These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crises shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776.
I have just finished the wonderful new book by David McCullough, 1776. I liked this book as much as I liked John Adams. Mr. McCullough has the wonderful ability to bring history to life and to make the men and women of that long ago era relevant.
As I read the book one thing that struck me time and again was the sense of providence which seemed to hang over that fateful year. In spite of mistakes such as the failure to secure the Jamaica Pass and the loss of New York George Washington managed through sheer tenacity to bring about a much needed victory at Trenton just in time to save the Revolution.
No doubt today George Washington would have been ruined in the early days of the war, and he almost was in his own time, this book makes it plain that winning the war of Independence required great sacrifice. A rabble army with no military experience took on the greatest power in the world and won.
It was nothing short of a miracle.
Read the book.
When I read about the monumental tasks of turning shoemakers and farmers into soldiers I thought of the Iraqis trying to build their country. There was a time when the survival of the United States of America seemed like an even greater long shot.
[Peter UK, no hard feelings]
Saturday, November 26, 2005
The Evil Empire revisited
Yesterday the International Herald Tribune ran Russian sacrifice: Poland. The Polish government has released documents from the Warsaw Pact military archives. Some of the documents concern Soviet plans for defending Europe in the advent of NATO attack.
It is of particular interest when balanced against today's Axis of Evil. The Soviet plans, while cataclysmic, had an element of self-survial built in. In public comments at least, portions of Iran's government have indicated they would expose their homeland to a nuclear retaliation by attacking Israel. I think there is a large element of bluster to those threats, and at any rate the response from Israel would be clear cut and devestating.
That aside, following the bomb non-nuclear countries model of the Soviets, a single nuclear weapon detonating in Holland or Rome becomes more problematical. The Warsaw Pact plans cited above are pretty clearly defensive plans. However, an attack on a Western City, with some measure of deniabilty attached, would be an offensive use of nuclear weapons while hoping for a calibrated response that would spare the Irani homeland.
The reason the Soviets reasonably thought they could limit an exchange need to be considered. In their scenario, both sides limiting their responses to spare each others homelands reflected the fact that both sides could cause massive damage to each others homelands. For Iran to expect similar restraint on the part of the West would require Iran to pose a credible existential threat to the US mainland. That situation simple doesn't exist. As such, Iran is either blustering about having the "moral strength" to survive a massive retaliatory attack, or they are seriously misreading the calculus of raw power.
I've said before that I fear a miscalculation more than anything. There are lines on both sides that if crossed would trigger a staggering escalation. The great problem is in where exactly do these lines lay? I believe on the Western side the use of a WMD is one such line. That the images of such an attack would so infuriate the Western public that the conflict would surely escalate.
What bothers me most about "the peace at any price', the "litigate war into being illegal", and the "atone for the sins of 18th century colonialism" crowd is that I fear it obscures the West's lines not to be crossed. I fear that the Mullahs are drawing mistaken conclusions in just how hard they can push before events slip out of the grasp of all of us.
At a press conference Friday, Sikorski unveiled a map showing hypothetical plans in the event of a NATO attack on Warsaw Pact nations which called for a Soviet counterattack that would have included the nuclear bombing of Munich, Brussels, Dutch ports and other targets. This in turn, according to Soviet military thinking, would precipitate NATO nuclear attacks on forces concentrated on the Vistula River, attacks that the Polish government now estimates would have killed two million Poles.It looks like the Soviets calculated that if they were to launch a nuclear strike, but not hit the two regional nuclear powers France or England, NATO would calibrate its nuclear retaliation by sparing the Russian homelands. A chilling read in the arithmetic of blood.
The map showed the widespread destruction of Western Europe, including mushroom clouds over key areas of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. Cities such as Brussels would have been destroyed as Soviet troops advanced to the Western shores of the Continent, although Britain and France would have been left unscathed.
It is of particular interest when balanced against today's Axis of Evil. The Soviet plans, while cataclysmic, had an element of self-survial built in. In public comments at least, portions of Iran's government have indicated they would expose their homeland to a nuclear retaliation by attacking Israel. I think there is a large element of bluster to those threats, and at any rate the response from Israel would be clear cut and devestating.
That aside, following the bomb non-nuclear countries model of the Soviets, a single nuclear weapon detonating in Holland or Rome becomes more problematical. The Warsaw Pact plans cited above are pretty clearly defensive plans. However, an attack on a Western City, with some measure of deniabilty attached, would be an offensive use of nuclear weapons while hoping for a calibrated response that would spare the Irani homeland.
The reason the Soviets reasonably thought they could limit an exchange need to be considered. In their scenario, both sides limiting their responses to spare each others homelands reflected the fact that both sides could cause massive damage to each others homelands. For Iran to expect similar restraint on the part of the West would require Iran to pose a credible existential threat to the US mainland. That situation simple doesn't exist. As such, Iran is either blustering about having the "moral strength" to survive a massive retaliatory attack, or they are seriously misreading the calculus of raw power.
I've said before that I fear a miscalculation more than anything. There are lines on both sides that if crossed would trigger a staggering escalation. The great problem is in where exactly do these lines lay? I believe on the Western side the use of a WMD is one such line. That the images of such an attack would so infuriate the Western public that the conflict would surely escalate.
What bothers me most about "the peace at any price', the "litigate war into being illegal", and the "atone for the sins of 18th century colonialism" crowd is that I fear it obscures the West's lines not to be crossed. I fear that the Mullahs are drawing mistaken conclusions in just how hard they can push before events slip out of the grasp of all of us.
News from the heart of New Orleans
I got a brief email today from my grad school friend, who lives in the heart of New Orleans in the Garden District.
It's important to realize that her part of the city was, after the French Quarter, the least affected by the floods. What New Orleans has is a systemic illness.
I talked to another friend, from Miami, who had spent a week helping family to rebuild their house in a small town north of Lake Pontchartrain. This town was hit hard by the hurricane; the flood line on the house was near the top of the front door, just as it was in the hardest-hit parts of New Orleans. He said that as soon as the flood waters receded, the family was out there tearing out sodden drywall and carpet, and rebuilding their homes.
