| Wednesday,
November 5, 2003 Guy Fawkes Day
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
We see no reason
Why Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot. |
|
Hi, Dr. Pournelle,
Today is Guy Fawkes Day, celebrating the thwarting of
the plot to blow up the London Parliament in 1605. The history of the
Gunpowder Plot is discussed at
http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/ and other places, if you're
interested in more details.
As a kid in Scotland, I set off fireworks with
everyone else, and the tradition continued when I moved to South Africa,
then back to England. I didn't think about it much until I moved to Ireland
four years ago. Here, Halloween is the night on which bonfires are lit and
fireworks set off, yet these traditions started in the London celebrations
after the Gunpowder Plot was foiled. Guy Fawkes Day is not mentioned at all
in Ireland, and the only reason I can think of is the fact that the 1605
conspirators were Catholic. Had they succeeded, would today thus be a
national holiday in Ireland? (This is a country where the history is the
history of religion - a bit like Saudi Arabia.)
The more I think about the Gunpowder Plot, the more
parallels I see with the world situation today. The Gunpowder Plot was,
after all, a terrorist threat to a government, albeit one that wasn't a
democracy in the modern sense. The world order would be very different had
it succeeded in wiping out King James I and most of the English government,
as was planned.
Imagine what would have happened had the plots of two
years ago had been foiled: wouldn't September 11 be a national holiday in
the USA, on a par with Thanksgiving? (If only.) One might, facetiously, name
the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 as the birth of Terrorism - which, in my opinion,
makes it worth being aware of!
Best wishes for the holiday season,
Brian Thomson Dublin, Ireland
There are other parallels. Walsingham's secret
police (later Cecil's secret service) set back the trend from Magna Charta by quite a lot. Parliamentary
corruption and arrogance culminated in judicial murders, such as Algernon
Sydney. And of course came the day in 1649 (1648 actually because in those
times January 1 was not the first day of the next year) when Charles I "King
and Martyr" had his head struck off in front of his own Banqueting House...
There was a time when most educated people in the
United States were pretty familiar with the English Civil War from Ship
Money and Star Chamber to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Many had read
Macauley. Ah well.
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
The biggest flare ever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3242353.stm
Patrick A. Hoage
Interesting times...
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
I don't know if I feel safer by I do feel very
confused.
http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/103103c1.htm
<SNIP> The Transportation Security
Administration plans to replace some federal passenger and baggage screeners
with private security forces at New York's LaGuardia Airport starting Nov.
1. But federal screeners oppose the move, claiming TSA is trying to do an
end-run around federal law and is putting airport security at risk. </SNIP>
I thought the private screeners were replaced after
9/11 because they weren't as reliable, or the government didn't have enough
control over security, or the government wanted to ensure reliability
standards, or something. Now we are going back? Was the last 2 years all
just a bad dream? Maybe we have ended up in bureaucrat's hell. They have
determined that they are unnecessary and are in the first stages of
eliminating the Agency. You think?
Patrick A. Hoage
No data. Clearly TSA isn't much use; but what is
going on here I don't know.
RE: the tank
Dr. Pournelle,
I read the story in the Army Times about the damaged
tank. While I may have misunderstood the article, I do not believe the
possibility of some sort of discarding sabot munition was discussed. A sabot
round can send a small projectile through rather thick armor. Any thoughts
from your side of the fence?
Ars Longa, Vita Brevis,
Douglas Knapp
No data.
Jerry, The link about the tank that readers will want
is:
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM
Within this article is a link with pictures of the tank in question.
