How to help Georgia...

Photo Reuters - Civilians Flee Homes

The Russians continue to show their brutal, thuggish approach to geopolitics. On one hand, they settle a decades old conflict with the People's Republic of China by solidifying their border with the only remaining communist superpower. On the other hand, they plunge into a pro-western, neighboring state with the equivalent strength of a mechanized division. The mismatch between Russia and Georgia is laughable. Georgia has no combat airpower, no naval presence to speak of on the Black Sea and a standing army of some 26,000. Russia has invaded with six times the total number of main battle tanks as are in the Georgian inventory. Georgia has been involved in a battle for the retention of two critical regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Both regions border Russia with the latter bordering the Black Sea as well. Georgia's southern neighbor, Turkey, would hardly welcome a Russian proxy state on its northern border or thousands of refugees from yet another war torn region.

Georgia had been moving towards a very successful Westernization and conversion from the old, corrupt Soviet system. The two pronged invasion by Russian forces sends a chilling message to Ukraine and other nation states. Europe is absolutely apoplectic with fear. Had Georgia's membership in NATO been secured six months ago, this event would likely have never occurred. An attack like this would have brought a response along these lines;

1) United States nuclear attack submarines would penetrate the Black Sea and neutralize Russian Naval assets through interdiction or sinking.
2) NATO air assets from Italy, Turkey and other bases would provide air cover for Georgian forces.
3) GPS weaponry would be employed to execute SEAD missions (suppression of enemy air defense)
4) NATO SOF teams would be inserted to conduct fire missions against any Russian forces.
5) Ground forces from NATO would be mobilized as a stabilizing force against Russian forces
6) A possible declaration of war would follow against Russia by NATO

After that - it could get messy.

Vladimir Putin, the real power behind the Russian government remains a thuggish threat to anti-corruption, free market nations. It is clearly his planned and executed operation which unleashed these forces against an essentially helpless civilian population. There are commentators who make ridiculous comparisons to our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The absurdity and post-modern relativism applied in this argument is repugnant. The run up to each of these military actions was well known, communicated and executed in a legal fashion (as legal as war can get).

Russia retains all of its historical bullying and disregard for the rule of law as it ever has. It is partly the fault of nations in Europe who have failed to challenge their largest neighbor for its reprehensible behavior.

Latest: News on Georgia

How the internet is changing the rules...

Joss Whedon created Buffy the Vampire Slayer and my favorite, gritty SciFi series, Firefly. Here he presents the very funny Neal Patrick Harris in a delightful online only video.

Military Rules...

Provided me by a good friend and USMC brat. They generally seem to apply, and I am in a humorous mood today.

Military Rules

Marine Corps Rules:

1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

2. Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

3. Have a plan.

4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.

5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
meet.

6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start
with a '4.'

7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life
is expensive.

8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral &
diagonal preferred.)

9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

10... Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

11... Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you
lose.

12... In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance,
or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

13... If you are not shooting, you should be communicating your
intention to shoot.


Navy SEAL's Rules:

1. Look very cool in sunglasses.

2. Kill every living thing within view.

3. Adjust Speedo.

4. Check hair in mirror.


US Army Rangers Rules:

1. Walk in 50 miles wearing 75 pound rucksack while starving.

2. Locate individuals requiring killing.

3. Request permission via radio from 'Higher' to perform killing.

4. Curse bitterly when mission is aborted.

5. Walk out 50 miles wearing a 75 pound rucksack while starving.


US Army Rules:

1. Curse bitterly when receiving operational order.

2. Make sure there is extra ammo and extra coffee.

3. Curse bitterly.

4. Curse bitterly.

5. Do not listen to 2nd LTs; it can get you killed.

6. Curse bitterly.


US Air Force Rules:

1. Have a cocktail.

2. Adjust temperature on air-conditioner.

3. See what's on HBO.

4. Ask 'What is a gunfight?'

5. Request more funding from Congress with a 'killer' Power Point
presentation.

6. Wine & dine ''key' Congressmen, invite DOD & defense industry
executives.

7. Receive funding, set up new command and assemble assets.

8. Declare the assets 'strategic' and never deploy them operationally.

9. Hurry to make 13:45 tee-time.

10. Make sure the base is as far as possible from the conflict but close
enough to have tax exemption.



US Navy Rules:

1. Go to Sea.

2. Drink Coffee.

3. Deploy Marines

Go Navy !

