The IDF's operational forum will discuss a procedure which stipulates that the abduction of living soldiers must be prevented at any cost later this week in the backdrop of the Shalit prisoner exchange deal, Yedioth Ahronoth reported.
Since Shalit was released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners Hamas has stressed that it will attempt to kidnap more soldiers in order to bring about the release of the remaining Palestinians held in Israel.
The IDF estimates the threat is concrete and has therefore briefed commanders on a series of preliminary actions which can help prevent kidnappings. IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has also ordered that the commanders learn ways to actively thwart kidnappings, even at the expense of the kidnapped soldier's life.
There will be different opinions on this to say the least, but here's my $0.02: if it was me getting snatched by any of these groups (pretty much any group, really) I'd want my people to shoot the fuckers and I'd take my chances with that. Your odds of survival aren't great if taken, and I'd be damned if I'd be put in a position where hundreds of murderers could be exchanged for me. Besides, you might get lucky and only the bad guys get hit. Those odds are slim, but in that circumstance I'd take them. It's that or:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
Wednesday 26 October 2011
Monday 24 October 2011
Talibanistan and the Line of Death
I formed my opinions of Afghanistan well before I went there, but I didn't see anything which changed my mind about how to deal with the place. Michael Yon has spent far more time and ranged much more broadly there than I have/ever will and in the linked article he brings up the same point that I was advocating five years ago.
I called it "Talibanistan", but it was really about maximising return on our efforts. The more bad guys there are in the population, and the more support they have, the more it will be a lethal rats' nest for our troops and development workers. There is in Afghanistan a rather obvious dividing line (several in fact) between people who support the "Taliban" and people who will not.
Sectarianism is usually a bad thing, but there are a lot of examples from history which show how it can be used to achieve an aim. The aim admittedly is usually "divide and conquer", but the principles work just as well for "unite and secure".
Birds of feather do indeed flock together, and if the "feather" is not wanting to live under repressive religious thugs, there are a lot of those people in most parts of A-stan. There are a lot of those same people however who have ties of blood and/or culture to the Taliban et al, and in this case that would be the Pashtun. Not all Pashtun are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtun, so you have a ready-made dividing line. This line tallies pretty well with the southern provinces that ISAF hs been fighting and dying in for the last 10 years, so a "Line of Death" would be pretty simple to come up with.
The key element to make this work is to ensure that the rump Afghanistan encompasses contiguous populations who are inimical to the Taliban. This means the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras as a start. The map here provides a rough idea, and this one of the Northern Alliance (vs. the Taliban in 1996) correlates very well, although the Hazara regions were overrun.
This of course would lead to a large area of the Pakistani NW Frontier and Southern Afghanistan being written off, but ask yourself what difference that would make in the big picture. The place is already not controlled in any way, we're just playing high-(and low)tech whack-a-mole with a bunch of Pakistan-supported badasses all through the south and east. Shift the borders of what we'll concern ourselves with (if we even continue to do so) and we shift the goalposts toward a win for somebody as opposed to a loss for everyone.
This is the point of Michael's article; there are people there who want our help (I've met them too) who won't try to kill us as we deliver it. These are the people over there (if anybody) that we should try to help, because they'll fight with us to defend their communities and projects.
As for my "Line of Death", the proposed border? I wouldn't want to consign civilized Pashtuns to the brutish rule of the Taliban (and the Haqqani Network, etc.) so it would be a mutable border. From a stable base the Pashtun territory could be absorbed in discrete "bites" working outward until too much resistance was reached, then the border Hesco fortresses go up. Those would be manned by Afghans with drones flying patrol and some bombers and SF teams on call. The"Line of Death" name isn't meant to be figurative: cross it with a weapon or try to sneak across, you die.
This blog is called "Arithmetic on the Frontier" for a reason; there are diminishing returns with everything, and nation building is no exception. After the 10 years we've been mucking about in the place there are still lots of "no-go" areas (Helmand, Zari, Panjwai, etc.); if we're not going to completely cut and run we'll need to cut our losses. I'm sure quiet parts of Afghanistan would appreciate some help,and our money wouldn't be going down the drain like when the Taliban blows up our schools and irrigation projects in the less-friendly parts.
My bottom line? Screw the villages that we get blown up patrolling; there's nothing there that we (or the Americans) need, and if you really want to dent the opium trade, spray the damned poppy fields. My prediction? China will move in and do (something like) this if we don't. If they don't, the place will carry on much like it is.
I called it "Talibanistan", but it was really about maximising return on our efforts. The more bad guys there are in the population, and the more support they have, the more it will be a lethal rats' nest for our troops and development workers. There is in Afghanistan a rather obvious dividing line (several in fact) between people who support the "Taliban" and people who will not.
Sectarianism is usually a bad thing, but there are a lot of examples from history which show how it can be used to achieve an aim. The aim admittedly is usually "divide and conquer", but the principles work just as well for "unite and secure".
