a wall to separate the two sides, and that didn't work. The Palestinians, or enough of them, don't want peace or coexistence; they want to look out over the Mediterranean and see miles of Jewish corpses floating in the surf, and that is clearly untenable to Israel. I believe that Israel is going to try their only remaining option: killing enough angry Palestinians so that the rest are frightened enough to leave Israel alone. After all, what have they got to lose?

Iran, unprepared for the scale of Israeli operations against Hamas, and besieged by calls for assistance from its Hamas proxies, instructs Hezbollah, its proxies in Lebanon to conduct a similar operation on the Israeli-Lebanon border, which proves equally successful in that two Israeli soldiers are kidnapped and brought back into Lebanon and eight are killed. The escalation is designed to force Israel into diverting some of its forces from Gaza where Hamas is hard-pressed... but again Iran miscalculates. Israel has already mobilized considerable reserves, and these are unleashed against Lebanon while the pressure is increased in Gaza.

Iran has also miscalculated world opinion. Arab countries, after their pro-forma criticism of Israel, hold Iran and Syria and their terrorist proxies primarily responsible for the outbreak of hostilities. In Lebanon, most blame the incidents on Hezbollah and support for disarming the Iranian- and Syrian-backed terrorist group grows both inside and outside the government. The Lebanese have few illusions about the capabilities and will of the Israelis especially after such a provocation, and wish to have no part of war with Israel.

In Europe, support for Palestine is tepid, and most countries condemn Hamas for starting the conflict. The US, under George Bush, issues a terse statement holding Syria and Iran directly responsible for the crisis. The message to Israel is unspoken but clear: there will be no consequences for destroying Hamas and Hezbollah.

Make no mistake: this is a very dangerous time for the world. Hamas and Hezbollah will be devastated. Syria will see Hamas- and Hezbollah offices, and the homes of leaders, bombed. Syria is defenseless against Israeli air attack, and the Israeli Army would be in Damascus within days should the Israelis launch a ground attack. The Iranians realize this, and have warned Israel that any attacks against Syria would result in an Iranian counterstrike. However, Israel already believes itself to be under attack by Iran thru its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies, and the recent rocket attack against Haifa is believed to be the result of Iranian rockets launched by Iranian Revolutionary Guards units located in Lebanon. Israel will do what it believes is necessary to end the threat of Hamas and Hezbollah once and for all, and that will most likely include at least air attacks on Damascus targeted at Hezbollah leaders.

What will Iran do? Expect to see further escalation, perhaps by North Korea, perhaps in Iraq (al Sadr is Iran's proxy here). This crisis is the result of another miscalculation on its part; Iran truly thinks that the civilian populations of Israel and the West are timid, the leadership is politically constrained, and therefore we are unable to respond effectively. As to why Iran believes this, we have only to look at our own press and the attacks against the current Administration by the Democrats. Iran believes that Western media sentiment reflects popular sentiment and this popular sentiment, especially in America, has politically damaged George Bush to the extent that it has removed his ability to respond military to any threats, in the same way that popular sentiment crippled Lyndon Johnson and removed the US's ability to respond effectively on a strategic level against North Vietnam. Iran believes wrongly.

Most wars are started by miscalculations; one side believes that the other won't fight and so it escalates in an attempt to achieve its goals via intimidation. When the other party escalates similarly, the first party continues until the first blow is struck. By that time it is too late: both sides are committed to a course of action which involves fighting which continues until the conflict is resolved. Hitler didn't think the West would fight for Poland; Japan didn't think the US had the stomach to fight after the blow struck at Pearl Harbor; Saddam didn't think the US would respond military to his invasion of Kuwait, or to his refusal to comply with UN resolutions. Oops.

The Iranians didn't think the Israelis would fight, and they don't believe the US will, either, hence their clumsy attempts at intimidation. What will they do when, shortly, Israel destroys their proxies and kills its leaders, and then punishes Syria for its hand in the attacks? They will be facing considerable loss of prestige and power, and the eradication of two decades worth of work as the terrorist organizations they've invested considerable amounts of time and money are destroyed. They may even face attack from Israel, which may decide to strike Iran's nuclear sites as retaliation for Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Count on this happening if Israel has solid proof of direct Iranian attacks against it. And, the Israelis may get help in their strikes via the use of Iraqi airspace for refueling... and perhaps even US airbases in Iraq.

The Iranians, seeing the rest of the Moslem world through their malevolent eyes, overestimate the hatred of Israel and the US throughout the Middle East. They believe that if Israel and/or the US strikes Iran, fellow Moslems will arise by the millions to declare jihad against the Great and Lesser Satans. In their hatred of us, they overlook the fact that most of the Middle East, unlike Iran, is Arab, and that there is a considerable level of animosity against Persian Iran by its Arab neighbors. The Iraqis especially, both Shia and Sunni, have no love for their Iranian neighbors. If Israel or the US is legitimately provoked to strike Iran as a response to aggression, most Arabs will rationalize it away as "They deserved it." Iran is on its own here.

Machiavelli wrote, "Never do your enemy a small harm" and "If you go to stab the king, make sure that you kill him." The warning here was to finish what you start, because it is very dangerous to act so as to leave a slightly wounded and greatly angered enemy. This is the situation we face with Iran today. We need to finish what we start. We need to stab our foe, and ensure that he is dead. We need to realize that Iran is the heart of the terrorism problem against the US, the West, and the rest of the world. We need to cut out this heart, or put a stake through it, and end the threat once and for all.

And we need to do it sooner rather than later, before Iran gets nukes.

See this for more on Iran

A Quick Note to the Netroots

2006-07-12T08:03:00.000-07:00

You guys are nuts.

Let me rephrase that; you guys are perfectly, splendidly, logical... but your worldview is hopelessly skewed. Your worldview doesn't comport with reality, but you keep insisting that you're right and reality is wrong.

In your worldview, 'facts' like everyone wanting to get US troops out of Iraq ASAP, people think that war profiteering is a huge problem, the economy sucks, etc., are valid reasons why people will overwhelmingly arise and throw the Republican scoundrels out. Unfortunately, for you, the majority of voters don't agree with your 'facts' and see things a little differently.

Why have the Dems gone from running every branch of government to running nothing in a decade? Because the majority of Americans have seen the Dems govern... and didn't like it. Make that "were deathly afraid of it."

Between Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate, the American voter has seen a party that is indecisive, delusional, myopic... a party that thinks that having good thoughts and good intentions is all that matters. A party that truly thinks that issues like North Korea were better when the Dems ruled... and did nothing. A party that thinks Bush is a greater evil, and a greater threat, to America than bin Laden. A party that, when at the reins of power, ignored bin Laden and Hussein and any other problem it could because dealing with those problems might make some people uncomfortable. A party that views leadership as merely the ability to take a poll, gauge public opinion, and then run to get in front of it. Even worse, a party that uses loaded questions and skewed polls and the 'bandwagon' approach ('most right-thinking people believe we should do X', so come join us!') on everything from gun control to tax policy to education to whether lying under oath is perjury (yes for Scooter Libby, no for Bill Clinton) to the Iraq War to manipulate the voters. The American voter has seen how the Democrats operate, and he doesn't like it.