The law is a good thing...

>

It is a wafer thin barrier between humanity and its most basic and feral instincts.  Someone cut you off in traffic?  You may experience that primal urge to accelerate your Smart Car into the side of that Hummer H2 in a rage blind act of retaliation.  But you don’t.  It could be because of the state trooper you notice at the side of the road, the thought of a substantial hike in your insurance rate or some other mitigating reason.  Rarely is it because the simple weight ration between the offending behemoth and your egalitarian chariot would result in near instantaneous squishiness.

 

And so it is laws and covenants which keep us from behaving in a totally self interested manner.  Failing the existence of credible laws we would be seeking only to give succor to our individual basic instincts.  With proper societal pressures in place we defer this urge and cooperate.  It is in times of stress and extreme conditions that the barriers stretch and “crimes” occur.  We all have heard the phrase “crime of passion” in which one individual responds to their instinctive reflex and acts in a criminal manner.  It is hard to conceive of a world in which laws are an unnecessary legacy.  Even today, laws exist which are holdover from times in which they were used to control or oppress a population.  Iran still stones “adulterers”, India prosecutes homosexuals, China imprisons dissidents and counties in the United States forbid the sale of alcohol on Sunday.

 

We are thus enfolded by laws, rules and regulations.  Many of which we are blissfully unaware.

 

            “Excuse me guvnor, you aware that your article of clothing is in violation of article three section one paragraph A, prohibiting disrespectful display of her Royal Majesty?”

 

Right, off to jail then.

 

But there are crimes for which we are keenly aware.  These tend to be very big events.  They are murder, assault, rape and the like.  These crimes, which when committed by a civilian, are terrible; and yet when committed by the soldiery of a nation are completely detestable.  Why is that?  At one point in our existence it was considered a spoil of war for attacking bands to take whatever they wanted.  Vikings were renowned for their warlike deeds of rape and pillage.  Soldiers appropriated property, enslaved populaces and generally did as they pleased.  These violations enter into the realm of war crimes.  There is a good BBC News Article on the topic.

 

With the handover and arrest, I can not call it a capture, of Radovan Karadzic by Bosnian Serb authorities, the topic of war crimes is resurrected again.  He was one of three active architects responsible for the hell that Yugoslavia devolved into in the 1990s.  Like most international issues, it is complex and not easily understood.  A group of passionate advocates on the left routinely call for the indictment and prosecution of the current President and administration of the United States of America under the aegis of war crimes.  They are misled in their accusations and have been (as Marx noted so correctly) useful idiots.

 

In 1863, with the issuance of the Lieber Code by Union forces of the United States, the first written protection of innocents and civilians in conflict was defined.  It was not until 1899 that the world began serious discussions on the behavior of armed forces in times of war.  Previously the only international rule was an unstated acknowledgement to chivalric code, in which innocents should not be harmed.  The operative word here is “should”.  The Napoleonic conflict and countless wars in the 19^th century reminded the world of the ability of humanity to inflict suffering upon one another.  In World War I, the widespread use of chemical weapons, aerial bombardment and other modern inventions earned the conflict the moniker “the war to end all wars”.  Sadly, this was only wishful thinking.    

 

Nevertheless, the world forged ahead.  It worked hard, especially after World War II to refine and strengthen the laws of conflict.  The UN was established in the wake of the fading League of Nations.  And yet acceptable conduct from belligerents has been elusive.  The United Kingdom waged a brutal conflict on the northern edge of the emerald isle for decades.  In Cambodia, Pol Pot slaughtered millions.  In Rwanda civilians were incited to take up arms against their own brethren in an orgy of violent tribalism.  And still the world trudged onwards, working to establish clear codes of conduct and behavior for governments when diplomacy turned from the point of a pen to the end of a sword.