Birds of feather do indeed flock together, and if the "feather" is not wanting to live under repressive religious thugs, there are a lot of those people in most parts of A-stan. There are a lot of those same people however who have ties of blood and/or culture to the Taliban et al, and in this case that would be the Pashtun. Not all Pashtun are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtun, so you have a ready-made dividing line. This line tallies pretty well with the southern provinces that ISAF hs been fighting and dying in for the last 10 years, so a "Line of Death" would be pretty simple to come up with.
The key element to make this work is to ensure that the rump Afghanistan encompasses contiguous populations who are inimical to the Taliban. This means the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras as a start. The map here provides a rough idea, and this one of the Northern Alliance (vs. the Taliban in 1996) correlates very well, although the Hazara regions were overrun.
This of course would lead to a large area of the Pakistani NW Frontier and Southern Afghanistan being written off, but ask yourself what difference that would make in the big picture. The place is already not controlled in any way, we're just playing high-(and low)tech whack-a-mole with a bunch of Pakistan-supported badasses all through the south and east. Shift the borders of what we'll concern ourselves with (if we even continue to do so) and we shift the goalposts toward a win for somebody as opposed to a loss for everyone.
This is the point of Michael's article; there are people there who want our help (I've met them too) who won't try to kill us as we deliver it. These are the people over there (if anybody) that we should try to help, because they'll fight with us to defend their communities and projects.
As for my "Line of Death", the proposed border? I wouldn't want to consign civilized Pashtuns to the brutish rule of the Taliban (and the Haqqani Network, etc.) so it would be a mutable border. From a stable base the Pashtun territory could be absorbed in discrete "bites" working outward until too much resistance was reached, then the border Hesco fortresses go up. Those would be manned by Afghans with drones flying patrol and some bombers and SF teams on call. The"Line of Death" name isn't meant to be figurative: cross it with a weapon or try to sneak across, you die.
This blog is called "Arithmetic on the Frontier" for a reason; there are diminishing returns with everything, and nation building is no exception. After the 10 years we've been mucking about in the place there are still lots of "no-go" areas (Helmand, Zari, Panjwai, etc.); if we're not going to completely cut and run we'll need to cut our losses. I'm sure quiet parts of Afghanistan would appreciate some help,and our money wouldn't be going down the drain like when the Taliban blows up our schools and irrigation projects in the less-friendly parts.
My bottom line? Screw the villages that we get blown up patrolling; there's nothing there that we (or the Americans) need, and if you really want to dent the opium trade, spray the damned poppy fields. My prediction? China will move in and do (something like) this if we don't. If they don't, the place will carry on much like it is.
Thursday 20 October 2011
If you're so eager to die...
By Adrian Blomfield, Gaza City and Richard Spencer in Mitzpe Hila
11:13PM BST 19 Oct 2011
An unsuccessful suicide bomber released from prison as part of the deal to free Gilad Shalit, the Israeli conscript, on Wednesday vowed to fulfil a childhood ambition by "sacrificing" her life for the Palestinian cause.
As she returned to her family home in northern Gaza, Wafa al-Bis insisted she would seize any opportunity to mount another suicide mission and encouraged dozens of cheering schoolchildren to follow her example.
When the first of these released idiots kills someone there will be a hell of an uproar in Israel, but there is plenty of "I told you so" to go around.
What I would really like to see out of all of this is a compelling reason NOT to bulldoze the entire Gaza Strip into the sea and start over. I know it's not an isolated incident, but when children are raised to revere people blowing themselves up, I see that as a problem, to put it mildly. Another Operation Cast Lead would be a good start, and would send a message that the only representative democracy in the Middle East still has a will to survive after this ridiculous prisoner swap.
11:13PM BST 19 Oct 2011
An unsuccessful suicide bomber released from prison as part of the deal to free Gilad Shalit, the Israeli conscript, on Wednesday vowed to fulfil a childhood ambition by "sacrificing" her life for the Palestinian cause.
As she returned to her family home in northern Gaza, Wafa al-Bis insisted she would seize any opportunity to mount another suicide mission and encouraged dozens of cheering schoolchildren to follow her example.
When the first of these released idiots kills someone there will be a hell of an uproar in Israel, but there is plenty of "I told you so" to go around.
What I would really like to see out of all of this is a compelling reason NOT to bulldoze the entire Gaza Strip into the sea and start over. I know it's not an isolated incident, but when children are raised to revere people blowing themselves up, I see that as a problem, to put it mildly. Another Operation Cast Lead would be a good start, and would send a message that the only representative democracy in the Middle East still has a will to survive after this ridiculous prisoner swap.
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Cradle to grave of civilization
I never spent a lot of time here (or anywhere else) talking about the US foray into Iraq, but it's now all but over.
Washington and Baghdad's failure to agree on a troop-extension deal means that virtually all of the 43,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq will stream out of the country over the next six weeks, bringing a quiet end to a conflict that began with so much bombast.
Radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has called for public rallies on Jan. 1 to celebrate the U.S. withdrawal, but the idea hasn't gained much traction with other Iraqi political leaders. For now, there are no formal ceremonies planned in Iraq to mark the end of the U.S.-led mission there or to commemorate the thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in the conflict.
Going in there to "fix" the place seemed like a bad idea to me the first time in 90/91, and this bit of regime change was poorly conceived and badly bungled (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Mr Bremer!) My take in '91 was that if you removed Saddam you'd just have to find another guy like him. Of course, after the Iran revolution in 1979 Saddam became one of "our" bastards to contain the mullahs, and after a smacking back into place he could occupy that position again.
I doubt my analysis was that complete back then, but my take on what is required to run your average (mostly) Arab country was within spitting distance of reality. The near-term result of the last eight years of carnage and displacement is to have upset the entire balance of power in the Gulf area, and I read it as follows:
Removing the Baathist/Sunni hold on Iraq has handed it to the Shia, and thus into the back pocket of Iran. This removes the Saudis' main bulwark against Iran and throws the entire Gulf Cooperation Council into a tizzy (approved diplomatic terminology abounds here). The salutary effect of that is for the Saudis to start being part of the solution to the overall terrorist problem instead of creating monsters and loosing them across the world.
So far, could be worse. I have remarked previously about how it is evident that the interests of the House of Saud and those of Israel are increasingly convergent. This comes at a time when Egypt has become more actively hostile to Israel than it has been in over 30 years, and Turkey has thrown it's good relations with the Israelis under the bus. Turkey will probably conflict with Iran, which with Syria tottering will put a brake on Hezbollah in Lebanon, shifting the geopolitical balance again. Look for naval clashes in the Med, specifically off Cyprus between Turkey and Israel.
The Americans will probably back Israel up against Turkey, and as long as they do turkey will probably behave, but the sabres are rattling ominously. With the disengagement from Iraq, and probably another from Afghanistan in the near future, I can't predict what that will mean in the Near and Middle East, but Mrs. Clinton's arrival today in Libya and Obama's announcement of advisors to Uganda to sort out the Lord's Resistance Army may suggest more Africa and less Gulf/Central Asia.
We'll see what fills the partial vacuum which will be left by the US withdrawal from Iraq; resurgent Persian or Ottoman Empire? Both? Neither? Whatever happens, the Sunni Arab bloc is on the ropes in that neighbourhood. The Saudis still have lots of cash though...
Washington and Baghdad's failure to agree on a troop-extension deal means that virtually all of the 43,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq will stream out of the country over the next six weeks, bringing a quiet end to a conflict that began with so much bombast.
Radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has called for public rallies on Jan. 1 to celebrate the U.S. withdrawal, but the idea hasn't gained much traction with other Iraqi political leaders. For now, there are no formal ceremonies planned in Iraq to mark the end of the U.S.-led mission there or to commemorate the thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in the conflict.
Going in there to "fix" the place seemed like a bad idea to me the first time in 90/91, and this bit of regime change was poorly conceived and badly bungled (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Mr Bremer!) My take in '91 was that if you removed Saddam you'd just have to find another guy like him. Of course, after the Iran revolution in 1979 Saddam became one of "our" bastards to contain the mullahs, and after a smacking back into place he could occupy that position again.
I doubt my analysis was that complete back then, but my take on what is required to run your average (mostly) Arab country was within spitting distance of reality. The near-term result of the last eight years of carnage and displacement is to have upset the entire balance of power in the Gulf area, and I read it as follows:
Removing the Baathist/Sunni hold on Iraq has handed it to the Shia, and thus into the back pocket of Iran. This removes the Saudis' main bulwark against Iran and throws the entire Gulf Cooperation Council into a tizzy (approved diplomatic terminology abounds here). The salutary effect of that is for the Saudis to start being part of the solution to the overall terrorist problem instead of creating monsters and loosing them across the world.
So far, could be worse. I have remarked previously about how it is evident that the interests of the House of Saud and those of Israel are increasingly convergent. This comes at a time when Egypt has become more actively hostile to Israel than it has been in over 30 years, and Turkey has thrown it's good relations with the Israelis under the bus. Turkey will probably conflict with Iran, which with Syria tottering will put a brake on Hezbollah in Lebanon, shifting the geopolitical balance again. Look for naval clashes in the Med, specifically off Cyprus between Turkey and Israel.
The Americans will probably back Israel up against Turkey, and as long as they do turkey will probably behave, but the sabres are rattling ominously. With the disengagement from Iraq, and probably another from Afghanistan in the near future, I can't predict what that will mean in the Near and Middle East, but Mrs. Clinton's arrival today in Libya and Obama's announcement of advisors to Uganda to sort out the Lord's Resistance Army may suggest more Africa and less Gulf/Central Asia.