Face it: your party is in denial. The American voter may be somewhat disappointed in Bush, but perhaps that disappointment isn't that he's gone too far... but that he hasn't gone far enough. The American voter wasn't upset about Abu Graib. Heck, worse happens in San Francisco on a Saturday night. The American voter isn't upset about Guantanamo, he's upset that we let these bastards live instead of killing them on the battlefield as the Geneva Convention specifically allows. The American voter isn't upset about going to war in Iraq, he's wondering why we're not kicking Iran's butt. The American voter isn't upset because the Bush Administration immigration plan is too tough, he's upset because it's too lax.

You guys all hang around together, and talk to each other, and you all agree... but that doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you. Get out, travel, and hang with people who DON'T normally associate with you. Maybe then you'll understand that, unlike the '90s when Democratic power was at its peak, the American voter isn't going to buy your nonsensical talking points.

Maybe then you'll start to understand why a Dem majority just isn't going to happen until the Democratic Party leadership changes, and definitely not towards the netroots.

Shiitake Mushroom Cloud! Hundreds of WMDs found in Iraq!

2006-06-21T22:53:00.000-07:00

Just checking Drudge before I trundled off to bed, and Wow! what a headline! "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq..."

Turns out the US has found more than 500 artillery shells that contained either mustard gas or sarin gas. This information was released earlier today in a press conference called by Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Peter Hoekstra, both Republicans. Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and Representative John Murtha also received this information from John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence. Figure the odds of the Democrats would call a press conference to announce the discovery of WMDs in Iraq... that would be right after the Democratic press conference to apologize to Bush for calling him a liar.

The document received from Negroponte is basically a one-page summary of a classified intelligence report that goes into great detail on what has been found in terms of WMDs and WMD programs, and only scratches the surface of the contents of the classified report. Even that much would not have been declassified without the strenuous efforts of Santorum and Hoekstra.

From the Santorum/Hoekstra press conference:

HOEKSTRA: Thanks, Senator, and thank you for your help.

You know, as we've been continuing the work and the research on WMD and what existed when, it's been interesting. We spent a lot of time working or people have been coming to the committee, what we call unconventional sources.

The senator has indicated that a few months ago, an unconventional source went to Rick and said, You ought to look for this report. And the senator spent some time looking for it, couldn't get his hands on it and called over and said, Can you help get this report? And we went looking for it, and we found it.

[...]From the Kay report and the Duelfer report, the conclusions that they reached indicated that during that period of time from the Gulf War to Operation Iraqi Freedom, there was evidence of continuing research and development of WMD, an ongoing effort with various kinds of chemicals, research programs and those types of things.

The piece that still remains unanswered, or remained unanswered, was that piece of exactly what, other than the programs, what existed in Iraq in 2003?

The Iraqi Survey Group, or the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything.

The report that Rick and I reference -- and I'll have to tell you that I'm disappointed in the summary that was provided for us in an unclassified version from the intelligence community because I think you lose some of the context of exactly what Rick and I and others on the committee have seen from that report.

But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq.

And I think what that points out to us -- and remember, the Iraq Survey Group was in Iraq for about 16 months, employing up 1,700 people. They didn't find many chemical weapons.

And since that period of time, we have found hundreds. This assessment says more exist. And I think what that points out is that there's still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand.

The Iraq Survey Group suspended field visits five months after they were there. So they stopped field visits in October of 2003. So what we're now finding are our troops stumbling across these as they go into Iraq.

The full-blown effort to discover these caches of chemical weapons stopped a year and a half ago. And this is the kind of stuff that we are still finding.

[...]Some of you may have the question -- and we had the same question -- if this report was completed in April, why couldn't a senator receive it for six weeks and why did it take eight weeks for it to be brought to our attention and finally put into our hands? What other reports exist about either the existence or the nonexistence of chemical weapons in Iraq?

That information is information that we need to have and is information that needs to be brought to the American people.

So we are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war.

What else is interesting about all this: an anonymous Defense Department downplayed the announcement:

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Uh... excuse me, Yes they are! One of the primary reasons given for invading Iraq by President Bush in his letter to Congress was that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn't trust Saddam Hussein to resist the temptation of slipping a WMD or two to an al Quaeda-type to use against us if he thought he'd have plausible deniability. We invaded Iraq not only because of the considerable evidence that Saddam was continuing his WMD research programs (evidence confirmed after the invasion), but that he retained stockpiles of chemical weapons in defiance of UN resolutions and the Gulf War ceasefire agreement. So, the sketchy information released by the evidently unwilling intelligence organ of this country vindicates Bush and the decision to go to war.

All of this begs the question: why did the Bush Administration have to be forced into releasing even this small bit of information... information that cuts off the "Bush Lied!" folks at the knees?

The Real Ugly American (ht: Ed Morrissey) says:

General Tom Mcinerney is reporting on Fox Hannity and Colmes right now that that the administration has been keeping this low profile to avoid exposing 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security council; Russia, China, and France. McInerney says these weapons will be traced to these countries, and asserts it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war.

Here's what I can't figure out: why does the Bush Administration give a flying fig about exposing Russia, China, and France as violators of the very UN resolutions they helped pass? It's not as if these are America's three great allies. To the contrary, they are the biggest pains-in-the-youknowwhats we have to deal with in the Security Council, and they've certainly been no help dealing with Iran, North Korea, or Iraq. I can't believe Bush and Company are so stupid as to have risked the 2004 election or the ability to govern in the second term to spare these countries a well-deserved public humiliation.

I think the answer lies elsewhere... in the executive branch. Specifically, I think it lies at the feet of unelected bureaucrats who do not support the President or his policies (both foreign and domestic) and who are willing to manipulate information in order to harm the Administration. Maybe it's the same people who have been responsible for all of the anti-Bush Administration leaks... yet who can keep a secret that exonerates the Bush Administration from even the Senate and House Intelligence committees.

Isn't it interesting? Or, rather, unsettling? Would it be paranoid to think that perhaps there has been a concerted effort by unelected officials to sway public opinion by releasing or withholding information, in a manner that threatens to destroy the political effectiveness of the elected chief executive?

The truth needs to come out. It's obvious that the Iraq Survey Group, rather than answering whether or not WMDs existed in Iraq, refused to do the work that would reach a definitive yea-or-nay conclusion and instead issued a report buttressing an anti-Administration view... a report that turns out to be made up.

Negroponte needs to declassify the entire report covering post-ISG WMD finds in Iraq. And then, there needs to be some housecleaning in the executive branch.

What The Hell Is Natalie Maines Upset About?

2006-06-10T15:56:00.000-07:00

"Taking the Long Way," the new Dixie Chicks album, premiered at #1, making them the first female group to have three albums debut at the top. (Premiering at #1 means that retail stores have ordered large quantities of their album in anticipation of strong sales; it does not mean that there is strong customer demand for the album.) However, there is still a lot of anger over Natalie Maines' anti-Bush comments in front of concert audiences in London, England and other venues during the Chicks' last tour. Many country music stations are refusing to play the first two singles released from the new album.