 

This was not an easy path to navigate.  Even as late as 1996, the International Court of Justice had difficulty forming an opinion on the use of nuclear weapons.  I think it is safe to say that the use of such devices is generally considered bad.  And to use them in an unprovoked manner, would be the definition of a criminal act.  Action in response to such an attack, however, is not so clear.

 

E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote,

It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

However, in view of the current state of International Law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

IN FAVOUR: PRESIDENT Bedjaoui, JUDGE Renjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Vereschetin, Ferrari Bravo;
AGAINST: VICE-PRESIDENT Schwebel; JUDGES: Oda. Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Koroma Higgins.

F. Unanimously,

There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

            Reference - International law links

 

Where are we now? 

 

The United States, for reasons of its own, is not one of the one hundred and seven signatories to the Rome Statute, convening the International Criminal Court.  They, along with eighty-nine other nations, have not endorsed the court’s broad powers.  If acceptance by 54% of the world’s nations (only by count not population as Russia, India and China also remain unsigned) is endorsement, then it is a slim one indeed.  Almost all of these agreements, treaties, resolutions and other high-minded documents are exclusively applicable to nation states.  To date, there is very little governing the behavior of non-state actors (i.e. Al-Qaeda, etc.).  Their actions tend to fall into garden variety criminal acts and thus not subject to the same rules of behavior as nations.

 

How do we, as a nation, respond?  My JAG officer would chide me and remind me that it doesn’t matter whether they are playing fair, we have rules to follow.  I was amazed at this friend of mine’s workload in the 5^th Fleet Area of Operational Responsibility.  He was a Navy Commander and served as the combatant commander’s (COCOM) JAG.  Eighteen hour days were short ones and routinely he spent nights at the command center preparing analysis, briefs and responding to crises.

 

On his door was a poster, it showed a carrier battle group deploying towards the horizon.  Below it was the phrase “don’t go to war without your lawyer”.  It reminded us all that we act as a nation.  And as a nation we have a set of laws to uphold and abide.  After all, it is to the Constitution to which the military swears its allegiance – not the government.

 

I just wonder what poster our opponents have on their wall.

The Great Supplement Swindle...

I work on a regulated industry.  My civilian career is governed by organizations like the FDA, EPA, OSHA and others too numerous to mention.  Routinely my facility is inspected, scrutinized and I have even had to submit information to congressional committees.  This, I believe, is a good thing.  Someone needs to watch over the firms providing public services.  It is reasonable to check on airlines, food producers and others who possibly could affect the health and welfare of the public at large.  There is a lot of pressure to take short cuts to preserve profits, maintain competitiveness and sustain one's business.  VLC's (Very Large Corporations) are under intense scrutiny to comply.  They represent deep pockets and consumers routinely target them with litigation, complaints and queries. 

 

The sheer size and scale of the modern corporation is such that it presents a monolithic appearance to the outside world.  It can appear impersonal and intimidating.  Past performance of some firms in the 1970s and earlier has been less than perfect in the stewardship of their constituency.  Even today, scandals rocking the financial world engender a deep distrust of corporate entities.  Without sounding too much like a spokesperson for the entire corporate culture, let me offer some observations from inside.

 

Earlier in my career I worked for a multi-national which got involved in a consumer safety issue.  Unlike Johnson and Johnson's handling of the Tylenol crisis, this firm took a far more hands off approach to a real threat to its integrity.  As such, the market punished this firm ruthlessly (more than half its market share evaporated overnight) and it was acquired by another firm which collected the remains of a once dominant company.  This occurred almost two decades ago, long before the instantaneous transmission of information via the internet and the twenty-four hour news cycle. 

 

In the 21st century, corporations are being held to increasingly strict standards of behavior.  Consumers are better equipped than ever and information is only a keystroke away.  And yet there exists a remaining realm of shadowy uncertainty.  Within the United States, nutritional supplements are a realm of para-regulated products which may (or may not) be helpful to the public.  Websites promising fantastic results tread the line between deception and marketing.  Each of these products is marketed with the standard disclaimer that the products' claims have not been evaluated by the FDA nor is their product designed to treat, cure or diagnose any disease.  As a consumer, I would stop and rethink my purchase based upon such a caveat.  And yet the supplement industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. 