He'd driven through New Orleans on his way out of town, and was astonished to find that no rebuilding was going on; the houses were mostly abandoned, and being left to decay.
I love New Orleans, but I wouldn't be surprised if the hurricane were merely the event that revealed the systemic illness that lay beneath the surface there.
It's important to realize that her part of the city was, after the French Quarter, the least affected by the floods. What New Orleans has is a systemic illness.
Things are okay for me and my family but the city of New Orleans is in bad shape. It is in danger of dying. The population is down to one fourth its usual number, I heard. There still are missing stop signs on busy intersections. Many businesses are still closed, even in well-off uptown. I miss Starbucks and Whole Foods. Many businesses are dying, I heard, because they have no workers. Business looks like it is good for those which are open.
I talked to another friend, from Miami, who had spent a week helping family to rebuild their house in a small town north of Lake Pontchartrain. This town was hit hard by the hurricane; the flood line on the house was near the top of the front door, just as it was in the hardest-hit parts of New Orleans. He said that as soon as the flood waters receded, the family was out there tearing out sodden drywall and carpet, and rebuilding their homes.
He'd driven through New Orleans on his way out of town, and was astonished to find that no rebuilding was going on; the houses were mostly abandoned, and being left to decay.
I love New Orleans, but I wouldn't be surprised if the hurricane were merely the event that revealed the systemic illness that lay beneath the surface there.
Semper-Phooey!
Commenter Doug (a long time regular at the Belmont Club) is the author of this piece.
Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney:
" I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
So how does this respond to what VP Cheney said?
In what way was the VP saying the administration doesn't want to hear suggestions about what needs to be done? In what way is this answering in any way the charge that the anti-war side is dishonestly rewriting history about the Iraq War debate?
Oh, and when I say "former supporter" of the war you have to go back a way notwithstanding the impression of this article and other press accounts that Murtha is only now turning on the war.
In May 2004, Murtha called the Iraq War unwinnable (Via NRO). So when you read that a "hawkish Democrat" now opposes the war, please realize this is nothing recent. Although to be fair, somebody who has been a defeatist only since May 2004 may actually count as "hawkish" in his circles.Murtha was wounded twice in Vietnam, and then saw his war lost because Congress would not spend the money to bolster Saigon after we left to validate the blood and treasure we expended to defend South Vietnam.And now Murtha is planning on doing the same to another generation of his fellow Marines as they carry out their duty in western al Anbar province to root out and kill the enemy.Semper Fi? Not even close.
Brian J. Dunn at The Dignified Rant wrote Semper-Phooey in response.
---
Murtha: Iraq ‘Unwinnable’ Roll Call Staff
May 6, 2004 -
Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats’ most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is “unwinnable.”
---
He also schemed w/Ms Pelosi prior to his latest dishonest acting performance.
(Along w/ his other LIES, he later contended he was acting on his own, and this was not a partisan affair.
He simply cared so much for the troops.
[That he sold them out. ...Again.])
Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney:
" I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
So how does this respond to what VP Cheney said?
In what way was the VP saying the administration doesn't want to hear suggestions about what needs to be done? In what way is this answering in any way the charge that the anti-war side is dishonestly rewriting history about the Iraq War debate?
Oh, and when I say "former supporter" of the war you have to go back a way notwithstanding the impression of this article and other press accounts that Murtha is only now turning on the war.
In May 2004, Murtha called the Iraq War unwinnable (Via NRO). So when you read that a "hawkish Democrat" now opposes the war, please realize this is nothing recent. Although to be fair, somebody who has been a defeatist only since May 2004 may actually count as "hawkish" in his circles.Murtha was wounded twice in Vietnam, and then saw his war lost because Congress would not spend the money to bolster Saigon after we left to validate the blood and treasure we expended to defend South Vietnam.And now Murtha is planning on doing the same to another generation of his fellow Marines as they carry out their duty in western al Anbar province to root out and kill the enemy.Semper Fi? Not even close.
Brian J. Dunn at The Dignified Rant wrote Semper-Phooey in response.
---
Murtha: Iraq ‘Unwinnable’ Roll Call Staff
May 6, 2004 -
Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats’ most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is “unwinnable.”
---
He also schemed w/Ms Pelosi prior to his latest dishonest acting performance.
(Along w/ his other LIES, he later contended he was acting on his own, and this was not a partisan affair.
He simply cared so much for the troops.
[That he sold them out. ...Again.])
Have You Hugged A Terrorist Today?
Charles Krauthammer does an excellent analysis of the empty posturing of the illustrious Senators who supported the abysmally short sighted 'no torture' amendment to a defense appropriations bill.
In a world where there was a Senate composed of people prepared to defend the inanities they commit on a daily basis, one could hope for a response from each of the pompous blowhards who put posturing above security interests. In this world it is doubtful that we will hear a word. Cheap posturing wins over reasoned and honest analysis among the current members of "the world's greatest deliberative body" on a regular basis.
Dr. Krauthammer lays out a reasonable and practical approach to classification of those who are so far outside the bounds of human conduct that they have forfeited the right to to feel secure about their treatment when captured. I agree with him and furthermore I explicitly trust the judgement of our military in making such determinations.
UPDATE:
Neurocon notes in a commenta pertinent quote from Krauthammer's pieces that should actually be a focus point point for discussion:
People seem to think that the postwar Geneva Conventions were written only to protect detainees. In fact, their deeper purpose was to provide a deterrent to the kind of barbaric treatment of civilians that had become so horribly apparent during the first half of the 20th century, and in particular, during the Second World War. The idea was to deter the abuse of civilians by promising combatants who treated noncombatants well that they themselves would be treated according to a code of dignity if captured--and, crucially, that they would be denied the protections of that code if they broke the laws of war and abused civilians themselves.
Breaking the laws of war and abusing civilians are what, to understate the matter vastly, terrorists do for a living. They are entitled, therefore, to nothing.