I was never a Chicks fan; my apathy towards country music generally combined with my disgust at Maine's public immaturity extinguished any fleeting desire in me to listen to their work. However, a fellow blogger commented on the new album and piqued my interest. A blurb on AOL Sessions piqued it further, and what the hell, I didn't have to give them any money to listen....

"Not Ready to Make Nice" is a excellent song, and Natalie Maine's performance is powerful. There's no doubt that she feels she has been wronged, and that the reaction of her fans both angered and dismayed the group. In a vacuum, the song and the group's rendition of it is extremely compelling from an artistic viewpoint. But watching Maine's answer to the question of what the 'Bush comment' and its repercussions meant to the group, makes it clear that the woman, brilliant singer and songwriter that she clearly is, just doesn't get it. Not only is she clueless about current events, she just doesn't understand why her fans were alienated. Her fellow Chicks seemingly suffer from the same shortsightedness, chortling at the coincidence of their album release occurring at the same time Bush's poll ratings are at a low. (Not that I care about poll ratings or anything, but the overt schadenfreude is symptomatic of the immaturity that got the Chicks into their mess.)

Ms. Maines evidently doesn't understand that words have consequences. Instead, "Not Ready to Make Nice" is an in-your-face to all of her fans; how dare they stop buying Dixie Chicks albums and concert tickets! The fans' reaction "...turned my whole world around... and I kinda liked [my life the way it was]" sings Ms. Maines. Well, then, at the risk of saying the obvious, perhaps you should have kept your kept your political observations to yourself.

"Forget... I'm not sure I could." That's Natalie Maines' view, but it also is a view shared by many of her former fans. The latest news reports indicate that the Dixe Chicks are cancelling several concerts on their current tour due to poor ticket sales.

"Not Ready to Make Nice" finishes with Ms. Maines' hubris. She sings, "They say... time heals everything... but I'm still waiting," implying that her fans who abandoned her owe her an apology.

Based upon lackluster ticket sales, the dismal Billboard performance of the two singles released to date, and the continued boycott of their songs by a large number of country and western radio stations, the fans evidently are, in the words of Ms. Maines, "...not ready to back down, still mad as hell" and believe Ms. Maines and the Dixie Chicks are the ones who need to apologize.

The Dixie Chicks need to realize that they need their fans more than the fans need them, and that people don't buy their CD or go to their concerts to hear their political opinions. If they're waiting for an apology from the fans, they'll be waiting a while longer yet.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

2006-05-17T02:36:00.000-07:00

This year, my sister-in-law expressed an interest in riding in the Seattle-to-Portland (STP), a one- or two-day, 206 mile bicycle ride between (obviously) Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. I've done the ride twice now, and last year my wife and my in-laws met me in Portland and we spent the next week vacationing on the Oregon coast.

I didn't want to push her into it, because I know how hard this ride can be, especially as one gets older. The first year I rode it, back in 2004, I hadn't trained at all and decided a couple of days before Why not? Let me tell you; 'why not' is one of those phrases that you pay for later, in spades. It was very tough, physically and especially mentally. There's nothing worse than being totally exhausted with 30 more miles to go, up hills and into headwinds. Last year I did train moderately and had several 50+ mile rides under my belt, and it was still hard. My Polar heart rate monitor showed that I burned over 14,000 calories in the two days; I believe it, because I was down over 2 lbs after a couple of days of recovery and full hydration. You simply can't eat enough to replace the calories you burn on such a ride.

Nevertheless, my sister-in-law was determined to do it, and so we went bike shopping for her in February, got her outfitted by early March (she picked up a Specialized Roubaix Elite), and we've been going on training rides since mid-March. All of this bicycling piqued my wife's interest in bikes again; we used to ride years ago before we got married but both quit for a while due to computer industry-related health issues (carpal tunnel syndrome) that made cycling too uncomfortable.

My solution to the discomfort problems was to go 'bent. I purchased my first recumbent, a Vision R32, back in 2003, and a year later bought my current bike, a Rans V-Rex. These short-wheelbase (SWB) bikes are very agile and fast, but also are different enough from a regular diamond-frame "wedgie" bike that there is a learning curve. Plus, unlike a regular bike, you cannot stand while climbing, meaning you have to spin, spin, spin! up hills.

To make a long story short(er), my wife saw how much fun we were having and wanted in on it. No problem I thought, and I went out and bought her some 1.5" slick tires for her mountain bike. They worked great, but the comfort issue was still there; she found cycling for more than 30 minutes uncomfortable and had the wrist and shoulder problems the next day that had caused her to quit years ago. What she needed was a new bike. So we went bike shopping.

She rode a SWB recumbent (a Bachetta Giro), and although she did well on it (she's very coordinated), it was different enough from a regular bike that she didn't want it. We looked at Rans' new line of crank-forward bikes next... and it was love at first ride. Although we both loved the Fusion, she realized that if she wanted to go for longer rides she needed the most efficient bike in the line, and chose the Zenetik. We've been going on rides for a couple of weeks now, whenever we can get someone to watch our son, and she's very happy with her choice.

Which leads me to the subject of this post: be careful what you ask for. My sister-in-law and I had made plans well in advance to get in a 50 mile ride early on Mother's Day so we could be back in time for the barbeque at their house. Then my wife threw a monkey wrench into our training schedule because she wanted to go on a ride, too, but not a long one. Okay I said, I'll ride on Sunday morning with your sister, and we'll get her to babysit while you and I ride Sunday afternoon.

Of course, things never go as scheduled. We got a late start on Sunday morning; I had to feed Las Tres Primas and fix my riding buddy's bike. A quick, and hard, 50 mile ride (with the last mile and a half being up a very steep hill) brought me home to one frowning spouse. Two granola bars and a bottle of Gatorade later, I threw our bikes in the back of the truck and off we headed for a local rail-trail (the Centennial Trail). A quick 10 miles up from Snohomish, yet another granola bar, and a quick 10 miles back.

By the time we got back I was pretty whupped, as they say where I was raised. Both sisters had no pity, and took great pleasure in teasing me about having to keep up with them. My reply: this isn't quite what I imagined when I fantasized about having two beautiful women arguing over who got to wear me out first.

I'm either going to be very fit, or very dead, in a very short while. As I said, be careful what you wish for....

What If...

2006-05-07T17:54:00.000-07:00

Whenever I have a problem that could be solved by more than one choice, I use the "What If..." method, as in, "What if I did this?" or "What if I did that?" I then look at the outcome, and use that outcome to rank my strategies, eliminate the losers, and then determine whether or not the solution fixes the problem at an acceptable price.

So, in an attempt to chase my blue funk away (a blue funk caused by the idiots running things), let's play "What If..." for a bit.

What if... Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives? Well, according to the Washington Post, Democrat leaders, joyfully anticipating just such a return to power through the combination of energized Democratic and disaffected Republican rank-and-file voters, are planning to use their regained authority to bring down the Bush Administration. How? By endless investigations and the filing of articles of impeachment. If the Democrats regain control of the Senate, then a conviction is a certainty.