We'll see what fills the partial vacuum which will be left by the US withdrawal from Iraq; resurgent Persian or Ottoman Empire? Both? Neither? Whatever happens, the Sunni Arab bloc is on the ropes in that neighbourhood. The Saudis still have lots of cash though...
Monday 17 October 2011
Keystone Quixote
With the Occupy *.* protests going in fits and starts all over North America, I will come back to what I threatened to talk about a little while ago. Specifically that's the Keystone XL pipeline project and more generally, geopolitical energy policy.
Oil is messy stuff; you'll get no arguments from me on the basics. There have been and will be leaks in pipelines all over the world (less when people aren't actively breaching them) so the environmental concerns are not to be dismissed. I do however have some sympathy for those who complain that the facts are being distorted by "celebrity protesters". To try to put this in perspective to facilitate a less fraught risk assessment, let's zoom way out and start from there:
We (and this includes the USA) need petroleum in many forms and we need lots of it. Even if/when we get to the point where we can stop burning it (I hope to live that long at least) we will still need it to make things, and it will need to be transported. Moving as much of the transportation and generation grid (big trucks, power plants etc.) over to natural gas will help to reduce the amount of oil which will be sloshing around the continent, and we have lots of NG so supply will be "merely" logistics. LNG likes to explode if you're careless with it, but it's not much of a spill risk unless it lands on you (really REALLY cold). Although not as completely pollution free as Hydrogen, it's far easier to work with. There remains the thermodynamically inescapable fact that petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.) have a much higher energy density than you can get from propane, methane et al, and there's the infrastructure cost of providing places for these vehicles to fuel, so oil is not going away just yet.
So the oil needs to come from somewhere, and the Oil Sands are close and friendly to the US. This is as opposed to (for example) Venezuela which is arguably closer, depending on the refinery, but not (presently) friendly and we're talking tankers. While I'm on the subject of tankers, they don't seem to be the menace you'd assume them to be, but they get a lot of press due to the impressive swath of oily mess they cause. Leaky pipelines are typically unspectacular, although your groundwater may feel differently. This brings us back to the NIMBY problem which brought this to you today, and the current US administration's hostility to "Drill, baby, drill!"
Countries have no permanent Friends and no permanent Enemies, only permanent Interests. I really don't want to think too much about what happens if Canada is no longer friends with the US (although the words Manifest Destiny pop into my head), but if their money has to go somewhere, at least they can be certain we're not financing terrorist groups with it. They need Oil, and we have oil, so it should work out. However if it doesn't, China ALSO needs oil; if the Americans get too wrapped around the axle about how "dirty" the oil is, I'll happily sell to whoever wants to buy.
Economics are a permanent Interest for all concerned. Well, not all; those protesters (especially the "celebrity" ones) have a very narrow focus and keeping the economy moving is not part of it. This is the crux of the issue, balance and Risk Assessment. In the "pro" column is security of supply. In the "con" there is cost and environmental risk. "Con" is here as objective as possible and takes ideology out of it as much as possible; in this day and age ignoring the environmental potential of something is not an option, but the number of variables that encompasses is a matter of ideology.
How this balances out depends (as always) on where you put the weight. Since I have no skin in the game I come down on the side of "build it", assuming that it is done properly. This is for simple geopolitical and economic reasons, both serviced by the "pro", and my caveats cover (to my satisfaction) the "con". I realize that you will feel differently if it's going through your fields or aquifer and I have no pat response to that, but Darryl Hanna and the rest of them still annoy me, mostly because it's another bandwagon for them.
Here's some more of my ideology at work: all of this is happening because nuclear energy has not been supported and developed. Tripling the output of conventional fission plants could provide all of the energy the US currently gets from coal, accomplishing Obama's goal of driving coal plants out of business and cutting way back on pollution. The current fetish of blaming CO2 for all that's wrong in the world would be satisfied by that, and if they got some thorium action going they could take fossil fuels out of the generation sector entirely while ensuring domestic control of reliable energy. There'd be a boom in construction as well.
Of course this does nothing about the need to move crude to refineries, but abundant and cheap electricity could (with improved battery tech) make electric vehicles more practical, reducing the need for petrol. All of this and no need for ugly noisy unreliable wind turbines cluttering the landscape; try that, H. Boone Pickens .
Oil is messy stuff; you'll get no arguments from me on the basics. There have been and will be leaks in pipelines all over the world (less when people aren't actively breaching them) so the environmental concerns are not to be dismissed. I do however have some sympathy for those who complain that the facts are being distorted by "celebrity protesters". To try to put this in perspective to facilitate a less fraught risk assessment, let's zoom way out and start from there:
We (and this includes the USA) need petroleum in many forms and we need lots of it. Even if/when we get to the point where we can stop burning it (I hope to live that long at least) we will still need it to make things, and it will need to be transported. Moving as much of the transportation and generation grid (big trucks, power plants etc.) over to natural gas will help to reduce the amount of oil which will be sloshing around the continent, and we have lots of NG so supply will be "merely" logistics. LNG likes to explode if you're careless with it, but it's not much of a spill risk unless it lands on you (really REALLY cold). Although not as completely pollution free as Hydrogen, it's far easier to work with. There remains the thermodynamically inescapable fact that petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.) have a much higher energy density than you can get from propane, methane et al, and there's the infrastructure cost of providing places for these vehicles to fuel, so oil is not going away just yet.