In a world where there was a Senate composed of people prepared to defend the inanities they commit on a daily basis, one could hope for a response from each of the pompous blowhards who put posturing above security interests. In this world it is doubtful that we will hear a word. Cheap posturing wins over reasoned and honest analysis among the current members of "the world's greatest deliberative body" on a regular basis.
Dr. Krauthammer lays out a reasonable and practical approach to classification of those who are so far outside the bounds of human conduct that they have forfeited the right to to feel secure about their treatment when captured. I agree with him and furthermore I explicitly trust the judgement of our military in making such determinations.
UPDATE:
Neurocon notes in a commenta pertinent quote from Krauthammer's pieces that should actually be a focus point point for discussion:
People seem to think that the postwar Geneva Conventions were written only to protect detainees. In fact, their deeper purpose was to provide a deterrent to the kind of barbaric treatment of civilians that had become so horribly apparent during the first half of the 20th century, and in particular, during the Second World War. The idea was to deter the abuse of civilians by promising combatants who treated noncombatants well that they themselves would be treated according to a code of dignity if captured--and, crucially, that they would be denied the protections of that code if they broke the laws of war and abused civilians themselves.
Breaking the laws of war and abusing civilians are what, to understate the matter vastly, terrorists do for a living. They are entitled, therefore, to nothing.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Leviathan and SysAdmin, and the Spirit of America
Not being by nature much of a strategic thinker, it was with great pleasure that I learned of, and starting reading, Thomas P.M. Barnett. His two books are essential (in my necessarily naive view ) for understanding where we need to go in reacting — in a constructive way — to this world for which we are both, perhaps, the major player and, to a greater extent than we might prefer, responsible. On his weblog Barnett quotes an email from a retired officer that rather well articulates how our armed forces, superbly trained to fight, are being called on more and more to reconstruct ravaged societies (I quote only a part of this long letter):
The lieutenant's letter continues, and is worth reading in full.
Barnett's vision is compelling. Breaking the world down into the "Functioning Core" of developed, politically stable states and the "Non-Integrating Gap," (those states which are either partially or completely "failed"), in the second of his two books, especially, Barnett lays out a comprehensive strategy for bringing more and more of the failures in the direction of success. One of the things that struck me about Barnett's thinking is how our tendency to conceive peace and war as diametrical opposites sets up a false dichotomy, especially in this era of Fourth Generation Warfare. Thinking from the left end of our political spectrum especially suffers from this limitation. From Barnett's point of view, our military has to be thought of only in part as an overwhelmingly powerful quick-strike force (the "Leviathan"), focused on suppressing hostile governments and nongovernment entities. To a much greater extent it will function in an administrative capacity, assuming responsibility for facilitating the transition of "gap" systems into the "core." Read Barnett to learn how we might retool our military to more effectively carry out the kind of reconstruction which has proved so problematic in Iraq.
*
And think, too, in this holiday season, of giving to Spirit of America, where each of us in our own small way can become part of the "SysAdmin" force and, for example, help to set up a teaching hospital in Najaf; contribute to bringing women's centers to Iraq in general; or assist Marine Civil Affairs Groups in setting up an agricultural co-op in Al Anbar...
As [America is] the only heavyweight doctrinal fighter in the world, nobody [has been] willing to step into the ring with our military. America's enemies learned that they would have to come up with new and creative ways to jab at us while avoiding our right hook. They exploited weaknesses that we did not even know we had. Terrorism made the revolutionary leap from criminal nuisance to strategic threat.
I recently left the Army and I am now working for a defense contractor. I have a personal interest in seeing big budgets for net-centric warfare, leap-ahead technology, and futuristic weapons. I strongly believe that those things are in America's best interest too. It is the Defense Department's obligation to prepare now for any possible future contingency. It is true that many of the weapons being developed today will have little application in the Global War On Terror (GWOT) but we must maintain our Leviathan status through leadership in the quality, quantity, and technology of our weapons and intelligence. That is the shield that makes prosperity possible and the big stick to make it Global. We can never afford to risk losing that advantage. The world is full of irrational leaders, and we will always need our Big Stick to keep them from derailing progress.
What is missing is the “Sys Admin” force. Right now, we expect one Army to fill both roles with one set of equipment. We can see how well that is working in Iraq. I have discussed this very issue with my peers since I was a cadet at West Point. Soldiers are less than ideally suited for Operations Other Than War (OOTW) but right now there is nobody else better suited to do it. American soldiers are intelligent and flexible and will do their best at anything we ask of them, but it is costly and wasteful to expect soldiers to be proficient at two very distinct jobs. My soldiers, trained as a tank crewman to identify and kill enemy armor at a distance, had go through significant re-training before being qualified to walk through villages and build relationships with tribal leaders. Once that mission was completed, their skills as armored crewman were so diminished that they had to go through significant re-training before being certified again to perform their primary duties.
The Sys Admin force is desperately needed. As an armor officer I was primarily trained to defeat enemy armor. Yet, in Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo, my soldiers and I had responsibility or oversight for such varied areas as: commercial farming and irrigation, water purification, road and bridge repair, infrastructure assessments, opinion polls, public opinion shaping, educational assessments, electrical power distribution, organizing elections, advising local governments, refugee relocation, riot control, traffic control, training police, providing medical care, restoring essential services. . . the list goes on, but the point I want to make is that in order to succeed, we had to do all of those things while simultaneously fighting an insurgency. “Simultaneity” is a major buzz-word for commanders in Iraq and the first time I heard it the meaning was clear - something is missing - the Sys Admin force. Some have argued that the Army has always gone back and forth between Big Stick and Sys Admin (civil war reconstruction, frontier outposts, WWII constabulary, etc). That doesn't make it right.