What would this do to the country? I believe it would result in a civil war. The Democrats aren't looking for justice, just power, and as we learned during Monica Gate an impeachable offense is in the eye of the beholder. If the Majority Party has the political support from their base to impeach and convict, they will and whether or not justice is being done is irrelevant.

What would this do to our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere? That's a no-brainer. We'd be out of Iraq, and out of the Middle East, quicker than Teddy Kennedy could pull a twist-off from a bottle of Budweiser. The Iranians would move in almost as quickly, brutally suppressing any opposition, and replacing one form of dictatorial hell (Saddam's) with another. Iran would shortly thereafter control a swath of the Middle East stretching from Lebanon to the Pakistani border. They'd establish hegemonic control of the Gulf states via the threat of invasion. Israel would soon thereafter find itself fighting for its life, with Hamas leading the charge from the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah leading the charge from Lebanon. With no support from the US to fall back on, Israel would go nuclear, most likely after a first strike by the mullahs. What's that, you say? Iran doesn't have nukes? You're right... but Pakistan does and how long will the present government under Musharef last once we pull out of the Middle East?

What would this do to the War on Terror? Hmmm... an emboldened Iran, controlling 25% or more of the world's oil reserves plus the strategic chokepoint of the Straits of Hormuz, no US to oppose them, no counterbalancing Gulf states, the EU (as usual) as useless as ever... anyone want to bet that we wouldn't get another attack from a resurgent al Qaeda within a few years? Not to mention the hit we'd get from an Iranian-imposed embargo, or over $100-per-barrel price hike on oil, with all the money going to fund more weapons that will be used against us.

Here's my final "What If"... What If the Democrats actually cared more about doing the right thing than trying to seize power by any means available?

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Solving The Immigration Crisis

2006-05-02T22:23:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Hispanic immigrants (both legal and illegal) engaged in a multi-city organized effort (organized by leftist groups including International ANSWER and the Socialist Workers' Party, eager to support and exploit any cause that weakens America) to demand a relaxation of US immigration laws and for unconditional amnesty for illegal aliens.

The worst thing we can do at this point is to accede to their demands. However, this view is not universally held; news sites have been reporting the Senate is evidently considering another attempt at "revamping" our immigration laws (ht: Drudge Report). What is wrong with our leaders... of both parties??!!

This country doesn't need uneducated workers who are a drain on the social welfare system. This type of immigrant only benefits the exploitative employer, while the rest of us subsidize that employer due to higher social services costs. We may save on produce and landscaping, but we pay higher taxes.

What we need are, often times, the very workers who are disadvantaged by our immigration laws and policies. Here's one example: an Indian software engineer with a post-graduate education is severely restricted by our immigration policies. If she obtains a job in America's high-tech industry, she is locked into that one job and, if she wants a green card (permanent resident status) or US citizenship, the waiting period will be reset if her job title changes. That means she cannot switch jobs, and she cannot accept a promotion. She must work at least seven years at the same position, at the same company, before she can apply for a green card. Meanwhile, she must pay thousands of dollars each year in expenses to maintain her H1B visa, in fees to Indian companies to fill out paperwork and file forms, and in lost work time and travel expenses to return to India to visit the US Embassy in order to extend her visa.

Nearly all of the legal immigrants I know, especially the more-educated ones who want to become US citizens and who are following the rules, are incensed at the protesters, and the protests. They wonder why they should follow the law, especially when they think of the possibility of illegals getting a jump on the all-important green card, and they feel like fools. It's not a laughing matter; many of these people who are trying to obtain the American Dream the right way through hard work and education become clinically depressed when they realize that at least a decade of their lives must be spent 'on hold' in a stagnant career position if they wish to follow the path to citizenship.

My solution:

Build the damn fence, already!
(here's the big one) Change the law so that only children born to parents who are legally in the US as permanent residents or US citizens are themselves granted US citizenship.
Force state and local authorities to enforce existing immigration laws, or lose all federal funds. That means police must ascertain whether people are legal immigrants, must detain those who aren't, and must turn these people over to US Immigration for deportation. That also means that employers must be held civilly and criminally responsible for hiring illegal workers.
Allow legally-employed H1B visa holders to switch positions or employers without having to restart the waiting period for a permanent visa. This encourages educated, professional immigrants to become stakeholders, and eventually citizens, in the US.
Restrict permanent visas to those who have held gainful, legal employment for a period of seven consecutive years, and who have made high enough wages to be required to pay income tax, with an exemption for those who have served in the US military. Each day of unemployment adds a day to the waiting period, and unemployment for sixty days, or one hundred twenty days in two years, results in cancellation of your H1B visa and deportation. If you can't find a job, we don't want you.
Only US citizens can draw Social Security, but all employees must pay Social Security taxes. Legal immigrants' contributions to Social Security are credited to them upon achieving citizenship.
Once all of this is done, then we need to create a guest worker program so that foreign nationals can come for a limited duration to work in our country and then return to theirs.

We need to remove the incentives for illegal immigration and increase the penalties, and we need to make it harder to get away with.

The only question is, do we as a country have the decisiveness to pull it off? Or, have we lost the national will to insist that foreigners obey our laws, or leave?

Famous Last Words...

2006-04-14T01:00:00.000-07:00

“I’m the only one in this room, that I know of, professional enough to carry this Glock .40.”

Those are the words of DEA agent Lee Paige immediately before shooting himself in the foot in front of a classroom full of at-risk youth during a drug education presentation. The video is here.

Mr. Paine is suing his employer, the DEA, and by extension the U.S. government, for “emotional and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, loss of opportunity, loss of money, embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety.” From the video, it seems apparent that the only person to blame for Mr. Paine’s humiliation, embarrassment, etc., is himself.

My first question, after watching the video, was “What in the Hell was a trained law enforcement agent doing handling a loaded firearm in a classroom full of children??!!” My second question was “Why on Earth was this clown ever tasked with talking to children about drugs and guns?”

I watched Mr. Paige clear his gun. He walks off stage after he racks the slide, but I never see him withdraw the magazine. Obviously, all racking the slide is going to do is eject the chambered round, and when Mr. Paige closes the slide in front of the class he chambers the next round from the still-loaded magazine. Mr. Paige doesn’t visually or tactilely verify that the chamber is empty and the magazine is removed, nor does he bother to check the chamber again before pulling the trigger on his ‘assumed-to-be-unloaded’ Glock. Thank God he had enough sense to point it away from the children before he pulled the trigger, but I guess he didn’t care enough about his own personal safety to refrain from pointing the gun at his body.

Pride goeth before a fall; we’ve all done things that we wish we hadn’t. However, Mr. Paige did many things that he definitely shouldn’t, most likely because he was feeling a little too full of himself. We all know people like this, but when it comes to gun safety don’t be “that guy.”

Remember the Four Rules of Gun Safety:

• All guns are always loaded.

No one ever got shot with an unloaded gun, but many people have been shot with a gun that was assumed to be unloaded... including Mr. Paige. Treat every gun as if it’s loaded regardless of whether you just cleared it and you know there’s no way on Earth it could be loaded. The life, or foot, or embarrassment you save may be your own.

