Having given this a few days to settle out, I've some more reflections on it. Today Julian Assange turned himself in to UK police, which will probably keep him from dying "accidentally" somewhere. I have read some twaddle about him now being a "martyr" or underdog, but I'm sure the shift in public opinion would barely register.
I admit I'm a bit conflicted about the concept of this leak, though the original acquisition was blatantly illegal. Wikileaks has been described (by someone whose opinion I respect) as "the Press" as in freedom thereof. I am very much in favour of transparency and accountability whenever possible, but I am troubled by Assange/Wikileaks agenda. If their intent is only to hurt the USA, that isn't in my interest, therefore I'm suspicious of them. Keeping the Americans from thinking they're infallible is another mission though, and one I can get behind.
This doesn't mean that there can be no secrets, but sometimes the priorities that people set for security are questionable. In other words, save your effort for the critical stuff where blood and treasure are on the line. This has exposed a critical weakness in US info security and brought a lot into the open, much of which I think belongs there. That said, Assange is still a pompous ass and I won't regret his downfall IF he's broken some serious laws. OK, even if things are trumped up a bit, but it sets a bad precedent; at this time all of this remains to be proven.
So much of what I've seen to date of these "cables" was about a millimetre from open source anyway. It was stuff that anyone who was paying attention would have at least suspected, the interesting part is getting it confirmed. That said, I suspect that the legions of Assange fans, especially the new ones, are not in the class of people who actually put much effort into understanding what happens in the world. Deconstructing it, bitching about narrowly defined parts of it yes, but digging into it? I doubt it, especially parts that didn't agree with their worldview.
That's why I read things like Slate. It's not the most moonbattish thing out there, but it is a useful snapshot of the liberal view of the world and one that I can stomach, mostly. You go too far in either direction and the nutbars emerge, but I'm definitely more in tune with conservatives. Doesn't mean I should read only that though.
In any event, the Americans came off pretty well overall, and their diplomacy is less clueless than I had suspected. Results still count though, and if they can't execute the intel they have their stock doesn't go up that much. My hope is that a lot of what the Arab governments are doing that has been brought to light makes their populations think a little harder about how they'd really like things to work in their part of the world. It's too much to hope that they'll open embassies in Israel, but some more pragmatism about relations with Israel and the West would be valuable fallout from this.
I'm sure there'll be more; this isn't over by a long shot even if you dismiss the conspiracy theories.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Friday, 3 December 2010
Taxpayer status
I've taken the title for this from some of Jerry Pournelle's old books. Essentially, it was an alt-history where relatively small groups of taxpayers supported a parasitic Welfare class. not too different from real life so far, but with a key wrinkle: Taxpayers had rights that Welfare types didn't, including voting.
Unconstitutional you say? Most likely (though I'll not look it up just now) but I would really like someone to convince me that people who don't contribute to the finances of the nation should have any say in how that money is administered. I don't really want that to happen of course since I don't believe it, but if you're not at least open to being convinced that you're wrong you're not worthy of expressing serious opinions.
This is a step down from the old democratic model that only (male) property owners could vote and seems logical to me; you don't contribute, you don't get a say. As a corollary I would make voting obligatory for Taxpayers (punishable by a fine of a day's pay) in order to ensure that rights come with Responsibilities.
Who would this affect? People on Social Assistance, in prison, or sheltering offshore from Canadian taxes. It would largely (but not exclusively!) affect the very poor, but I'd like to know how many people on Welfare make an effort to vote. I'll stick my neck out and say a low percentage with little risk of losing my head over it.
This system introduces a few democratic safeguards too. "Machine politics" would be limited in effect, simply because the poor and disaffected who are usually the backbone of these systems would not be a voting bloc. If everyone is forced to vote, more of them will feel compelled to take a real interest in who/what they're voting for, further weakening the ACORNs of the world. None of this is utopianism, just human nature; you can't force people to care but they can be encouraged, and it will take with at least a few of them.
The biggest defence against Tammany Hall/ballot box stuffing/dead people voting, etc. is the voter's list. It will be the same as the Tax agency's list and can't (easily or convincingly) be subverted by community organizers. One person, (on the Taxpayer list) one vote. The list will of course change, but since the government really likes it's money that list will be kept up-to-date. And they know everything about you already...
It's not immune to gerrymandering, but that's a separate problem and one that's much more obvious and thus easily dealt with. Anyway, all a bit off my usual beaten path, but that's a good thing since I'm feeling a bit tapped out on the geopolitics right now. When I have something new (for me at least) to say about that stuff it'll be back.