One of the biggest things saving us right now in Iraq is the institutional level of “Sys Admin” skills developed accidentally as a result of mission creep in the Balkans. Frustrated and saddled with open ended peacekeeping commitments in the Balkans that were distracting us from the “real” business of training for the next major war, Army leaders took on additional responsibilities to move things along faster. Once the fighting ended, there was nobody really pushing for economic progress, democratic institutions, reconstruction, and the list of other things which must take place in order to set the conditions for military withdrawal. Sure, there was the UN and OSCE and other NGOs but they just were not organized enough to be able to find their way to work every morning. To the benefit of all, the Army took a broader view of our mission and applied our surplus organizational skills and manpower to ensuring the success of many of the NGOs. We were not trained for such tasks but Americans see a need and pitch in. That experience is paying off in Iraq, where there are no NGO's and the Army is going it alone.
The Sys Admin half needs to be run by the State Department or some future successor to it. It needs some MP-type foot soldiers and a lot of military advisors and trainers, but most of all it needs expertise in the systems and functions of government to train and develop indigenous populations. It needs cultural and language experts; electrical, civil, and agricultural engineers; natural resource developers; communications experts … basically, everything we lack right now in Iraq. Much of this can not be contracted as we learned in Iraq.
The lieutenant's letter continues, and is worth reading in full.
Barnett's vision is compelling. Breaking the world down into the "Functioning Core" of developed, politically stable states and the "Non-Integrating Gap," (those states which are either partially or completely "failed"), in the second of his two books, especially, Barnett lays out a comprehensive strategy for bringing more and more of the failures in the direction of success. One of the things that struck me about Barnett's thinking is how our tendency to conceive peace and war as diametrical opposites sets up a false dichotomy, especially in this era of Fourth Generation Warfare. Thinking from the left end of our political spectrum especially suffers from this limitation. From Barnett's point of view, our military has to be thought of only in part as an overwhelmingly powerful quick-strike force (the "Leviathan"), focused on suppressing hostile governments and nongovernment entities. To a much greater extent it will function in an administrative capacity, assuming responsibility for facilitating the transition of "gap" systems into the "core." Read Barnett to learn how we might retool our military to more effectively carry out the kind of reconstruction which has proved so problematic in Iraq.
*
And think, too, in this holiday season, of giving to Spirit of America, where each of us in our own small way can become part of the "SysAdmin" force and, for example, help to set up a teaching hospital in Najaf; contribute to bringing women's centers to Iraq in general; or assist Marine Civil Affairs Groups in setting up an agricultural co-op in Al Anbar...
Updating the 16th Century
I'm reading an Andrew Greeley mystery, starring Bishop Blackie. I'm not a Catholic and Greeley is a flaming leftist with right-wing and evangelical stereotypes peppered all through this book. But, for some reason, I've enjoyed his books anyway.
But something struck me last night as I read my two nightly pre-falling asleep pages. It was revealed about three quarters through the book, that certain accusations made by the supposedly murdered XO of an aircraft carrier had all been made against blacks. Oops. Against African-Americans on the ship. But nobody had told the Bishop, who was investigating the murder, because nobody dared mention it. Because it might lead people to think there was a racial element in the problems besetting the ship.
Because there was no open discussion, the African-Americans on the ship were sure that whites believed there was an African-American rapist running loose and the Black women so resented what they believed the whites believed that they went inside themselves and wouldn't speak to anyone. And the whites were so afraid of offending anyone that they wouldn't discuss it either and resented the fact that they felt resentment from the African-Americans.
You see where this is leading, right? No open discussion therefore simmering resentments. Political Correctness is unhealthy. And what frightened me was how easily our society has accepted PC. Will we ever escape?
Then, today, one of the first articles I noticed was from the Times of London:
Marlowe's Koran-burning hero is censored to avoid Muslim anger
I don't mean we should go out and intentionally offend Islam, but rewriting a play is another matter entirely. Let's supress all offense and discourage discussion. That way we can feed resentments on all sides. Way to go, fellas.
When I hear about incidents such as these a normal reaction might be that muslims are too easily offended and, on the other hand, muslims would feel resentment because they know that non-muslims believe they are too easily offended. And so it goes. Resentments piled on resentments about the Other. And we're left with all non-muslims vs all muslims and bad feelings all around.
It's just not healthy.
But something struck me last night as I read my two nightly pre-falling asleep pages. It was revealed about three quarters through the book, that certain accusations made by the supposedly murdered XO of an aircraft carrier had all been made against blacks. Oops. Against African-Americans on the ship. But nobody had told the Bishop, who was investigating the murder, because nobody dared mention it. Because it might lead people to think there was a racial element in the problems besetting the ship.
Because there was no open discussion, the African-Americans on the ship were sure that whites believed there was an African-American rapist running loose and the Black women so resented what they believed the whites believed that they went inside themselves and wouldn't speak to anyone. And the whites were so afraid of offending anyone that they wouldn't discuss it either and resented the fact that they felt resentment from the African-Americans.
You see where this is leading, right? No open discussion therefore simmering resentments. Political Correctness is unhealthy. And what frightened me was how easily our society has accepted PC. Will we ever escape?
Then, today, one of the first articles I noticed was from the Times of London:
Marlowe's Koran-burning hero is censored to avoid Muslim anger
Simon Reade, artistic director of the Bristol Old Vic, said that if they had not altered the original it “would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world’s great religions”.
...
The play needed to be seen in a 21stcentury context, he believed.
I don't mean we should go out and intentionally offend Islam, but rewriting a play is another matter entirely. Let's supress all offense and discourage discussion. That way we can feed resentments on all sides. Way to go, fellas.
When I hear about incidents such as these a normal reaction might be that muslims are too easily offended and, on the other hand, muslims would feel resentment because they know that non-muslims believe they are too easily offended. And so it goes. Resentments piled on resentments about the Other. And we're left with all non-muslims vs all muslims and bad feelings all around.
It's just not healthy.
Canadian Parliament Asked To Hold Hearings On Relations With Alien "Et" [sic] Civilizations
Former Canadian Minister Of Defence Asks Canadian Parliament Asked To Hold Hearings On Relations With Alien "Et" Civilizations - Yahoo! News
Via Don Sensing, who points out that it's all really for the Moon's oil.
Via Don Sensing, who points out that it's all really for the Moon's oil.