 

Many supplements are manufactured by major pharmaceutical firms (Bayer, etc.).  Some are produced by large, standalone supplement companies such as Boiron.  These companies report expenditures to the financial markets in similar formats.  What is noted is the gap between R&D spending for the traditional pharmaceutical (also known as Big Pharma - oooh, can't you feel the evil!!) and supplement only companies.  In most cases, the sales and advertising dollars are disproportionately high among the supplement only companies.  Why is this?  Wouldn't you expect that these firms would be researching new products, providing benefits to their customers, on a regular basis?

 

The simple fact is often that there is no research because their is no good effect (typically there is no negative effect either).  The supplement only companies sell hope in a pill, elixir, tincture or powder.  Sometimes there is some basic research to support claims - the body needs vitamins, for example - but most often the claims are vague or even misstated.  These firms count on the public's ignorance of science and desire for self-improvement not involving traditional hard work (diet and exercise) or acknowledgement of a real medical issue (depression, etc.).  Whole industries have sprung up preying upon the public suspicions of traditional institutions.  In most cases these industries are loosely or un-regulated.  They are quick to fan the flames of doubt and dissatisfaction but even quicker to divert objective analysis of their own offerings.

 

Next time you go grocery shopping, walk down the supplement aisle.  Take some time and really peruse the labels of what is offered for sale.  Look at the manufacturer's claims and then apply a little of Occam's Razor to them. 

 

Remember, if it sounds too good to be true - it probably is.

It's a Cluster...

Not really, actually the new DoD policy on cluster munitions is reasonable and well stated.  Cluster munitions are very effective against TIO (troops in the open) which includes perched atop a roof in an urban environment.  What is of most interest in this commentary is the unmistakable involvement of the DoD JAG corps.  The extreme accountability proposed - which makes verification by any interested party simple - is a hallmark of a nation governed by the rule of law.  In the ban the US admits the use of cluster munitions, states reasons why we use them and acknowledges their risk to non-combatants.  It also points out the dilemma when enemy forces are "clustered" among civilians. 

 

So what is our response to the findings of the UN meeting in Dublin?  We will demilitarize non-compliant munitions (not a free process), we will upgrade our technology to provide surety of safety to non-combatants at the conclusion of hostilities and any use of these types of munitions must be approved by the combatant commander - this is typically a three star flag or general officer.  For the uninformed, this is a signature accountability for deployment of ordnance in the area of operations. 

 

In the brief time I spent in the Persian Gulf, part of my duties was to sign off on the command portion of time sensitive targeting (TST).  This meant that if we saw a bad guy in a house and needed to rock their world in a hurry, a host of players had to concur.  We looked at collateral damage, forces in the area, allies, legal and several other elements in order to insure there was no blue-on-blue (friendly fire) or civilian injury.  The process was detailed, precise and would not allow the weapon release without concurrence. 

 

Where in our adversaries' list of procedures does the same accountability and concern exist?  No where.  If the Peoples Liberation Army claims that they will no longer use cluster munitions, how would we know?  Part of the reason that the cold war never blossomed into an apocalypse was due to the ruthless checks, verifications and discussions which took place between the USA and USSR.  Reagan's oft quoted "trust but verify" comment was the safety which permitted each side to point instantaneous nuclear annihilation at one another and still carry out meaningful diplomacy.

 

Frankly, it feels good to know we play by the rules, even if no one else does and even if no one thinks we do.