• Never point a gun at anything you aren’t willing to see destroyed.

If you value your TV set, or your friend, or your foot, then don’t point a gun at them. You can’t call a bullet back, and while you can replace a TV set and, perhaps, heal from a bullet wound, you can’t bring back life either, or recover from a crippling wound. Especially when dry-firing, or decocking an unloaded gun, remember Mr. Paige, and point that gun at something that doesn’t matter if it gets hit by a bullet, and that will capture that bullet.

• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

Guns are like computers, in that they do what we tell them to do instead of what we want them to do. Pulling the trigger tells a gun to fire; touching the trigger is confusing to a gun... do you want it to fire, or not? Don’t confuse the gun, or yourself. Don’t touch the trigger unless you are sure that activating the firing mechanism is okay and the gun is pointed at an appropriate target (backstop, target, bad guy) so if it discharges no harm is done.

• Be sure of your target, and what is behind and beyond your target.

Is that a bad guy you’re getting ready to shoot, or your teenage son who stayed out a little late and had a few beers? Is your hunting partner on the other side of that bush the pheasant is flying past? Where will that bullet end up if you miss your target, or if you hit your target and the bullet penetrates? Know where your bullet will end up before pulling the trigger... or don’t pull the trigger.

All of these rules are simple, the simple distillation of six centuries of bitter experience. Break any one of them and you’re likely to inadvertently discharge your firearm. Break more than one and you’re likely to kill someone, or yourself, when you inadvertently discharge your firearm.

Accidents are the result of a chain of events that end at the incident. Break the chain and you prevent the incident. Mr. Paige broke two of these rules and ended up with a battered ego and a painful injury. He was lucky. Don’t count on luck.

If I were Mr. Paine, I’d quietly abandon my lawsuit, and work within the Law Enforcement community as an evangelist for gun safety. I’d use my misfortune as a learning experience so others wouldn’t make the same mistake. Mr. Paine was a high school and college football player, deputy sheriff and DEA agent, a physically big man... and he needs to be a bigger man and accept the responsibility for his problems.

The Thousandth Woman: Dana Reeve 1961-2006

2006-03-10T01:01:00.000-08:00

I saw the news report about the death of Dana Reeve earlier this week, and was shocked and saddened. Fate never went halfway with the Reeve family, nor did it give them a break.

They were two people who had everything: fame, wealth, athletic good health, career success, a happy marriage and a healthy child. And then, one day, you go out to ride on your horse the way you've done it for years, and you don't ride back home because you've fallen and broken your neck. You'll never ride, or walk, again. You're stuck in a wheelchair, a prisoner of your useless, paralyzed body; what was once finely-tuned muscle and bone is transformed into so much useless meat. You don't even have the ability to take your own life. You are totally at the mercy of others.

I understand that, sometime after the realities of the situation sank in (he was doomed to live a few years at best, as a quadraplegic with many health problems, any one of which would most likely kill him sooner rather than later), Christopher told his wife Dana that she should end their marriage, take their child and the vast majority of their assets, and try to start her life again with someone else. She reminded him of their wedding vows of "for better or for worse," turned down his offer, and stuck with him to the end.

Kipling's "The Thousandth Man" begins, "One man in a thousand... will stick more close than a brother." Finding someone you can truly count on in life is that rare, but by all indications Dana Reeve was that "Thousandth Woman." Rest in Peace.

Mental Gumbo

2006-02-10T23:26:00.001-08:00

I haven't blogged as much as I should be, so here's some ponderings that have occupied thirty seconds here or there recently, all thrown together.

What on Earth is up with those Muslim idiots who are rioting all over Europe and the Middle East because of a few cartoons lampooning Mohammed? Don't they realize how ironic it is for people who protest the depiction of their Prophet as a man who encouraged violence to go around rioting and threatening violence? I guess if the shoe fits.... And what is up with the Iranian government lauding a newspaper contest that lampoons the Holocaust? Do they think the Jews are going to start burning down embassies in Tel Aviv, or have large protests in Miami Beach or Westchester? I know a few Muslims and, to a person they're appalled at this behavior. When will the rest of the Muslim world grow up? (When the rest of the civilized world stops indulging them and instead tells them this behavior will not be tolerated. What's up with Britain allowing Muslims to march with signs that incite violence? Why weren't all those Muslims arrested?)

I really felt for President Bush and his wife Laura, having to sit there quietly at Coretta Scott King's funeral while Jimmy Carter, the man who is really trying to ensure that Bill Clinton is not the most ridiculous living ex-president, a man whose performance as president was so woefully lacking, and so widely recognized, that he carried only one state in his contest for re-election, a man whose bumbling put the Ayatollahs in power in Iran and allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons unimpeded, impugned his judgement and character. Of course, you have to consider the source: Jimmy Carter loved Yassir Arafat, praises Hugo Chavez, and respects Fidel Castro. On second thought, maybe having Jimmy Carter insult you is a sign that you're doing something right. Question: how do you know if something is a good idea? Answer: If Jimmy Carter is vehemently opposed to it.

I haven't commented on the sordid Senate performance during the Alito confirmation, and this week's hearings on the NSA terrorist surveillance program is equally distasteful. Two months ago the Democrats were giddy with expectations of taking control of at least one house of Congress; today all of that joy has turned to ashes. They haven't got a snowball's chance in Hell of regaining political power at the federal level, and they realize it, and so do their large donor supporters (that's why the DNC has $5 million in the bank as opposed to $35 million for the GOP). But they don't understand why. Sure, they realize that America doesn't trust the Democrats when it comes to national security, but they just think it's a perception problem... that if people really knew in their hearts how the Democratic Party leaders really cared about national security then everything would be okay. They just don't get it, and I believe they're psychologically incapable of 'getting it.' That's why the Republicans, despite their screwups, will most likely win even more seats in both the Senate and House. Remember, you read it here first. What about the Abramoff scandal, you ask? That's going to die down, because the Republicans have Kryptonite in the form of two simple words: "Harry Reid." Glass houses and all that....

How about New Orleans? Mayor Nagin's on a roll... first declaring that the city must remain "chocolate" and then threatening to get aid from other nations, among them France. Someone needs to get the recall petition drive in high gear before the Mayor makes even more of an ass of himself... if that's possible. The Democrat-controlled city and state governments deliberately held back food and water to increase the suffering of those trapped at the Superdome immediately after Katrina in the belief that it would motivate them to want to leave New Orleans as quickly as possible without resistance... and they got what they wanted in spades. Here's what Nagin doesn't seem to understand: you have a lot of "chocolate" ex-New Orleaneans who don't want to go back because what they left wasn't all that great in terms of quality of life, opportunities, or respect. They've lost everything, and this seems like as good a chance as any to start over somewhere, perhaps in a city where they're not stereotyped as "chocolate" and can aspire to something besides low-level service jobs in the tourist industry. It will be decades before New Orleans recovers, if ever. And, by the way, if Nagin is waiting for France to bail him out... well, just ask Saddam what happens when you place all your hopes in the French.