Rantingprofs: Taking Candy From Strangers
"More targeting of children. Via Powerline, an arrest of men with a carload of dolls of a type of distributed by American soldiers (can't imagine that's an accident) that had been boobytrapped with grenades. Think about the kind of an enemy willing to kill children, their own people's children, to score propaganda points."
Rantingprofs: Taking Candy From Strangers
Rantingprofs: Taking Candy From Strangers
My kind of place
This report from the FT on travails at McDonalds took me back some thirty years when, as a schoolboy in London, I spent a summer vacation working at one of the first McDonalds restaurants to open in the UK.
Before Mickey D arrived, the typical solution to the average British shopper’s hunger pangs was a curly cheese sandwich, a bag of soggy chips or a largely indigestible meat-flavored bun called a ‘Wimpy burger.’ McDonalds’ popularity was instant and overwhelming.
With my job came a uniform and an introduction to a revolutionary work ethic. Where service at the local Wimpy Bar came with a sneer, at McDonald’s “the customer was King.” When burgers didn’t need flipping we were required to proactively seek out ways to ‘help’ our ‘customers.’ And any time when we were absolutely sure there were no customers needing help, we made sure that every table in the restaurant was clean for them, every ‘trash can’ empty for them and every square inch of the kitchen spotless and sanitary for them.
Most of my school vacation jobs have since served only as fodder for dinner conversations along the lines of ‘what was the worst job you ever had?’ My job at McDonalds by contrast provided me with some enduring lessons about what makes a market economy tick. It also began my lifelong love affair with America.
Mickey D’s critics may be right that attitudes have changed and so the restaurant should change with them. But I remain deeply suspicious of their claims that its jobs are “excessively pressurized.” To me, that sounds like they have in mind something that ends not with a burger but with a Wimpy.
Before Mickey D arrived, the typical solution to the average British shopper’s hunger pangs was a curly cheese sandwich, a bag of soggy chips or a largely indigestible meat-flavored bun called a ‘Wimpy burger.’ McDonalds’ popularity was instant and overwhelming.
With my job came a uniform and an introduction to a revolutionary work ethic. Where service at the local Wimpy Bar came with a sneer, at McDonald’s “the customer was King.” When burgers didn’t need flipping we were required to proactively seek out ways to ‘help’ our ‘customers.’ And any time when we were absolutely sure there were no customers needing help, we made sure that every table in the restaurant was clean for them, every ‘trash can’ empty for them and every square inch of the kitchen spotless and sanitary for them.
Most of my school vacation jobs have since served only as fodder for dinner conversations along the lines of ‘what was the worst job you ever had?’ My job at McDonalds by contrast provided me with some enduring lessons about what makes a market economy tick. It also began my lifelong love affair with America.
Mickey D’s critics may be right that attitudes have changed and so the restaurant should change with them. But I remain deeply suspicious of their claims that its jobs are “excessively pressurized.” To me, that sounds like they have in mind something that ends not with a burger but with a Wimpy.
Fact or Fiction?
I woke up at an ungodly hour and decided to look around the blogoshphere and I came across a link at Roger Simon's that made my blood boil. Could this be true?
It makes you wonder if Saddam would really use such a defence.
On one hand it seems to be a hoax, on another it makes a kind of perverse sense and demonstrates to us once again that politics should end at the water's edge.
Contrast that screed with the real live actual authorization to use force that the House voted on before the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The search facility at the site allows you to access the actual bill voted on and not the spin about the bill we hear today. Please note the emphasis on Saddam's flagrant breaking of the law.
It makes it plain that cease fire violations, the brutal repression of the Iraqi people, support for international terrorism as well as the Iraqi Liberation Act had more to do with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power than weapons stockpiles.
One is fantasy while the other is reality, as if Saddam or the Demcoratic leadership could tell the difference.
It makes you wonder if Saddam would really use such a defence.
On one hand it seems to be a hoax, on another it makes a kind of perverse sense and demonstrates to us once again that politics should end at the water's edge.
Contrast that screed with the real live actual authorization to use force that the House voted on before the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The search facility at the site allows you to access the actual bill voted on and not the spin about the bill we hear today. Please note the emphasis on Saddam's flagrant breaking of the law.
It makes it plain that cease fire violations, the brutal repression of the Iraqi people, support for international terrorism as well as the Iraqi Liberation Act had more to do with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power than weapons stockpiles.
One is fantasy while the other is reality, as if Saddam or the Demcoratic leadership could tell the difference.
Some Children Must be Left Behind
Education is a nearly trillion dollar industry in the US, accounting for 7.7% of GDP in 2001 (about $925 billion in 2005 - that’s all education spending, from pre-kindergarten through graduate/professional school). Only Denmark (8.4%) spends a greater percentage of GDP on education, and no country spends more per person.
That’s a lot of money. Ideally, it would go where it will do the most good. Which is why, if I were giving awards for rhetoric that makes my skin crawl, the simple title “No Child Left Behind” would win, hands down. It screams equality of outcomes, and since you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, I assume this means we’ll be making dog treats out of everyone.
All right, granted, there are some students who simply lack the hardware to succeed, that’s not the problem I have with the NCLB concept. The framers of NCLB can be forgiven for not naming it “No Child Left Behind (Except those with mental retardation, who will necessarily be left behind but helped to lead normal lives as much as possible)”. The key to education for most students is motivation to learn on the part of the student. I firmly believe that a bright, motivated student will easily outperform a bright, unmotivated student, even if the unmotivated student has all the advantages money can bring to the classroom, while the motivated one reads from a mildewed text in a lonely (but quiet) cardboard box.
The problem is this. As a practical matter, “leaving no child behind” means that we spend a disproportionately large amount of resources attempting to improve the achievement of the least motivated students, and a disproportionately small amount attempting to improve the achievement of the most motivated students.
This strikes me as a counterintuitive approach, because generally the greatest return comes from investment where there is the capacity for rapid growth, and the obvious place to look for potential growth is where the conditions for growth already exist.