November 5, 2003: The "Mystery Projectile" that caused
the penetration of an M-1 tanks side armor was probably a Russian RPG-7V or
similar type. This is an improved version with wave shaper in the HEAT
warhead. The pictures (see here) <
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?
target=missile_mystery.htm
of the penetration show classic HEAT warhead circular
flash and light material splash (aluminum or similar from outer warhead
casing) in a roughly circular area and at between 500 - 800 mm radius around
the penetration hole. It also seems as if the entry hole on the skirt plate
has a ragged and enlarged hole. This is consistent with wave shaped warheads
that do not have optimal performance at point of impact as the jet is still
being focused. In pictures 2-5 there is virtually no spalling around the
inside exit hole and immediately adjacent interior equipment. Only items
directly in penetration path has been punctured or splashed with molten
copper (see gun guard picture). It appears as if the jet was disrupted and
started deflagrating by interior components spaced effect and material
compositions. The last picture shows residual heat discoloration on the
switch box, which is typical of molten metal heat transfer and short-circuit
effects as can be expected when you send conductive liquid or particles into
an electrical box.
The damage done is similar in appearance to that done
to other armored vehicles that have been penetrated by an RPG-7. In this
case, the round hit one of the few areas on the side of the tank that was
vulnerable to penetration by an RPG round.
Enjoy, Jim Laheta
=
Subj: Damaged Abrams tank - mystery weapon identified
Douglas Knapp asked about the "damaged tank".
Jim Dunnigan's strategypage says the mystery is
solved:
http://www.strategypage.com/
fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM
See the item for November 5, 2003. Just an advanced
RPG that hit a weak spot.
Rod Montgomery==monty@sprintmail.com
I will defer to those who have looked at the
matter. Thanks.
=============
Jerry
This is what happens when criminals know they will not
be facing firearms:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59676-2003Nov3.html
This was happening a lot in new Zealand when we were
there in 1999, and since has spread to Australia.
Ed
Amazing! Who would have thunk it? But everyone
MEANT well.
Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for
Western Civilization as it commits suicide.
>> There was a time when most educated people
in the United States were pretty familiar with the English Civil War from
Ship Money and Star Chamber to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Many had
read Macauley. Ah well. <<
I'd say most educated people still do. A much smaller
percentage of people nowadays are educated, of course.
And speaking of the Gunpowder Plot, here's an
interesting link:
<
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/
regionalnews/content_objectid=13591860_
method=full_siteid=50142_headline
=-Plot-was-Guy-normous-name_page.html >
(If you post this, you might want to use <
http://tinyurl.com/tqxu > instead of
that monster link. If you ever need to shorten a link, visit
http://www.tinyurl.com .)
The scientists quoted think that the 2,500 kilograms
of blackpowder Fawkes used "would have devastated much of London". According
to them, "severe structural damage" would have occurred within a 1/3 mile
radius of the explosion.
I suspect they're badly wrong about the effects of a
1/363rd kiloton explosion. Only 5,500 pounds of a low-order explosive like
blackpowder detonated below ground level would be very unlikely to cause
severe structural damage to buildings more than 1/3 mile away, not least
because most of the explosive effect would have been directed upwards. Also,
blackpowder, like ammonium nitrate/fuel oil, is a heaving explosive rather
than a shattering one. The low-frequency ground wave it generated would be
unlikely to have sufficient amplitude at that distance to knock down
buildings. Indeed, it would likely do no more than shake things up and knock
things off shelves, unless London buildings in 1605 were very badly built.
Compare, for example, the effects of the Oklahoma City bomb, which was
detonated at ground level and used a more brissant explosive.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson thompson@ttgnet.com http://www.ttgnet.com/thisweek.html
http://forums.ttgnet.com/ikonboard.cgi
If a smaller percentage of the population is
educated today than in the times when I grew up, it certainly isn't for lack
of money spent. Which is itself a commentary on modern times.
Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for
Western Civilization as it commits suicide.
Ran across this over at slashdot. Succinct history on
the day and a damage estimate if he would have been successful.
A brief history:
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/
entertainment/events/page.cfm?objectid=11380225
&method=full&siteid=50142
The damage estimate:
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/
content_objectid=13591860_method=full_siteid=50142
_headline=-Plot-was-Guy-normous-name_page.html
Enjoy, Brian
C Northcote Parkinson, one of the best writers of
the 70's and 80's (Parkinson's Law, The Law and the Profits, etc. etc.)
did a book on this, and concluded that the Plot, while sort of real,
never got very far and was then encouraged by the government in order to
continue Elizabeth's secret police service. He makes a good case.