And finally, Iran. What can I write about Iran that I already haven't (here and here)? A showdown's coming, because Iran wants a showdown. The ayatollahs really think we'll fold when the pot gets too big; in fact, they're counting on it. They don't understand America, and Americans, and George W. Bush. The Chinese thought we'd fold, too... and lost a million men including Mao's son in a year's combat in Korea (that's why they didn't get involved in Vietnam). Saddam thought we'd fold, twice. I can understand the first bluff, but after we totally kicked his butt in 100 hours one would think he'd learn not to underestimate the Americans. Didn't he also realize that, while the French and Germans could be bought, George W really didn't give a fig what they thought? And, the jury's still out on WMDs, by the way. I think he had 'em, and either they're still buried (likely) or that the Syrians got 'em (likely). Saddam didn't have tens of thousands of chemical weapons suits and nerve gas antidotes stockpiled for nothing.

Back to the subject at hand. Iraq is going to do their durndest to get a nuke as quickly as possible. The lesson they learned from the two wars in the Gulf and watching North Korea was that the only way to keep the Americans out of your country was to have a nuke to threaten us with. But, they don't get it either. The very thing they're trying to stop (us attacking them) is what they're provoking. They don't seem to understand that the US, now joined by the EU, realizes that if Iran is allowed to develop a nuke without serious consequences, then every dirtbag country with a two-bit dictator is going to want one. The West has drawn a line in the sand, and we have to stand up now and back up our words with actions or accept the fact that backing down means we will suffer a nuclear attack in the near term.

In my opinion, things are going to get worse before they get better, but sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Thank God I was born in America!

How Important is the Lens?

2006-02-03T07:26:00.000-08:00

If you're into photography, like I am, you will notice that photographers have a tendency to get tempted into believing that the quality of one's equipment has a direct correlation to the quality of one's photographs. Like golfers who are sure that breaking 90 is just a matter of picking up the latest and greatest set of clubs, or who marvel at Tiger Woods and then run down to buy the titanium driver he used to eagle at the Masters, many photographers invest several thousand dollars in expensive cameras and glass in the belief that only equipment separates them from making photographs that will have "National Geographic" beating at their door.

I think this is mostly a male phenomenon, and it is seen widely at sporting good stores, at the Snap-On Tool truck, and at gun shops. Men, as opposed to Man, seem to have a lust for tools that you just don't see in women. I plead guilty as charged; I like fine mechanical objects, and have a variety of expensive gadgets from custom bicycles to beautiful shotguns to expensive fly fishing reels. None of these make me a better cyclist, shooter, or fisherman (none of them make me worse, either). All of them give me extra enjoyment of the activity. It's just nicer to ride along listening to the sound of a well-made derailleur clicking away, or to shoot a round of sporting clays while looking at a beautiful crotch walnut stock, or to pull line from a silky smooth reel.

I've never known a woman who really cared one way or another about her tools. As long as they were functional, they were good enough. The women I've known also don't seem to take care of tools, whether it's being careful to use wooden or plastic utensils with non-stick cookware, knocking the dirt off of gardening tools so they don't rust, or even maintaining a car. I fully expect my fine tools and toys to outlast me, and to look as good decades from now as they do today; any sort of tool or utensil that my wife also uses inevitably ends up dying a premature death from neglect or abuse. It's not a matter of ignorance, either; how many times do you have to replace a skillet before you figure out that using a metallic spoon to stir sauce is suboptimal? Or that screwdrivers and chisels, while superficially similar, are not to be used interchangeably and that neither is a substitute for a hammer. Even a disposable razor displays the difference; the man's lives on for a week or two, being rinsed out carefully with hot water so it dries without rusting, while a woman's is left inside a damp shower and corrodes to dullness in a day or two.

But I digress... back to the subject at hand.

When it comes to photography, 90% of a photograph is the subject and composition. If your images are crummy, then it's probably not your equipment. As the saying goes, "a poor craftsman blames his tools."

However, that remaining 10% is the image quality, and if it isn't there, the 90% is worthless. For example, there are a lot of moon shots on the Internet, taken with a variety of different cameras and lenses. Some are obviously much better than others, and since the subject is a glowing object surrounded by black, composition isn't much of an issue. What is the difference? Image quality.

As we all know, image quality is affected by several things, including the film/sensor size and resolution, the resolving capability of the lens, and the photographer's technique as applied to steadiness, proper exposure, and proper focus. I have found that the secret to obtaining 'good' images is a tripod, a quality lens stopped down a couple of stops, and careful attention to composition, focus, and exposure. Given that everything else is the same, better lenses make better pictures.

How much better is 'better'? Well, I for one can see the difference between my Sigma 18-50 DC 'kit' lens @ f/8, and my Sigma 50/2.8 EX pro-level lens (or my Pentax SMC Takumar 50/1.4) at f/8. The prime lenses are noticeably sharper. The same was true when I compared pictures from my 55-200 DC 'kit' lens @ f/8 and my 70-200/2.8 EX pro-level lens at f/8. You can see the difference that better optics make, even though it's a small difference. (As an aside, I've looked at a couple of full-sized images from Sigma's new 18-125 DC lens, and while the focal length range is compelling, the lens just isn't as sharp as the EX series. It would be great for snapshots... if you're into snapshots... which I'm not.)

Now, I will further qualify 'better' as being a noticeable improvement. Even though the images from the better lenses look better on the computer monitor when viewed full-size, when I make 5x7 prints it's darned hard, if not impossible, to tell the difference. However... I didn't buy my SD10 dSLR to make 5x7 and smaller prints. My personal standard of a 'good' image is one that looks good when sized and printed to at least an 8x10.

Post-processing is important, and it is surprising how much a marginal image can be improved, but nothing beats an image that was 'good' at the moment the shutter closed.

I am also a competitive marksman, and shooting and photography have one thing in common; average shooters occasionally make a good shot, good shooters can shoot up to the capabilities of their equipment, and great shooters are limited only by their equipment. If you aspire to be great, don't let your equipment be the limiting factor when it comes to the quality of your performance. Buy good (not necessarily expensive) lenses!

And, for Pete's sake, take care of your equipment!

AIDS in Africa: Does Throwing Money at a Problem Fix It?

2005-12-29T01:43:00.000-08:00

From the Guardian's Christmas appeal 2005Photo of slums in Lagos, Nigeria by David Levene,displayed under fair use

The Gardian (UK)'s Christmas appeal for 2005 has a very poignant story about AIDS in Nigeria. One in ten people in that country are HIV positive, and AIDS is prevalent throughout sub-Saharan Africa. We are likely to see a severe medical disaster in the next decade as those afflicted with the disease develop full-blown AIDS and suffer from all of the diseases and infections that plague the continent due to their compromised immune systems and woefully inadequate health care system. Some experts estimate that Africa will lose over half the population in the next half century due to AIDS and related diseases. That is a significant portion of the world's population.

Stories like this make me very thankful that I was fortunate enough to be born in America. We think we have poor people here, but our poor are generally poor due to their mindset, their attitudes. In America, poor people have working cars and color TVs, and they have access to a free education and basic health care. Poor in the Third World is poor. We're talking living in cardboard shanties-poor, drinking out of the same water source that is used for a sewer poor, living on less than $100 a year poor.