But then, maybe tremendous potential lies dormant in the least motivated – if only we could find a way to unlock it. How much growth can we get in that case? Lots. Sure, tons. But clearly, as long as they remain unmotivated, we will get none. You can plop a tub of Ty Nant in front of your horse, but if the dang thing isn’t thirsty, it isn’t going to drink. Likewise, you can provide the best teacher, the best text, and the newest classroom with the fanciest technology, but if the student doesn’t want to learn, you can’t make him learn. Forcing him to sit in the classroom does no more good than forcing the horse’s head into the water – he still won’t drink, but he might try to kick you senseless.
So the next question is – how much can we expect to increase unmotivated students’ motivation to learn? (Without resorting to standard Behaviorist techniques like electric shock, food deprivation with small reinforcing doses of food and other plainly objectionable means, of course.) There are at least two issues we need to deal with.
First, we need to overcome the active motivation not to engage in learning – and that motivation can be powerful. Some students see the entire educational system as an adversary – and learning as capitulation. Others face peer pressure (like the stereotypical, but (at least at one time) common, admonition that studiousness is “acting white”).
Second, we need to create positive motivation to learn, because we need to overcome the disincentive that results from the simple fact that learning requires effort, and our students, being earthly life forms, will normally avoid exerting effort. Standard cognitive theory says this requires us to create an expectation that performance will result in something good happening, a belief in future reinforcement. This is a tricky thing to accomplish, because it demands at least three things – ensuring that students see their current work as essential to the future positive outcome (but is Social Studies germane to becoming an engineer?), ensuring that students actually think the future outcome to which current performance is tied is a positive one (do I really want to be an engineer?), and ensuring that students see the outcome as likely given that they actually perform right now (if I do this, will I ever get hired anyway?). And now. And now.
As far as I know, we have no idea how to accomplish these things in any practical way – and that’s as far as the analysis goes, or needs to go for the present. Returning to the question “How much can we expect to increase unmotivated students’ motivation to learn?” the answer is – currently, not much at all. And until we figure out how to create motivated students, the only way to get any return for our investment is to invest in those who are, for whatever reason, already motivated.
That’s a lot of money. Ideally, it would go where it will do the most good. Which is why, if I were giving awards for rhetoric that makes my skin crawl, the simple title “No Child Left Behind” would win, hands down. It screams equality of outcomes, and since you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, I assume this means we’ll be making dog treats out of everyone.
All right, granted, there are some students who simply lack the hardware to succeed, that’s not the problem I have with the NCLB concept. The framers of NCLB can be forgiven for not naming it “No Child Left Behind (Except those with mental retardation, who will necessarily be left behind but helped to lead normal lives as much as possible)”. The key to education for most students is motivation to learn on the part of the student. I firmly believe that a bright, motivated student will easily outperform a bright, unmotivated student, even if the unmotivated student has all the advantages money can bring to the classroom, while the motivated one reads from a mildewed text in a lonely (but quiet) cardboard box.
The problem is this. As a practical matter, “leaving no child behind” means that we spend a disproportionately large amount of resources attempting to improve the achievement of the least motivated students, and a disproportionately small amount attempting to improve the achievement of the most motivated students.
This strikes me as a counterintuitive approach, because generally the greatest return comes from investment where there is the capacity for rapid growth, and the obvious place to look for potential growth is where the conditions for growth already exist.
But then, maybe tremendous potential lies dormant in the least motivated – if only we could find a way to unlock it. How much growth can we get in that case? Lots. Sure, tons. But clearly, as long as they remain unmotivated, we will get none. You can plop a tub of Ty Nant in front of your horse, but if the dang thing isn’t thirsty, it isn’t going to drink. Likewise, you can provide the best teacher, the best text, and the newest classroom with the fanciest technology, but if the student doesn’t want to learn, you can’t make him learn. Forcing him to sit in the classroom does no more good than forcing the horse’s head into the water – he still won’t drink, but he might try to kick you senseless.
So the next question is – how much can we expect to increase unmotivated students’ motivation to learn? (Without resorting to standard Behaviorist techniques like electric shock, food deprivation with small reinforcing doses of food and other plainly objectionable means, of course.) There are at least two issues we need to deal with.
First, we need to overcome the active motivation not to engage in learning – and that motivation can be powerful. Some students see the entire educational system as an adversary – and learning as capitulation. Others face peer pressure (like the stereotypical, but (at least at one time) common, admonition that studiousness is “acting white”).
Second, we need to create positive motivation to learn, because we need to overcome the disincentive that results from the simple fact that learning requires effort, and our students, being earthly life forms, will normally avoid exerting effort. Standard cognitive theory says this requires us to create an expectation that performance will result in something good happening, a belief in future reinforcement. This is a tricky thing to accomplish, because it demands at least three things – ensuring that students see their current work as essential to the future positive outcome (but is Social Studies germane to becoming an engineer?), ensuring that students actually think the future outcome to which current performance is tied is a positive one (do I really want to be an engineer?), and ensuring that students see the outcome as likely given that they actually perform right now (if I do this, will I ever get hired anyway?). And now. And now.
As far as I know, we have no idea how to accomplish these things in any practical way – and that’s as far as the analysis goes, or needs to go for the present. Returning to the question “How much can we expect to increase unmotivated students’ motivation to learn?” the answer is – currently, not much at all. And until we figure out how to create motivated students, the only way to get any return for our investment is to invest in those who are, for whatever reason, already motivated.
Thanksgiving in Northern California
For hills
for trees and shadows
for all streams
For fish, for insect life
And for the sea
clouds scattering light
For air
For paths
that fade, to lose us
for the stars, for night
For children, for old people
For the wind,
for salt marsh grasses—
for the sand the wind
and water move
For all that lives, and
for the sun and moon
To God, we give
our thanks
XI: 2005
for trees and shadows
for all streams
For fish, for insect life
And for the sea
clouds scattering light
For air
For paths
that fade, to lose us
for the stars, for night
For children, for old people
For the wind,
for salt marsh grasses—
for the sand the wind
and water move
For all that lives, and
for the sun and moon
To God, we give
our thanks
XI: 2005
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Tempting Fate
On a day where folks all around the US are stuffed full of turkey comes a story about a bird that has figured out how to defang the mighty hunter. Happy Thanksgiving all.