 

Cluster Munitions Policy Released
Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:57:00 -0500

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 577-08 July 09, 2008

---

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

On the Web: http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/

Media Contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public Contact: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your User Profile Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please e-mail support@govdelivery.com.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 380 Jackson Street, Suite 550 · St. Paul, MN 55101 · 1-800-439-1420

Cluster Munitions Policy Released             Today the Department of Defense released a newly approved U.S. cluster munitions policy. The United States believes that the new policy will provide better protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure following a conflict, while allowing for the retention of a legitimate and useful weapon.             Recognizing the need to minimize the unintended harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure associated with unexploded ordnance from cluster munitions, the secretary of defense has approved a new policy on cluster munitions intended to reduce the collateral effects resulting from the use of cluster munitions in pursuit of legitimate military objectives.  The new policy is the result of a year-long Department of Defense review of cluster munitions.             Cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat. They provide distinct advantages against a range of targets, where their use reduces risks to U.S. forces and can save U.S. lives. These weapons can also reduce unintended harm to civilians during combat, by producing less collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure than unitary weapons. Because future adversaries will likely use civilian shields for military targets – for example by locating a military target on the roof of an occupied building – use of unitary weapons could result in more civilian casualties and damage than cluster munitions. Blanket elimination of cluster munitions is therefore unacceptable due not only to negative military consequences but also due to potential negative consequences for civilians.              Post-combat, the impact of cluster munitions is limited in scope, scale and duration compared to other explosive remnants of war (ERW).  According to the Feb. 15, 2008, State Department white paper ("Putting the Impact of Cluster Munitions in Context with the Effects of All Explosive Remnants of War"), in 2006 fewer than 400 casualties were attributable to cluster munitions out of a global total of 5,759 reported for all ERW.             A key facet of the DoD policy establishes a new U.S. technical norm for cluster munitions, requiring that by the end of 2018, DoD will no longer use cluster munitions which, after arming, result in more than one percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments. Additionally, cluster munitions sold or transferred by DoD after 2018 must meet this standard. Any munitions in the current inventory that do not meet this standard will be unavailable for use after 2018. As soon as possible, military departments will initiate removal from active inventory cluster munitions that exceed operational planning requirements or for which there are no operational planning requirements. These excess munitions will be demilitarized as soon as practicable within available funding and industrial capacity. Effective immediately through 2018, any U.S. use of cluster munitions that do not meet the one percent unexploded ordnance standard must be approved by the applicable combatant commander. Previous DoD policy required military departments to design and procure "future" (after 2005) submunitions to a 99 percent reliability rate, but did not address use and removal of current munitions.             The new policy is viewed as a viable alternative to a complete ban proposal generated by the Oslo Process in Dublin, Ireland, last month. The new policy serves as the basis for the U.S. position in negotiations toward an international agreement at the U.N. Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW) that began on July 7. The United States has called for the completion of a new cluster munitions protocol by the end of the year. The CCW, unlike the Oslo process, includes all of the nations that produce and use cluster munitions, making any agreement reached there much more practically effective.

The face of a nation...

It is often hard to sketch out a topic with some regularity for this blog.  Ostensibly it is a military blog with items of interest to the military community.  At times it is a political blog, a skeptic’s blog, a technology blog, a gaming blog, a personal journal and once in a while it is humorous.  It is many things, but most of all it is a collection of thoughts set out for consideration. 

 

It is a source of validation for my own sanity and reason.

 

It was my birthday Saturday before last.  It was also the day that Joseph Patrick Dwyer, an Army medic, died in Pinehurst, North Carolina.  Dwyer was thirty-one years old.  A marker I have long since passed.  He is notable for many things, but will be remembered as the image of American fighting forces in Iraq.  The picture of him running with a wounded Iraqi child was a perfect representation of our armed services. 

 

His battle clad form (complete with eye glasses) topped by a visage painted with concern for the well being of a child sprinted across a war zone – seeking safety and succor for the injured boy.  He joined the Army after the events of September 11^th.  His service was recognized with the award of the Combat Medical Badge (CMB).

 

What I find most compelling about the loss of this young man is the level of sacrifice he offered to his nation, his fellow soldiers and Iraqi citizens.  There are so many messages contained in this one life that it would be worthwhile to reflect upon it in relation to our own.    