How do we fix Africa? My former boss has spent, and has committed to spend, millions of dollars in Africa. His heart's in the right place... but unless that money is directed by people who are both knowledgeable and trustworthy enough to spend it wisely, then I'm afraid it will only end up making more African bureaucrats rich. I don't think money in and of itself is going to fix Africa. Instead, the two biggest problems facing Africa are ignorance and corruption (we could say the same thing about New Orleans, or Seattle for that matter), and these must be addressed before money will make a difference.

I list ignorance first, because I am amazed that the people in Lagos don't do the simplest things... like clean up their immediate surroundings... that don't take much money or effort and that would make a difference in their health situation. The place is a freakin' mess... abandoned cars, rotting organic material, etc. Of course, this ignorance is compounded by the well-intentioned and the evil. Most NGOs that work at AIDS prevention do not, and will not, preach abstinence, preferring to pass out condoms that are invariably discarded instead. And then there's the rise of the "super-evangelist" hustler-preacher, who builds the big church and promises the desperate that he is uniquely gifted and can cure their ills... of course, the good man needs donations to do the Lord's work.

Second, corruption must be a big problem here. Nigeria has considerable oil resources; why doesn't the government use some of that money to make life better for its citizens? Compare Nigeria to Alaska; both have considerable oil resources (Nigeria has more), yet every Alaskan gets money from the oil. Does every Nigerian get money from the oil revenues? I doubt it, although I'm sure the leaders are extremely wealthy.

There's a reason that some countries and cultures are better off than others: every culture is not equal. Cultures that are bound by traditions tend to be backwards and resistant to improvement. African culture is an example of this, and Middle Eastern culture is another example. What might have been optimal for Iron Age existence just doesn't work in a post-Industrial Age world.

Whatever your goal, if you look to those who have accomplished it and imitate them, you will also accomplish it. Want to look like Arnold Schwartzenegger? Work out like him. Want to be wealthy? Then embrace the habits of wealthy people (living within your means, investing, owning your own business, etc.). Want to transform your country from a Third World disaster to a thriving, prosperous, nation? Then look at other countries, from America to Japan to South Korea to Singapore, determine what they did that worked, and do it!

A century ago, many parts of America and Europe were like present-day Lagos. We figured out what to do and how to do it. Why is it that the Chinese have figured this out in the last decade but Africa hasn't? Why doesn't Africa look to the West to see what works, and then imitate us? The answer is attitude. Of course, this attitude is only reinforced by the pseudo-intelligentsia in the West who can only find fault with Western society, culture, and government.

I don't think that the rest of the world can save Africa unless we conquer it and administer it -- and that's not going to happen. The West has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at Africa over the past half-century, to very little effect. We can (and we do) help a little, but Africa is going to have to save itself... or not.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try. I hope The Gates Foundation can make a difference in Africa. I wonder, however, if it will, because we're talking about dealing with sovereign governments who can arbitrarily decide what rules to follow and what not to... and Bill's only option is to take what's left of his money and go somewhere else. I have faith in Bill Gates; I know he's smart enough to figure out what works and what doesn't. I don't have faith in most of the governments in Africa.

Perhaps some of that money, the part that is going to end up buying a retirement villa on the French Riviera for a Nigerian politician, might make a much bigger difference if, say, it was used to improve things in, say, Eastern Europe, or eastern New Orleans.

Image Quality Is More Than Megapixels: A Primer on Image Sensors

2005-12-13T22:00:00.000-08:00

A digital camera's image resolution, as measured in megapixels (millions of pixels), is what most people view as the primary indication of image quality. Manufacturers play to this perception, releasing cameras with increasingly greater megapixel ratings. However, there's more to image quality than the sheer number of pixels comprising that image.

All megapixels are not created equal. Sensor size, photodetector size, and sensor technology all play a role in determining image quality, or how closely the image reflects the scene that we attempted to capture. I'll explain why in a moment.

First, lets get some terminology straight. A pixel is shorthand for picture element, and refers to one of perhaps millions of colored 'dots' that make up an image. A photosite is a more precise way of saying a particular location on an image sensor that can record a light value. Photosites may have one or more photodetectors, or light sensing areas. Pixels and photodetectors are used interchangeably, but they are not necessarily so because most image sensors create a pixel by calculating its value from several adjacent photodetectors, each occupying a photosite in a two-dimensional array, while some image sensors can record multiple colors at the same X-Y photosite location via a stack of photodetectors (the Foveon sensor is the most widely-know of this type). And finally, let's define image quality as a coefficient that relates the RGB value of a single pixel compared to the value that should have been captured if the sensor was perfect in terms of capturing the RGB value. In other words, the highest quality image would have the actual RGB value captured at each photosite match the resultant pixel on the image.

Next, let's discuss how image sensors work. There are three main digital imaging sensor technologies in use today. We'll ignore the scanner backs used on medium- and large-format cameras (interesting technology but for very limited use), and look at the two variations of 'one-shot' digital imaging sensors: the Color Filter Array (CFA) sensor and the Foveon® sensor.

The most widely-used sensor technology is the Color Filter Array (CFA) sensor comprised of a two-dimensional array of photosites with a color filter array on top. Since photosites are monochromatic in nature the CFA sensor puts a pattern of color filters on top of the sensor so each photosite is only sensitive to one of the primary colors (red, green, or blue). The most commonly used CFA is the Bayer pattern, of arranging the color filters in a repeating Red-Green-Blue-Green order, and most digital image sensors used in cameras today are Bayer CFA sensors. Bayer sensors have one obvious limitation; the CFA filter assures that 25% of the photosites will detect only shades of red, another 25% will detect only shades of blue, and the remaining 50% will detect only shades of green. Most CFA sensors have an anti-aliasing optical filter that slightly blurs fine detail in an attempt to minimize moire at the expense of fine detail. A Bayer sensor's resolution varies depending on the color composition of the scene: best for black and white, better for green hues, not so good if red and blue are the predominant colors. Figure on about 60% to 70% of the theoretical resolution based on pixels per mm of sensor, or about 45 line pairs per millimeter (45 lp/mm) on the Nikon D70 and other 6 MP Bayer sensor-equipped digital cameras.

Comparison of Bayer CFA sensor and Foveon® sensor (from the Foveon website)

The second image sensor type used in dSLRs and digicams (point-and-shoot digital cameras) is the Foveon sensor. Unlike CFA sensors, the Foveon sensor has a three-dimensional photosite structure, with three photosensors stacked at each photosite (one for red, one for green, and one for blue). The founders of Foveon discovered how to to use silicon as a color filter of sorts, taking advantage of how deeply each primary color penetrates. What this means is that the image reconstruction process is as simple as taking the RGB value at each photosite and writing it out to an image file. No interpolation occurs; what you see is what you get until you are limited by either lens or sensor resolving ability. On the Foveon X3 second-generation sensor, that would equate to about 50 line pairs per millimeter (50 lp/mm).