Unconstitutional you say? Most likely (though I'll not look it up just now) but I would really like someone to convince me that people who don't contribute to the finances of the nation should have any say in how that money is administered. I don't really want that to happen of course since I don't believe it, but if you're not at least open to being convinced that you're wrong you're not worthy of expressing serious opinions.
This is a step down from the old democratic model that only (male) property owners could vote and seems logical to me; you don't contribute, you don't get a say. As a corollary I would make voting obligatory for Taxpayers (punishable by a fine of a day's pay) in order to ensure that rights come with Responsibilities.
Who would this affect? People on Social Assistance, in prison, or sheltering offshore from Canadian taxes. It would largely (but not exclusively!) affect the very poor, but I'd like to know how many people on Welfare make an effort to vote. I'll stick my neck out and say a low percentage with little risk of losing my head over it.
This system introduces a few democratic safeguards too. "Machine politics" would be limited in effect, simply because the poor and disaffected who are usually the backbone of these systems would not be a voting bloc. If everyone is forced to vote, more of them will feel compelled to take a real interest in who/what they're voting for, further weakening the ACORNs of the world. None of this is utopianism, just human nature; you can't force people to care but they can be encouraged, and it will take with at least a few of them.
The biggest defence against Tammany Hall/ballot box stuffing/dead people voting, etc. is the voter's list. It will be the same as the Tax agency's list and can't (easily or convincingly) be subverted by community organizers. One person, (on the Taxpayer list) one vote. The list will of course change, but since the government really likes it's money that list will be kept up-to-date. And they know everything about you already...
It's not immune to gerrymandering, but that's a separate problem and one that's much more obvious and thus easily dealt with. Anyway, all a bit off my usual beaten path, but that's a good thing since I'm feeling a bit tapped out on the geopolitics right now. When I have something new (for me at least) to say about that stuff it'll be back.
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Wikileaks II, the early days.
At this time everyone not living under a rock (without a sat phone, anyway) has heard about the c> 250K documents released on Wikileaks. I don't intend to get down in the weeds about it, but there are a few fundamental things.
Firstly, the US serviceman who compiled and released all of this to Wikileaks is going to go away for a LONG time, and this is as it should be. An example needs to be made and it'll be this guy who richly deserves a long stint in Leavenworth for having betrayed the trust of the organization who paid him, if nothing else.
Secondly, this Julian Assange can run, but he can't hide. As of this writing he's still on the lam from the U.S. and InterPol, but with those two groups looking for you good luck finding a place to hide unless you're buddies with Bin Laden. He thinks he's really clever, and I'm sure there are a lot of fellow travelers who think he's great, but if anything good comes from this it won't be by Assange's design.
Thirdly (a big one) the revelations. The Saudis wanting the Yanks to attack Iran are not surprising to anyone who pays attention to what goes on in the world (some history helps too), but there are a few things that are at least unconsidered. I like that the Israelis told Abbas about Op CAST LEAD, but he didn't bother to tell Hamas. No love lost between those factions to be sure, but more co-operation between Israel and the West Bank than I had supposed.
Lots of stuff, none of it super secret (basic security clearance in the forces is Secret) and I'll wait for the dust to settle some more before I comment further. Feel free to speculate amongst yourselves...
Firstly, the US serviceman who compiled and released all of this to Wikileaks is going to go away for a LONG time, and this is as it should be. An example needs to be made and it'll be this guy who richly deserves a long stint in Leavenworth for having betrayed the trust of the organization who paid him, if nothing else.
Secondly, this Julian Assange can run, but he can't hide. As of this writing he's still on the lam from the U.S. and InterPol, but with those two groups looking for you good luck finding a place to hide unless you're buddies with Bin Laden. He thinks he's really clever, and I'm sure there are a lot of fellow travelers who think he's great, but if anything good comes from this it won't be by Assange's design.
Thirdly (a big one) the revelations. The Saudis wanting the Yanks to attack Iran are not surprising to anyone who pays attention to what goes on in the world (some history helps too), but there are a few things that are at least unconsidered. I like that the Israelis told Abbas about Op CAST LEAD, but he didn't bother to tell Hamas. No love lost between those factions to be sure, but more co-operation between Israel and the West Bank than I had supposed.
Lots of stuff, none of it super secret (basic security clearance in the forces is Secret) and I'll wait for the dust to settle some more before I comment further. Feel free to speculate amongst yourselves...
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
For my 200th post, hair shirts all round!