 

I spent the fourth of July in the mountains of western North Carolina.  I sat on the street in Hendersonville and watched their small parade roll past me.  There were no marching bands and only a small color guard from the American Legion at the head of the parade.  The entire parade consisted of beauty queens in convertibles, car clubs, the Salvation Army disaster truck and a trailer full of Cub Scouts.  Ironically, for the whole of the one mile route – no one was on foot.  It was a pleasant, innocent scene.  The event was a striking contrast to operations which are no doubt underway in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Later while driving to lunch, we passed a collection of Women in Black – protesting the actions of our government in this conflict (actually any conflict).  They stood outside the old courthouse and held their signs.  In their hats and tailored black dresses, they could be any collection of mature women prepared for a solemn outing.  They stood with black placards waving to the odd automobile which passed them by.  Citizen Prime offered an encouraging wave.

 

I smiled to myself.  It is only through the actions of citizens like Mr. Dwyer that we can engage this open, often painful, discourse.  It is, in fact, this very sort of sacrifice which preserves the rights of the people to question and challenge their government. 

 

Mr. Dwyer’s actions were undertaken of his own free will.  They were born of a concern for his family and his nation.  His path led him to demonstrate to the world the breadth and depth of American compassion and resolve.  Ultimately, he made the final sacrifice.  Not on the battlefield of a foreign land – but at home in the realm of the mind.  It is possible for someone to give too much of themselves, until nothing remains to sustain them. 

 

I say to those who are going or have been in harm’s way – look to your own spirit and to that of your comrades.  As much as the flesh will bear, the mind carries wounds as well.  Do not let them fester.

 

For PFC Dwyer, his war is over.  He now stands in the sacred space of those who bear the burdensome tasks of this nation, willingly and with honor.

    

 

 

Put your money where your mouth is...

the quackometer: 10,000 GBP if you can show homeopathy works



As we have just been debating in a prior post, not the lack of clothing on one Birtney Spears, but the general lack of clothing covering much of modern media.

The publishing of a challenge by Ernst and Singh in the United Kingdom seeks to draw out definitive proof of the efficacy of homeopathy. As detailed in this post - it is a challenge made by James Randi (albeit in a higher quantity). What is most interesting is the description of a major homeopathic manufacturer's allocation of funds. As a billion dollar company, Boiron has no appeciable R&D funding and yet spends more than 9 times the ratio in advertising and marketing than "traditional" pharmacological firms.

What is equally interesting is that with a little historical research, one will find many of the top pharmaceutical firms had (at one time) produced homeopathic remedies - until, one may infer - they realized that they didn't work.

Britney Spears Naked...

Cheap and pathetic experiment to attract folks to the blog. Since I can't duplicate Sonic Frog's exceptional ability to draw the attention of the Instapundit crowd, I will resort to tabloid blogging.

After all, aren't my opinions and musings worthy of huge, adoring audiences?

Actually, probably not. As I have observed in the past, blogging is one of the most self indulgent activities of the modern age. It provides the unique feeling of self-righteous confidence with the ruthless editorial ability of a Chinese newspaper. If someone comments unfavorable - zap - deleteorama!

It is remarkably satisfying to me to foist my opinions out onto my site and occassionally in the comment areas of other blogs and news sites. I routinely receive synopsis e-mails from the Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post (I can barely stand to look at this site), Forbes and others with a list of topical news and opinion stories.

A friedn of mine formerly worked for Bloomberg as a financial reporter. he is a serious journalist with some extensive experience in China and the Pacific Rim. He confides in me that the print media is in worse shape than is being reported, even by the "alternate media". There are wide spread contractions, layoffs and consolidations coming - the likes of which will alter forever our methods of seeing news and information.

Far from some vast global conspiracy to control all the news through a few easily manipulated media - we are devolving to a niche arena where good information will be provided at a high price while the rest of the world will have to contend with rumor, unsubstantiated gossip and Wikipedia.

I have nothing against Wikipedia, however, time and time again it has proven itself to be seriously flawed, subject to gross error and even outright lies. Long ago our world was linked by travelers who carried news, mail and stories from village to village. Fact was almost impossible to come by and tales evolved into myth as the stories distorted and changed over time.

It seems that we are returning to that time. The failure of a robust and reliable mass media is at hand. Lasting barely two hundred years, a free and objective press is collapsing to a network of dedicated fanaticists and the occassional "big story" discussion board.