So the oil needs to come from somewhere, and the Oil Sands are close and friendly to the US. This is as opposed to (for example) Venezuela which is arguably closer, depending on the refinery, but not (presently) friendly and we're talking tankers. While I'm on the subject of tankers, they don't seem to be the menace you'd assume them to be, but they get a lot of press due to the impressive swath of oily mess they cause. Leaky pipelines are typically unspectacular, although your groundwater may feel differently. This brings us back to the NIMBY problem which brought this to you today, and the current US administration's hostility to "Drill, baby, drill!"
Countries have no permanent Friends and no permanent Enemies, only permanent Interests. I really don't want to think too much about what happens if Canada is no longer friends with the US (although the words Manifest Destiny pop into my head), but if their money has to go somewhere, at least they can be certain we're not financing terrorist groups with it. They need Oil, and we have oil, so it should work out. However if it doesn't, China ALSO needs oil; if the Americans get too wrapped around the axle about how "dirty" the oil is, I'll happily sell to whoever wants to buy.
Economics are a permanent Interest for all concerned. Well, not all; those protesters (especially the "celebrity" ones) have a very narrow focus and keeping the economy moving is not part of it. This is the crux of the issue, balance and Risk Assessment. In the "pro" column is security of supply. In the "con" there is cost and environmental risk. "Con" is here as objective as possible and takes ideology out of it as much as possible; in this day and age ignoring the environmental potential of something is not an option, but the number of variables that encompasses is a matter of ideology.
How this balances out depends (as always) on where you put the weight. Since I have no skin in the game I come down on the side of "build it", assuming that it is done properly. This is for simple geopolitical and economic reasons, both serviced by the "pro", and my caveats cover (to my satisfaction) the "con". I realize that you will feel differently if it's going through your fields or aquifer and I have no pat response to that, but Darryl Hanna and the rest of them still annoy me, mostly because it's another bandwagon for them.
Here's some more of my ideology at work: all of this is happening because nuclear energy has not been supported and developed. Tripling the output of conventional fission plants could provide all of the energy the US currently gets from coal, accomplishing Obama's goal of driving coal plants out of business and cutting way back on pollution. The current fetish of blaming CO2 for all that's wrong in the world would be satisfied by that, and if they got some thorium action going they could take fossil fuels out of the generation sector entirely while ensuring domestic control of reliable energy. There'd be a boom in construction as well.
Of course this does nothing about the need to move crude to refineries, but abundant and cheap electricity could (with improved battery tech) make electric vehicles more practical, reducing the need for petrol. All of this and no need for ugly noisy unreliable wind turbines cluttering the landscape; try that, H. Boone Pickens .
Thursday 13 October 2011
Who will bell the curve?
"The future of the nation depends on being able to educate the top 10% of the population and to civilize the rest. We are not doing a very good job of either task." Jerry Pournelle PhD, Oct 2011
This is quote taken completely out of context, but it refers to the horrible state of American education at all levels. I won't be smug about that for two reasons; one, we're not much ahead of them in our system and results, and two, 300M+ uneducated cretins on our southern border is cause for significant concern.
Now that "top 10%" thing. Anybody who believes that all people are created equal is an imbecile, and it is a simple fact that we are not all equally gifted in all areas. I might say "top 20%" but it depends what we're talking about when we say "educate".
When I was in high school, if you had any academic potential at all you were pushed toward University, and at the same time they were cancelling the Shop classes for the more mechanically minded. In the former case getting a Trade wasn't even mentioned, and in the latter, the possibility was taken away, or at least not facilitated.
I read a lot of science fiction (and I live here, now), so the challenges of the post-industrial economy are not a complete mystery to me. A particularly dystopian future has arrived however, as the cost of post-secondary education has increased radically at the same time that rampant credentialism has made it essential to a decent job. A whole lot of people (I've been in class with them) who had no business graduating high school with the academic deficiencies they displayed are pushed or guided to university.
Some drop out, but many more take "easy" Arts degrees simply to get the "credentials" essential to open the door to white collar work. I'm not a fan of Social Sciences in terms of accomplishing anything useful, so we can write off all of those degrees as "High School +" diplomas.
That was provocative, but I have an "Arts" degree, and it was mainly the science electives which taught me things useful for anything other than arguing with people, so I stand by it. At a time when the Public Service is swinging the axe around, that Psych or English degree isn't going to open a lot of doors for you.