A milestone of sorts for my little blog, this being the 200th of my sproadic rantings to be granted qualified electronic immortality on the web. Now done patting myself on the back for a number that could be twice that were I more motivated, on to the latest bit of stupidity to grab my attention, the context being the latest climate change fiasco in Cancun:
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. [emphasis mine]
This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars. [snip]
This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.
If these people feel so strongly about all of this, they can feel free to cut off their electricity and walk everywhere. Bicycles you say? Those take a lot of energy to produce... Complete cluelessness, leaving out the fact that their Global Warming hysteria has been pretty thoroughly debunked leading into this wasteful, hypocritical, and self-deluding winter getaway in sunny Mexico.
Economic growth in the developed world is the only hope for this planet, as only the advanced technologies can support the booming populations of the "poor" countries and, more importantly, clean everything up so that we don't poison ourselves. That is the only real threat we pose to the environment, and a concentration on ways to develop our tech to get off of fossil fuels to BETTER energy sources (I'm looking at you, wind and biofuels!) might be a worthwhile expenditure of all of this hot air. Of course Talk - Action = Zero so we need money in research that actually produces something other than soundbites.
I encourage you to read the article I linked to; the comments are particularly interesting, being almost exclusively (as of this writing) dismissive of the tripe this conference is producing. The "experts" keep selling, but less and less people are buying it.
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. [emphasis mine]
This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars. [snip]
This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.
If these people feel so strongly about all of this, they can feel free to cut off their electricity and walk everywhere. Bicycles you say? Those take a lot of energy to produce... Complete cluelessness, leaving out the fact that their Global Warming hysteria has been pretty thoroughly debunked leading into this wasteful, hypocritical, and self-deluding winter getaway in sunny Mexico.
Economic growth in the developed world is the only hope for this planet, as only the advanced technologies can support the booming populations of the "poor" countries and, more importantly, clean everything up so that we don't poison ourselves. That is the only real threat we pose to the environment, and a concentration on ways to develop our tech to get off of fossil fuels to BETTER energy sources (I'm looking at you, wind and biofuels!) might be a worthwhile expenditure of all of this hot air. Of course Talk - Action = Zero so we need money in research that actually produces something other than soundbites.
I encourage you to read the article I linked to; the comments are particularly interesting, being almost exclusively (as of this writing) dismissive of the tripe this conference is producing. The "experts" keep selling, but less and less people are buying it.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Fire Mission All Available.
Ok a slow month here so far, but I get the impression that no-one's reading it anymore so I don't feel pressured. Here is an example of why things will continue to get worse if the U.S.A. slides further into decline.
North Korea fired upon the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong on Tuesday, killing a marine and setting several buildings on fire, in one of the most serious clashes since the Korean War more than 50 years ago.
The incident spurred the evacuation of the civilians living in Yeonpyeong, where 13 other marines were also injured by artillery fire.
South Korean military officials scrambled fighter jets and fired howitzers in response to the artillery fired at Yeonpyeong. It is unclear if any North Korean targets were hit.
I do have to ask what those "fighter jets" were doing up there if the ROK has no target results. Then again maybe they do and they're just not telling the press, but the rule with these situations is you retaliate massively. About 10-1 should do the trick.
Of course nobody wants Korean War II, but that doesn't mean you walk on eggshells around these yahoos. The ROK and the Americans have the means to cripple DPRK's military, and this would be an appropriate response. The population has suffered enough, as tempting as carpet bombing Pyongyang might be, but smart-bombing government buildings there and presidential palaces (everywhere) would do nothing to make the population's life worse and would make the elites suffer.
As for the Chinese weighing in on this, they should be told to muzzle their dog or we'll do it for them. I think that language exactly would be just what the situation needs, but the Americans are far past having the cojones to do that. So we can expect more of this sort of thing, all over the world.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Go Big or stay home
I know that I'm not alone in thinking that as a civilization (Western part, anyway) we've lost the will to win. The linked article by Angelo Codevilla is well worth your time as a description of the gap between the "Ruling Class" and the bulk of the population in the USA. There are symptoms of that up here too, but we started from a statist position so this isn't as big a problem in Canada.
This part however is the most on-message with AotF, so I'll block quote it here:
Because our ruling class deems unsophisticated the American people's perennial preference for decisive military action or none, its default solution to international threats has been to commit blood and treasure to long-term, twilight efforts to reform the world's Vietnams, Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans, believing that changing hearts and minds is the prerequisite of peace and that it knows how to change them. The apparently endless series of wars in which our ruling class has embroiled America, wars that have achieved nothing worthwhile at great cost in lives and treasure, has contributed to defining it, and to discrediting it -- but not in its own eyes.