Hmm.

Maybe there is hope for my site yet...

George Carlin...

George Carlin is dead. The perpetually grouchy king of a cynical counterculture passed away. I found much of Carlin's work decidely too negative. His humour, at times, brutally unkind. But that was the appeal of this individual.

I like comedy. It is one of the rare tools which allows all of us to reexamine our own self-importance and challenge sacred beliefs. It is a platform for common understanding - given the right joke. We all seem to be able to laugh at simple, physical humor - a favorite of Citizen Prime. But it is the subtlety which prunes the mind allowing new ideas to grow.

If we can laugh at something, we can then begin to think critically about it. We can laugh at religion, politics, gender issues, ethnicity and other topics and start to understand that these concepts and ideas are not unassailable, monolithic constructs.

There are normal frailties inherent in these beliefs. This is not to say that they are deserving of ridicule, but that having been ridiculed - do they survive or even thrive?

There have been no shortage or jokes at the expense of the Catholic church. In fact, it is probably one of the longest standing institutions which has been subject to satire. It certainly has not vanished, althoguh one could argue that the changes in the church are due, in no small part, to satire.

Both recent presidents have been the helpless vicitms of satirical attack. Clinton for his lascivious nature and Bush for his public speaking. Neither really recovered from these pointed attacks on real character flaws.

Every day I tune in to my XM satellite radio and listen to a dose of stand up comedy. Whether it is left leaning (the majority) or right (Dennis MIller being one of the few in this space) it never ceases to provide me a smile (no matter how grim) and an insight into some modern conundrum.

I expect when George arrives at his final destination, the almighty (or whomever) will pat him on the back and say;

"That seven dirty words routine was f*****g hilarious."

O Canada...

The most public case to date in the history of the Canada's Human Rights Commission is that of author Mark Steyn.  In this case, a Canadian magazine, Macleans, published an excerpt from Mark’s book America Alone.  The work is only controversial in that it points out uncomfortable facts about recent history, repeats public quotations from various figures and provides some postulations on the fate of world culture.

 

The Canadian Human Right Commission was founded by virtue of the Canadian Human Rights Act enacted in 1985.  This act is a supplement to the Canadian Constitution of 1867.  Canada has a Bill of Rights.  Despite the quotation by some in Canada that “free speech” is a uniquely American (meaning United States of America) concept.  It is codified in the Canadian Bill of Rights, adopted in 1960.  Additionally, a “freedom of the press” is also clearly detailed in the Bill of Rights, CDN. 

 

It would seem that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) original construction was a rather straightforward approach to eliminating discrimination and providing equal opportunity to all.  Somewhere it’s enforcement arm, the Human Rights Tribunal, went horribly afield.  Individuals were summarily charged with “hate speech” and brought before these tribunals, which operate outside the normal realm of due process.  In fact, under the article creating the Human Rights Tribunal (HRT), the judge is specifically not bound by rules of evidence.

 

Rules of evidence

(9) In conducting an inquiry, the judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that the judge considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case.

 

Shocking? 

 

There are some in Canada who are actively campaigning to bring the CHRC and HRT into line.  Some may have ulterior motives and I am not able to judge the legitimacy of their claims.  However, the simple fact that MPs are taking up legislative action implies that things may have gotten out of hand.

 

In the United States, a single court system handles almost all civil and criminal cases.  Lesser administrative courts, those handling discrimination, are empowered at the state or federal level and subject to further judicial review.  What is most disturbing is the general lack of concern amongst our northern neighbors.  Although no Canadian will admit to being “just like America”, both nations share similar histories and demographics.  Each nation has been a haven for immigrants and our passion for freedom, at least on paper, are nearly parallel.

 

It should be a caution for how the constraint of speech can become a suppression of speech and thus ideas and thought.  It is up to the citizens of a nation to reject clearly inflammatory, idiotic and hateful rhetoric.  It is up to the government to protect its citizens from truly egregious acts, not petty grievances cooked up by ideo-political thugs.

 

I did not speak, for they did not come for me.