That said, the "10%" in this case are the brightest people we have, and who will disproportionately innovate, create and generally not be worker bees. They are the people who can do the Calculus for that Science degree, and more importantly, they UNDERSTAND it and can use it for stuff. I can write but I can't do that, so if I even make that 10% I'd be right at the bottom.
The point here is that gearing your education system to achieve the same result for all will hold bright kids back far more than it will advance dull ones, average kids being fairly comfortable. Advances are created by an elite of humanity, the smart ones who can do stuff. Gadgets, innovations and improvements can come from a wider range, but still most of them will come from the top tier. Making a lot of money is certainly NOT limited to those of "gifted" intelligence, so there's hope for the rest of us.
As for "civilizing" the other 90%? Education with purpose, to enable you to function in society, get a trade, start a business, understand what's happening in the world and roughly why, that should be the goal. When you force square pegs into other-shaped holes you encounter resistance, and that should be avoided as far as practical. Giving students positive but appropriate (to them) options should be the job of our education system.
This is quote taken completely out of context, but it refers to the horrible state of American education at all levels. I won't be smug about that for two reasons; one, we're not much ahead of them in our system and results, and two, 300M+ uneducated cretins on our southern border is cause for significant concern.
Now that "top 10%" thing. Anybody who believes that all people are created equal is an imbecile, and it is a simple fact that we are not all equally gifted in all areas. I might say "top 20%" but it depends what we're talking about when we say "educate".
When I was in high school, if you had any academic potential at all you were pushed toward University, and at the same time they were cancelling the Shop classes for the more mechanically minded. In the former case getting a Trade wasn't even mentioned, and in the latter, the possibility was taken away, or at least not facilitated.
I read a lot of science fiction (and I live here, now), so the challenges of the post-industrial economy are not a complete mystery to me. A particularly dystopian future has arrived however, as the cost of post-secondary education has increased radically at the same time that rampant credentialism has made it essential to a decent job. A whole lot of people (I've been in class with them) who had no business graduating high school with the academic deficiencies they displayed are pushed or guided to university.
Some drop out, but many more take "easy" Arts degrees simply to get the "credentials" essential to open the door to white collar work. I'm not a fan of Social Sciences in terms of accomplishing anything useful, so we can write off all of those degrees as "High School +" diplomas.
That was provocative, but I have an "Arts" degree, and it was mainly the science electives which taught me things useful for anything other than arguing with people, so I stand by it. At a time when the Public Service is swinging the axe around, that Psych or English degree isn't going to open a lot of doors for you.
That said, the "10%" in this case are the brightest people we have, and who will disproportionately innovate, create and generally not be worker bees. They are the people who can do the Calculus for that Science degree, and more importantly, they UNDERSTAND it and can use it for stuff. I can write but I can't do that, so if I even make that 10% I'd be right at the bottom.
The point here is that gearing your education system to achieve the same result for all will hold bright kids back far more than it will advance dull ones, average kids being fairly comfortable. Advances are created by an elite of humanity, the smart ones who can do stuff. Gadgets, innovations and improvements can come from a wider range, but still most of them will come from the top tier. Making a lot of money is certainly NOT limited to those of "gifted" intelligence, so there's hope for the rest of us.
As for "civilizing" the other 90%? Education with purpose, to enable you to function in society, get a trade, start a business, understand what's happening in the world and roughly why, that should be the goal. When you force square pegs into other-shaped holes you encounter resistance, and that should be avoided as far as practical. Giving students positive but appropriate (to them) options should be the job of our education system.
Wednesday 12 October 2011
Backpay's a bitch
The deal was announced on Tuesday by the Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
Under the terms, more than 1,000 Palestinians and Sgt Shalit, held since 2006, will be freed, beginning in days.
As much as I have no wish to extend Sergeant (he was a Corporal when captured if memory serves) Shalit's captivity (or worse), I can reduce the wisdom of this exchange to this simple axiom: anything which gets Islamic idiots dancing in the streets is not a good thing.
The Israelis have in the past repatriated remains at an unfavourable exchange rate, so it's not a profound shock that they would do this. The only strategic upside I see to this is that there will be 1000 Hamas idiots more out of the Israeli prison system where they can do something that will get them killed, so we have that to look forward to. Otherwise, this is pretty bleak.
The precedent this sets is terrible, but the Israelis have obviously decided it was the best of a bad situation. I don't presume to have anything to teach the Israelis about dealing with their part of the world, but the calculus of this deal values the life (freedom) of one accidentally famous soldier over that of all of the people that these released terrorists and criminals will subsequently endanger.
True, there was never a shortage of Palestinian misanthropes to lob rockets into or snatch more people out of Israel, so it's possible that this doesn't elevate the threat in the area, at least not in the big picture. I just hope that the IDF will be allowed off the leash enough to provide some disproportionate riposte to any Hamas celebratory violence. You might as well kill a lot of their fighters; the exchange rate is 1000-1. Hopefully Gilad spends some of his backpay on a nice vacation.