No better summary of those actions/wars is necessary. Countries that fall into the clutches of their "progressive" elements lose all sense of themselves and thence have nothing to cling to as a National Interest.
National Interest can be well served by short/sharp wars, assuming that all more reasonable options have been exhausted first. Note that I do not say "in the last resort" because sometimes a smackdown is what is called for sooner rather than later. For example I'll use Afghanistan 2001; the Taliban were given a choice about turning over OBL, and they chose poorly. The SOF/Northern Alliance campaign that followed was exactly the right way to do it but the nation building/insurgency after the fact has been and will ultimately be a failure, an expensive and embarrassing one at that.
As long as the lily-livered run foreign policy we must hope that we don't face an existential (external) threat, because the "elites" won't let us win.
This part however is the most on-message with AotF, so I'll block quote it here:
Because our ruling class deems unsophisticated the American people's perennial preference for decisive military action or none, its default solution to international threats has been to commit blood and treasure to long-term, twilight efforts to reform the world's Vietnams, Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans, believing that changing hearts and minds is the prerequisite of peace and that it knows how to change them. The apparently endless series of wars in which our ruling class has embroiled America, wars that have achieved nothing worthwhile at great cost in lives and treasure, has contributed to defining it, and to discrediting it -- but not in its own eyes.
No better summary of those actions/wars is necessary. Countries that fall into the clutches of their "progressive" elements lose all sense of themselves and thence have nothing to cling to as a National Interest.
National Interest can be well served by short/sharp wars, assuming that all more reasonable options have been exhausted first. Note that I do not say "in the last resort" because sometimes a smackdown is what is called for sooner rather than later. For example I'll use Afghanistan 2001; the Taliban were given a choice about turning over OBL, and they chose poorly. The SOF/Northern Alliance campaign that followed was exactly the right way to do it but the nation building/insurgency after the fact has been and will ultimately be a failure, an expensive and embarrassing one at that.
As long as the lily-livered run foreign policy we must hope that we don't face an existential (external) threat, because the "elites" won't let us win.
Monday, 18 October 2010
Speaking Truth from Power
I can' say that I was ever hoping for a world where more people learned to speak German, but I guess enough water is under the bridge for me to appreciate this:
Anecdotally I was aware of this policy three years ago in Afghanistan; one of our translators had scored a German visa to get out of there, and was complaining that he didn't want to learn German. As he already spoke English very well, I assume he was using it as a springboard to an Anglo country, but he wasn't the target of this German crackdown anyway.
You want to live under Sharia, stay in or move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, etc. . If you want to be part of the culture that has given us all of our modern conveniences and the technology that is our only hope for a future, keep your religion for the church/mosque/synagogue/temple and work to fit in.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank showed around one-third of Germans feel the country is being "over-run by foreigners" and the same percentage feel foreigners should be sent home when jobs are scarce.
BERLIN (AFP) – Germany's attempt to create a multi-cultural society has failed completely, Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the weekend, calling on the country's immigrants to learn German and adopt Christian values.
Merkel weighed in for the first time in a blistering debate sparked by a central bank board member saying the country was being made "more stupid" by poorly educated and unproductive Muslim migrants.
This is not the first time that Merkel has said this but this time the media isn't ignoring it, and I of course bring these things the attention of, well, whoever still reads this. Multiculturalism is a crock, and it's finally being recognized in some quarters as such.Anecdotally I was aware of this policy three years ago in Afghanistan; one of our translators had scored a German visa to get out of there, and was complaining that he didn't want to learn German. As he already spoke English very well, I assume he was using it as a springboard to an Anglo country, but he wasn't the target of this German crackdown anyway.
You want to live under Sharia, stay in or move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, etc. . If you want to be part of the culture that has given us all of our modern conveniences and the technology that is our only hope for a future, keep your religion for the church/mosque/synagogue/temple and work to fit in.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank showed around one-third of Germans feel the country is being "over-run by foreigners" and the same percentage feel foreigners should be sent home when jobs are scarce.
Nearly 60 percent of the 2,411 people polled thought the around four million Muslims in Germany should have their religious practices "significantly curbed."
Far-right attitudes are found not only at the extremes of German society, but "to a worrying degree at the centre of society," the think tank said in its report.
Is it "far-right" to not want to your way of life to be changed unrecognizably by immigrants who can't stand your culture? This is how certain people keep the engines of Western self effacement running, by tarring anyone who wants to stand up for it as some sort of Nazi. It looks like Germany is starting to shed its' fear of it's past, and between this and the Wilders acquittal the tide may be turning in Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)