 

And when they did, there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

Fathers day...

June 15, 2008

 

Dear Dad,

 

Let me wish you a happy father’s day.  I expect this letter will arrive a little late, but no matter.  Just as some people proclaim that every day should be Christmas, perhaps every day we should honor our parents, especially our fathers.  In a world where the inherent qualities of being a man are continually challenged, the role of father has changed dramatically in the last half century.  No longer do we live most of our lives in small villages, drawing our existence from the lands around us.  We now are interconnected across the globe.  Citizens of the modern, industrialized world may live their lives with little real connection to their heritage or the planet upon which they live. 

 

There is some risk in disconnecting so completely from our past.  We put at hazard the values and principals which allowed us to develop a civil and respectful society.  The ignorance of our history will, in fact, doom us to repeat it.  This oft bandied cliché has more truth within it than it is credited.  And so to parents fall the responsibility of imparting the best aspects of history and experience while avoiding those darker elements which lurk within all human existence.  They take on this task with the hope that their children will emerge better, smarter and more honest than themselves.

 

For a mother, the roles have been clear since the dawn of time.  It is one which has changed little and is likely to remain steady for time to come.  For a father, the duty is not as evident.  And yet it is as unshakably continuous as the role of a mother.  It is my belief that the primary role of the father is to impart those values which encourage integrity, strength and mercy.  It is the place of the father to encourage self-reliance in his children and an understanding of the events and experiences which preceded their entry into the world. 

 

Parents, by virtue of being so, have engaged in a compact requiring sacrifice.  They have, knowingly or not, undertaken a task from which there is no release.  Some do not understand this great gift and burden.  The prospect of shepherding a young life into the fullness of adulthood does not always reveal itself to a parent as an honor.  It is viewed as an unwelcome task or trivialized by those who fail to grasp the awesome obligation inherent in raising children.

 

My childhood was not viewed trivially.  I was blessed by parents who understood and acted in the best interests of their children and honored the commitment to their own virtues.  In particular, my father demonstrated to me the value of sacrifice, honesty and courage.  It was he who imparted to me a respect for history along with a passion to improve upon it.  All of this was done with love.  It was an unconditional love I felt and shared among my brother and sister.  It is a love which endures regardless of the occasional hardships life offers us all. 

 

We tend to romanticize our memories about the past.  It is natural to want to believe the best about the things which comprise who we are.  And we are, indeed, the product of our experiences.  Somehow we become the sum of all the people whom we have known.  It is, therefore, imperative that we look for the best in those people in order to add the best to ourselves.  And thus, each parent must offer their best to their children.   Those children will carry with them whatever is offered, good or bad. 

 

I feel that obligation as I look at each of my sons.  I ask myself each day if I am offering them my best.  As a father I wonder what lessons they are learning from me.  Will they be kind?  Honest?  Strong?  Will they value knowledge and respect others, simply for their humanity?  Will they value and understand sacrifice?  If I can impart to them only a little of what my father gave to me, then I know they will be well.  And I will know that I have been a good father, as my father was before me.

 

Love,

 

    

Machinations...

A US citizen is under arrest in Singapore for "insulting a public servant". This after comments he made about a judge "prostituting herself" on his blog. He then traveled to Singapore and taunted the local authorities online, including the location of his hotel and phone number. Singapore is one of those interesting locations which relies upon social conformity in the extreme and exhibits very conservative behavior. It is also essentially a city state that relies on the good graces of its neighbors to remain independent.

I wonder how this case will affect, if at all, international law? Does an individual have the right to free speech? Does a nation have a right to impose arbitrarily restrictive rules on individuals' expressions? We will see how open China has become during the forthcoming Olympic games. For all the hand wringing of multi-culturalists and moral relativists, there is little commentary on nation's or cultures which impose sanctions on classes of people. None of the left decries the lack of freedoms for women in Islamic cultures nor does the right spend enough time cataloging the abuses of repressive regimes like China and Burma (Myanmar).

I wonder if they are simply prostituting themselves to their own vested interests.

I think I'll stay away from Singapore for a few months.