Wait a minute! You're saying that a 3.4 MP camera has better resolution than a 6.1 MP camera? You're kidding!

No, I'm not kidding. That is exactly the point: more pixels in an image don't mean a higher-resolution image if the extra pixels do not contain valid image data but instead reflect interpolated, "guessed" data that may or may not accurately reflect what was in front of the camera. Here's a comparison of resolution test pictures from the Foveon-equipped Sigma SD10 and the Bayer-equipped Nikon D70:

Sigma/Foveon (left) and Nikon/Bayer resolution test shots, from the dPreview website. Click on Sigma or Nikon to get a better view.

This black & white resolution chart is the best case test for a Bayer sensor because every photodetector either sees no light or some light and the color isn't important, yet the D70 and the SD10 have about equivalent resolution. The Bayer sensor's performance is dramatically diminished if resolution charts that are red, or blue, or green, on a white background are used. You can also notice the multicolor aliasing (moire) on the D70 image, a result of interpolation (guessing): certain photosites capture a boundary between black and white and because of the color filtering this is interpreted as different hues.

A better comparison of resolution between the Foveon 3.4 MP sensor (left) and Bayer 6 MP sensor (right). The Foveon's slightly higher resolution can be seen by how lines on the left side of the image extend slightly more towards the center.
(image courtesy of Digit Life)

Let's compare image quality from different-sized sensors with the same number of photosites. Obviously, smaller sensors with equivalent resolution will have physically smaller photosites. What does this mean in terms of picture quality? Generally speaking, sensors with larger photosites deliver images with less noise (a 'grainy' look), because while the electronic circuitry inside an image sensor will occasionally generate random photons that emulate light striking the photosites, the number of photons captured per photosite over a set time is greater when the photosite is larger and thus the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is higher. This is why high ISO images taken with digicams (compact point-and-shoot digital cameras) with smaller sensors display much more noise than their larger-sensored digital SLR (dSLR) brethren. It is also why a 6 MP image taken with a dSLR nearly always looks better than the same image taken with a digicam. And, it is why some digicams with 6 MP sensors actually provide better image quality than a nearly identical camera by the same manufacturer with a higher megapixel rating.

How do you get the most resolution out of your digital camera regardless of its megapixel rating or sensor design?

Set your camera to save images in a lossless format (raw or TIFF) instead of JPEG
Set your camera to its highest resolution rating
Set your camera to the lowest ISO speed that will allow you to successfully capture pictures in your situation
Finally, for the ultimate in image quality, do your post-exposure image processing (sharpening, etc.) in an image editor such as Photoshop or Picture Window Pro (my favorite) instead of the camera

I hope this brief explanation helps you make a better decision when it comes to purchasing a digital camera. If nothing else, I hope more people realize that other companies besides Nikon and Canon make excellent digital cameras that are worth serious consideration.

Whacha Gonna Do Wid All Dat Junk?

2005-12-13T11:02:00.000-08:00

Slate's Musicbox had an article on what was referred to as "a song so bad it veers towards evil." Give the writer his props: any article on that subject invites reading.

The song in question, "My Humps" by the Black-Eyed Peas, is a twist on the typical hip-hop view of the roles the different sexes play during courtship. It's not about love and respect, it's about access to those "lovely lady lumps" for "all that cash." Before I go further, let me state that I'm really not a Black-Eyed Peas fan, and I listened to the song initially because I wanted to understand how a man like Howard Dean could choose this band as one of his favorites (I think Howard was a poser who was trying to show how hip he was while hopefully getting some of the black vote).

I must be getting old. One of the elements of pop culture that ties a generation together is its music. By definition, I'm one of the last of the Boomers (people born between 1945 and 1961). I grew up with the music of the late '60s, listening to a lot of R & B and '70s rock and roll. Disco reared its generally-bland head during the mid-'70s and, I am ashamed to say, my senior-year high school yearbook features an abysmal drawing of a tiger (the school mascot) in the classic "Saturday Night Fever" pose. But the late '70s and early '80s had some great music. Punk, metal, alternative... it was all good. When I listen to today's music, I understand my father when he said, "You listen to that crap?"

All of these genres had one thing in common: they treated courtship respectfully. Male performers sang about the worship they had for a special woman; women sang about the positive aspects of men that invited respect. Yeah, there was the occasional "See Ya" song, like Journey's "Lovin', Touchin', Squeezin'" or Carly Simon's "You're So Vain" or Genesis' "There Must Be Some Misunderstanding." I look at these songs as warnings: guys, don't put up with cheating and getting blown off, girls, don't put up with a self-centered guy.

Which leads me to today's pop music and its misogynistic bent. I think much of this comes from black urban subculture, specifically hip-hop and gangsta rap. We don't want to know what love is anymore; we want that ho to call us Big Daddy when she backs that thang up. The hip-hop/rap subculture consciously rejects the social values of the mainstream. Why it does would make a fascinating essay in itself.

One of the recurring themes of Judao-Christian civilization is the union of sex with love in a monogamous heterosexual relationship that is the molecule, so to speak, of human civilization. The ideal is to find one person of the opposite sex that we can bond with for life, and then build a multi-generational family unit based upon that bond. There are a lot of good reasons for this ideal: monogamy builds stable societies without the problems of bastardy or jealousy.

This flies in the face of our genetic programming: men are designed to go forth and multiply. However, casual sexual relationships lead to violence between jealous lovers, unsupported children, and a fragmented society. People are programmed to require trust and security in a relationship in order to be happy. These problems have been with us from the beginning of time, and the ideal of monogamy is the result of millenia of experience.

Back to the song. I have to disagree with the author of the Slate column. I rather liked "My Humps" as a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the pathetic state of modern courtship, which evidently consists of winning a woman's affections temporarily by the simple expedient of throwing enough money at her. If you listen to the song, you realize that what the lyrics really say is that both sides play each other for fools. It's also a good dance track, and evidently a lot of people disagree with the column since this is one of the hottest singles on the charts.

You want a bad song? Just turn to any rap station and listen for a few minutes. How about "Shake That Laffy Taffy," a song so totally lacking in lyrical and musical merit that the person responsible for allowing it to be made should be barred from the music industry for life. The only rational explanation for why this song gets any airtime is that payola is alive and well in the music industry. No radio station would pay that song without getting paid big bucks. Hell, we should be getting paid to listen to it, but there isn't enough money in the music industry to make listening to this song bearable. Marvin Gaye would turn over in his grave.

I'll pick on my own generation because the new stuff is too easy. "Rock the Boat" by the Hughes Corporation? Yuck! Or "Afternoon Delight?" Every time I hear "thinkin' of you's working up a appetite" I wince. I want to slap the stupid songwriter who failed grade school grammar. How about "Ride the White Horse" by Laid Back? Or, pretty much the entire Beastie Boys collection, and the entire category of music referred to as 'Butt Rock.'

Whatever happened to great vocalists singing beautiful songs? Or great musicians? Earth, Wind, and Fire? Anita Baker? Jean-Luc Ponty, or Van Morrison, or Pat Methany, or any one of a great number of talented artists? Give me their music any day... and keep your Laffy Taffy.