Under the terms, more than 1,000 Palestinians and Sgt Shalit, held since 2006, will be freed, beginning in days.
As much as I have no wish to extend Sergeant (he was a Corporal when captured if memory serves) Shalit's captivity (or worse), I can reduce the wisdom of this exchange to this simple axiom: anything which gets Islamic idiots dancing in the streets is not a good thing.
The Israelis have in the past repatriated remains at an unfavourable exchange rate, so it's not a profound shock that they would do this. The only strategic upside I see to this is that there will be 1000 Hamas idiots more out of the Israeli prison system where they can do something that will get them killed, so we have that to look forward to. Otherwise, this is pretty bleak.
The precedent this sets is terrible, but the Israelis have obviously decided it was the best of a bad situation. I don't presume to have anything to teach the Israelis about dealing with their part of the world, but the calculus of this deal values the life (freedom) of one accidentally famous soldier over that of all of the people that these released terrorists and criminals will subsequently endanger.
True, there was never a shortage of Palestinian misanthropes to lob rockets into or snatch more people out of Israel, so it's possible that this doesn't elevate the threat in the area, at least not in the big picture. I just hope that the IDF will be allowed off the leash enough to provide some disproportionate riposte to any Hamas celebratory violence. You might as well kill a lot of their fighters; the exchange rate is 1000-1. Hopefully Gilad spends some of his backpay on a nice vacation.
Saturday 8 October 2011
Down with the evil everythings, or something.
There is more to say about the trend of these events, but this is a good start:
These "Occupy Wall St" things are dragging out and starting to propagate, but it eludes me, and any thoughtful commentators I've seen, what precisely these people want.
Some visitors here get the superficial impression that I'm a big booster of capitalism, corporations etc. This is superficially true, as I am a fan of progress, and innovation is best fostered in a competitive environment. Profits are a good and necessary part of doing business, and making money makes your life better, or at least you have less pressing things to worry about than if you'll eat this week or how to replace your or your children's worn out clothes.
Greed however is still greed, and I must concur that it should be classed as a sin, or in a secular world, a character flaw. I have a serious problem with companies which are "Too Big to Fail", and avoiding that sort of thing is why monopoly and anti-trust laws were created and enforced.
So, if this was some sort of grassroots campaign to restore some balance in banking and corporate law I could get behind that. However, it seems to be an incoherent hodge-podge of disaffected "progressives" and anarchists out to disrupt and occupy other peoples' property. This sort of disregard for private property I have a serious problem with, especially when it seems to be for no useful reason.
Action without purpose is chaos, and there is enough of that in the universe with out us adding to it. Civilization, especially technological civilization, is about resisting entropy, not encouraging it. The TEA Party had an agenda: too much government means too many taxes, therefore they want less bureaucracy and smaller government. This is coherent, and despite the obsession of lefty media and individuals of accentuating the kooks at the margins of this inherently conservative movement it has had political success.
The same lefties are falling over themselves to praise the "Occupation" (at least when Israel's not doing it) but I can't see this going anywhere, except geographically. The Democrats in the US are now looking to see if they can do some sort of TEA Party thing with these rallies, but they already got their dream candidate in office for four disappointing years. I don't know what they could mould out of this to replace that bid for Hope and Change, but if it's even possible it would be a political Frankenstein.
That makes me think about the whole Keystone XL pipeline imbroglio, so perhaps (no promises) I'll look at that next time.
These "Occupy Wall St" things are dragging out and starting to propagate, but it eludes me, and any thoughtful commentators I've seen, what precisely these people want.
Some visitors here get the superficial impression that I'm a big booster of capitalism, corporations etc. This is superficially true, as I am a fan of progress, and innovation is best fostered in a competitive environment. Profits are a good and necessary part of doing business, and making money makes your life better, or at least you have less pressing things to worry about than if you'll eat this week or how to replace your or your children's worn out clothes.
Greed however is still greed, and I must concur that it should be classed as a sin, or in a secular world, a character flaw. I have a serious problem with companies which are "Too Big to Fail", and avoiding that sort of thing is why monopoly and anti-trust laws were created and enforced.
So, if this was some sort of grassroots campaign to restore some balance in banking and corporate law I could get behind that. However, it seems to be an incoherent hodge-podge of disaffected "progressives" and anarchists out to disrupt and occupy other peoples' property. This sort of disregard for private property I have a serious problem with, especially when it seems to be for no useful reason.
Action without purpose is chaos, and there is enough of that in the universe with out us adding to it. Civilization, especially technological civilization, is about resisting entropy, not encouraging it. The TEA Party had an agenda: too much government means too many taxes, therefore they want less bureaucracy and smaller government. This is coherent, and despite the obsession of lefty media and individuals of accentuating the kooks at the margins of this inherently conservative movement it has had political success.