Goofy grouse entertains 85-year-old hunter
Goofy grouse entertains 85-year-old hunter
Happy Thanksgiving and Prognostication
Happy Thanksgiving for all you folks going through the blogs on turkey day (are we that interesting or are you getting away from the family?---you don’t have to answer that). I’m thankful for the sacrifice, determination and professionalism of our troops who truly do us proud.
As we have just gone through another round of apoplexy concerning troop deployment in Iraq (Google “Murtha” for a taste of a different kind of turkey), I thought about the old phrase, “What did you do during the war?” The modern version might well turn out to be “What did you think of the war?” I suspect that after Iraq gets its democratic sea legs, sees an improving economy and is examined in comparison to its neighbors, the conventional wisdom will likely treat the outcome as always a foregone conclusion. The doom and gloom will be “forgotten” or minimized, although the Internet has a long memory (unless we turn it over to the UN; then all bets are off). I believe that the big picture will largely determine how the current events are viewed. Eventual success will have many fathers.
As we have just gone through another round of apoplexy concerning troop deployment in Iraq (Google “Murtha” for a taste of a different kind of turkey), I thought about the old phrase, “What did you do during the war?” The modern version might well turn out to be “What did you think of the war?” I suspect that after Iraq gets its democratic sea legs, sees an improving economy and is examined in comparison to its neighbors, the conventional wisdom will likely treat the outcome as always a foregone conclusion. The doom and gloom will be “forgotten” or minimized, although the Internet has a long memory (unless we turn it over to the UN; then all bets are off). I believe that the big picture will largely determine how the current events are viewed. Eventual success will have many fathers.
Who Can Accept Our Surrender?
This is certainly good news on Thanksgiving. I believe that I've read something concerning insurgent groups wanting to lay down their arms before but this piece is a bit more definitve. The tribes in al-Anbar are the ones who have caused the most trouble in Iraq. The article does not distinguish which tribes are in fact involved but I found the comment that they were dealing with Chalabi rather than with Talabani interesting.
Are they anticipating a Chalabi victory on December 15th? Is the "talk" a means to promote Chalabi's party?
This interview with Talabani done in 2002 gives a bit of recent historical perspective to current Iraqi politics. Talabani doesn't seem to hold the CIA (or State) in very high esteem.
He's not alone.
Are they anticipating a Chalabi victory on December 15th? Is the "talk" a means to promote Chalabi's party?
This interview with Talabani done in 2002 gives a bit of recent historical perspective to current Iraqi politics. Talabani doesn't seem to hold the CIA (or State) in very high esteem.
He's not alone.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Escaping the blogosphere
There is an excellent discussion by Clay Shirky
on the dynamics driving the “inequality” of blogs. Although it was written almost two years ago the principles mentioned would seem to have been validated by time.
The question posed is “Why do a handful of blogs account for a disproportionate amount of blog traffic?” In other words, why are site visits not more equally distributed across all blogs?
The answer, according to Shirky, is that “In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. This has nothing to do with moral weakness, selling out, or any other psychological explanation. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution.”
There are accompanying graphs of what Shirky refers to as “power law distribution”, and a prediction of how the world of blogs will evolve over time.
Many of the “A list” bloggers have reached this point and no longer have comment sections, which is the “conversational” aspect of blogging. They might be said to have reached the blogospheres escape velocity.
There are some implications here for Open Source Media and similar efforts. One is that the blogging model does not scale up very well. Once a blog passes a certain traffic threshold it becomes impractical for the blogger to spend time reading and responding to comments. Instead the “mega-bloggers” read and respond to other bloggers, as well as regular news reports.
The other is that the large blogs will become over time something closer to the “MSM” than to the blogs from which they sprung. Their large volume of traffic gives them influence. This attracts the attention of influential people looking for outlets for ideas, who give “access” in the journalistic sense to anyone with an audience. The circle will be complete when the former bloggers begin to be seduced by the notion of themselves as insiders; in other words, they will become increasingly like the Old Media which they initially and rightly excoriated.
on the dynamics driving the “inequality” of blogs. Although it was written almost two years ago the principles mentioned would seem to have been validated by time.
The question posed is “Why do a handful of blogs account for a disproportionate amount of blog traffic?” In other words, why are site visits not more equally distributed across all blogs?
The answer, according to Shirky, is that “In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. This has nothing to do with moral weakness, selling out, or any other psychological explanation. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution.”
There are accompanying graphs of what Shirky refers to as “power law distribution”, and a prediction of how the world of blogs will evolve over time.
At the head will be webloggers who join the mainstream media (a phrase which seems to mean "media we've gotten used to.") The transformation here is simple - as a blogger's audience grows large, more people read her work than she can possibly read, she can't link to everyone who wants her attention, and she can't answer all her incoming mail or follow up to the comments on her site. The result of these pressures is that she becomes a broadcast outlet, distributing material without participating in conversations about it.
Many of the “A list” bloggers have reached this point and no longer have comment sections, which is the “conversational” aspect of blogging. They might be said to have reached the blogospheres escape velocity.
Meanwhile, the long tail of weblogs with few readers will become conversational. In a world where most bloggers get below average traffic, audience size can't be the only metric for success. LiveJournal had this figured out years ago, by assuming that people would be writing for their friends, rather than some impersonal audience.
In between blogs-as-mainstream-media and blogs-as-dinner-conversation will be Blogging Classic, blogs published by one or a few people, for a moderately-sized audience, with whom the authors have a relatively engaged relationship. Because of the continuing growth of the weblog world, more blogs in the future will follow this pattern than today. However, these blogs will be in the minority for both traffic (dwarfed by the mainstream media blogs) and overall number of blogs (outnumbered by the conversational blogs.)
There are some implications here for Open Source Media and similar efforts. One is that the blogging model does not scale up very well. Once a blog passes a certain traffic threshold it becomes impractical for the blogger to spend time reading and responding to comments. Instead the “mega-bloggers” read and respond to other bloggers, as well as regular news reports.