The same lefties are falling over themselves to praise the "Occupation" (at least when Israel's not doing it) but I can't see this going anywhere, except geographically. The Democrats in the US are now looking to see if they can do some sort of TEA Party thing with these rallies, but they already got their dream candidate in office for four disappointing years. I don't know what they could mould out of this to replace that bid for Hope and Change, but if it's even possible it would be a political Frankenstein.
That makes me think about the whole Keystone XL pipeline imbroglio, so perhaps (no promises) I'll look at that next time.
Wednesday 5 October 2011
How's the new look?
I tried and rejected the new Blogger interface for posting things (old one much more intuitive for me), but I succumbed yesterday to the "Dynamic View" you see now. I can take it or leave it, so if any of you have strong opinions about the presentation of my ramblings (as unlikely as that is) please let me know.
"In and out clever" ad infinitum
Christopher Hitchens is a writer very much out of my league (even when I don't agree with him), but today I will shamelessly pillage one of his columns for my own purposes. Specifically, I will begin with the end of his piece:
Human history seems to register many more years of conflict than of tranquillity. In one sense, then, it is fatuous to whine that war is endless. We do have certain permanent enemies—the totalitarian state; the nihilist/terrorist cell—with which "peace" is neither possible nor desirable. Acknowledging this, and preparing for it, might give us some advantages in a war that seems destined to last as long as civilization is willing to defend itself.
To me, cancer seems a good metaphor for our permanent enemies; they are within civilization, sometimes society, and whatever version you end up with the results are predictable and unpleasant. Not necessarily fatal with proper treatment however; the metaphor holds this far, although it starts to break down when we talk about using radiation or chemical weapons against terrorists, but in my books whatever works is right.
"Works" is the key part to the otherwise ruthless statement, and more is not necessarily better in most of the situations we are likely to face. If it's not WW III against China or an alien invasion, mass is not your friend. Flattening villages is no longer a viable default tactic in the camera-smartphone era, but the option and ability to do so should the situation demand it should be retained.
Whatever the specific tactics, some sort of bad-ass will need a kicking pretty much forever, as there will always be those opposed to our sort of civilization, or garden variety sociopaths. This does NOT need to be front-page news (and it's best that it isn't) but some people just need to die lest they set off car bombs in the marketplaces or fly big planes into buildings.
That takes me into the current tactics the US is using. I will shed no tears for anyone affiliated with any terror group who is waxed by a Hellfire (or a JDAM, or SDB, or SF team) but some interesting questions have been raised about how one gets on the list for that sort of treatment. Nobody whose opinion I take seriously has a problem with Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan getting knocked off, but the process to become drone fodder is completely obscure.
A lot of pixels have been rearranged over that already so I won't get into it myself, but when there are no rules anything can happen, and that's not a good thing. There is a space between a free-fire zone and the legal handcuffs and leg irons our troops are typically in where what needs to be done can be done, but regular citizens need not worry that they'll randomly end up on a Proscription list. This is where we need to be to fight the "Forever War" against shadowy bad people without turning into police states.
Human history seems to register many more years of conflict than of tranquillity. In one sense, then, it is fatuous to whine that war is endless. We do have certain permanent enemies—the totalitarian state; the nihilist/terrorist cell—with which "peace" is neither possible nor desirable. Acknowledging this, and preparing for it, might give us some advantages in a war that seems destined to last as long as civilization is willing to defend itself.
To me, cancer seems a good metaphor for our permanent enemies; they are within civilization, sometimes society, and whatever version you end up with the results are predictable and unpleasant. Not necessarily fatal with proper treatment however; the metaphor holds this far, although it starts to break down when we talk about using radiation or chemical weapons against terrorists, but in my books whatever works is right.
"Works" is the key part to the otherwise ruthless statement, and more is not necessarily better in most of the situations we are likely to face. If it's not WW III against China or an alien invasion, mass is not your friend. Flattening villages is no longer a viable default tactic in the camera-smartphone era, but the option and ability to do so should the situation demand it should be retained.
Whatever the specific tactics, some sort of bad-ass will need a kicking pretty much forever, as there will always be those opposed to our sort of civilization, or garden variety sociopaths. This does NOT need to be front-page news (and it's best that it isn't) but some people just need to die lest they set off car bombs in the marketplaces or fly big planes into buildings.
That takes me into the current tactics the US is using. I will shed no tears for anyone affiliated with any terror group who is waxed by a Hellfire (or a JDAM, or SDB, or SF team) but some interesting questions have been raised about how one gets on the list for that sort of treatment. Nobody whose opinion I take seriously has a problem with Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan getting knocked off, but the process to become drone fodder is completely obscure.
A lot of pixels have been rearranged over that already so I won't get into it myself, but when there are no rules anything can happen, and that's not a good thing. There is a space between a free-fire zone and the legal handcuffs and leg irons our troops are typically in where what needs to be done can be done, but regular citizens need not worry that they'll randomly end up on a Proscription list. This is where we need to be to fight the "Forever War" against shadowy bad people without turning into police states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)