The other is that the large blogs will become over time something closer to the “MSM” than to the blogs from which they sprung. Their large volume of traffic gives them influence. This attracts the attention of influential people looking for outlets for ideas, who give “access” in the journalistic sense to anyone with an audience. The circle will be complete when the former bloggers begin to be seduced by the notion of themselves as insiders; in other words, they will become increasingly like the Old Media which they initially and rightly excoriated.
"The Only Exit Strategy is Victory"
"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world’s cause. We're in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq." — 20 March 2003, follow the link to find out who said it.
Gee, Officer Krupke, You're Really a Square! West Side Story in Paris
In West Side Story, one of the two rival gangs, the Jets, sings a hilarious parody of social-work-think, as it applies to their possible motivations for having — in their own self-characterization — turned into "punks." (Oddly, I can't remember anyone having been offended, at the time the musical was a hit, by the use this insensitive term.) At one point in the number a gang member, Diesel, impersonating a judge in juvenile court, sings:
Further on in the number another gang member, Riff, addressing the "psychiatrist," has a few thoughts as to why these "youths" have become gang members:
(In the paleolithic era, "tea" was slang for marijuana.)
But then the gang adopts the position that juvenile delinquency is "a social disease." The cure in that case? Take the patient to a social worker!
This last "root cause" may be the one that is closest to the mark in trying to understand what happened, and continues to happen, in France, at least if the analysis of Anthony Daniels in NRO (November 22, 2005, subscription required), The Suburbs Are Burning, is correct. Mr. Daniels begins with a brilliant, funny paragraph about a very serious situation:
The writer quickly proceeds to get to the heart of the issue:
Daniels does not believe that Islam or Islamism had a great deal to do with the rioting:
But he recognizes that Islamists are, in all likelihood, waiting in the wings:
So perhaps we should conclude that the behavior we saw (and will see again) in Paris was, to use the Jets' terminology, "a social disease." Having made the diagnosis, we are still far from having any clue about a possible cure. Daniels is pessimistic, and sees the French people, and the French state, as unlikely to change the social structure and laws that shore up the walls of the "metaphysical prison:"
Officer Krupke, you're really a square;
This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care!
Further on in the number another gang member, Riff, addressing the "psychiatrist," has a few thoughts as to why these "youths" have become gang members:
My father beats my mommy,
My mommy clobbers me.
My grandpa's always plastered,
My grandma pushes tea,
My sister wears a mustache,
My brother wears a dress,
Goodness gracious, that's why I'm a mess!
(In the paleolithic era, "tea" was slang for marijuana.)
But then the gang adopts the position that juvenile delinquency is "a social disease." The cure in that case? Take the patient to a social worker!
Dear kindly social worker.
They say go earn a buck,
Like be a soda jerker,
Which means like be a schmuck.
It's not I'm anti-social,
I'm only anti-work,
Glory Osky, that's why I'm a jerk!
This last "root cause" may be the one that is closest to the mark in trying to understand what happened, and continues to happen, in France, at least if the analysis of Anthony Daniels in NRO (November 22, 2005, subscription required), The Suburbs Are Burning, is correct. Mr. Daniels begins with a brilliant, funny paragraph about a very serious situation:
For the last two weeks, the French have been watching the numbers of cars burnt the night before in the suburbs the way New Yorkers watch the Dow Jones index. Does 463 mean that the riots are now in recession, or is the reduction compared with the previous night merely what stockbrokers call a technical correction? Could the senior policeman be right who said that the downward trend was "the beginning of a classic mobilization at the weekend"? In other words, could les jeunes be conserving their energy for a further assault on French complacency?
The writer quickly proceeds to get to the heart of the issue:
The French banlieues are in effect prisons, but prisons that are ruled by the prisoners who live in them — generally the worst and most brutalizing kind of prisons there are. These prisons have metaphysical walls rather than real ones, though they are geographically isolated from the towns and cities to which they are attached. The metaphysical walls are patrolled by a combination of rigid French labor laws, which make it so difficult for the young to find employment in France, and the subculture of les jeunes themselves, which is conducive to nothing except idleness punctuated by insensate rage.
Daniels does not believe that Islam or Islamism had a great deal to do with the rioting:
The part played by Islam in the riots is bound in an age of Islamist terrorism to preoccupy us, but in my opinion it played at most a peripheral or enabling role. Young men of Islamic background are perhaps more sensitive to humiliation, and more likely to react violently, than others, since they are habituated to thinking of themselves as superior beings to women, the elect of creation. They are also determined to preserve their domination of women. This is the principal interest that Islam has for the young Muslim men of both Britain and France, and probably Holland as well, who are in all other respects almost as highly secularized as their non-Muslim counterparts. Islam also helps to keep their resentment warm, to give it shape; and resentment is, of all human emotions, by far the most dependable — but also the most counterproductive. But les jeunes are not religious fanatics: They are not religious at all. When French Islamic clerics issued a fatwa condemning the riots, it had absolutely no effect. Only a fatwa calling for riots might have had some effect, but only because there existed an inclination to riot in the first place.
But he recognizes that Islamists are, in all likelihood, waiting in the wings:
It would be surprising indeed if fundamentalists did not try to take advantage of the discontents to further their designs — if an impossible and primitive utopian daydream can be called a design.
So perhaps we should conclude that the behavior we saw (and will see again) in Paris was, to use the Jets' terminology, "a social disease." Having made the diagnosis, we are still far from having any clue about a possible cure. Daniels is pessimistic, and sees the French people, and the French state, as unlikely to change the social structure and laws that shore up the walls of the "metaphysical prison:"
..it is] the state that ... enclose[s] les jeunes in an existential prison. Unfortunately, most of the French population benefits — or believes that it benefits — from the regulations that maintain that prison. Riots in les banlieues or marches down the Boulevard Saint-Germain: That is the choice facing the French government, and my guess is that they will prefer the former to the latter, even if in the end it means sending in the CRS [the feared Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité], no holds barred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)