Plots have often helped the government more than
the plotters, and have long been used as an excuse for Power Above and
Beyond the Law...
With all this [above, on Guy
Fawkes and The Gunpowder Plot] as introduction, here is David Colton on How
Republics Die, Part 2
(Continued from above)
The heavily censored Petition for Cert. [He attaches
the petition, a 1 mb pdf file. I have no URL for it.]
Reading the document -- and the precedent the
Administration seeks to create -- is stunning. Note, but for a clerk's
error, no one would have known that this case even existed. Ponder that.
No parallel in U.S. jurisprudence regarding such
normalized and unaccountable secret suspension habeus corpus. (Alleged
parallels to earlier efforts to protect the identities of cooperating drug
dealers are inapposite).
DoJ claims that these staggering measures are
necessary:
(a) to preserve security;
and (b) because the U.S. justice system is neither
efficient or predictable. Raison d'etat requires the subordination of the
judicial system.
The Tudors and Stuarts used these exact arguments
before the Civil War and subsequent dictatorship/Protectorate. Almost
verbatim. The Star Chamber is not a nation of laws but of men. And DoJ would
do well to ponder Sir Thomas Wentworth's (Earl Strafford) use of the Star
Chamber. A main beneficiary was a plantation in Massachusetts.
As a Republican and supporter of the war against
Islamists, the tragedy unfolding here for our future is sad beyond words. We
are witnesses to a dream strangled before our eyes.
David Colton
Note that Dave is a well regarded Washington
attorney as well as an old friend. We were both advisors to Newt Gingrich
when he was Minority Whip.
How Republics Die, Part 3
From the law firm Goldstein & Howe (
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com ):
re MKB case
"As the docket reflects, the U.S. Solicitor General
two weeks ago "waived" the right to respond to the petition. The case was
"distributed" to the Court on October 23. In most instances, a law clerk
would file a "pool memorandum" to 8 of the 9 Justices (all but Justice
Stevens), which would be due today. That memorandum would address whether
the Court should direct the S.G. to respond to the petition.
But this is an unusual case. It is sealed, and
apparently for national security reasons. We don't know what internal
procedures the Court uses in such an unusual circumstance. In every term,
there are a half-dozen to a dozen "sealed" cases, but they rarely are sealed
on the basis of national security.
If the Court does call for the Solicitor General to
respond, the government's brief would be due 30 days later, although the S.G.
can and generally does request a 30-day extension. Even if a response is
requested, cert. is unlikely to be granted as a statistical matter.
According to data we've just collected and will publish on the blog in the
coming days, the Court hears only around 1 in 20 "pauper" cases like this
one in which it requests a response.
Presentedly, the Justices are scheduled to consider
the case at their November 7 conference. If no response is requested, the
Court will deny cert. on Monday, November 10. The Court will not grant cert.
without first calling for a response."
_________________
As of yesterday, reports indicate at least one Justice
did ask the Administration for a response -- but without a time deadline.
_________________
Perspective is naturally helpful. This case, compared
to FCC high definition rules or the status of OMB's e-Gov initiatives, is
what it is.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The language seems plain enough, and the intent was
plain enough. It was somewhat tested in the matter of
The
Alien and Sedition Laws and that's another of those matters we used to
learn about in 8th Grade, at least in rural Tennessee in the 1930's. I guess
we can't afford to teach such things today.
The
outcome
of the matter was that the laws were not declared unconstitutional --
the Supreme Court had not asserted the right to do that -- but were
rescinded, the fines restored, and all those convicted under the acts were
pardoned by Jefferson. It was a different approach to Constitutional
matters. I think such things are not frequently taught today.
Dear Jerry:
This discussion is after the time frame of my stage
play, MARLOWE: An Elizabethan Tragedy, but here are the facts I recall.
Walsingham died in 1591. The secret service was taken over by Robert Cecil
and it was he who instituted such innovations as the Star Chamber, which I
think he modeled on the Spanish Inquisition, some of whose tactics had been
used under Queen Mary. Certainly Thomas Kyd was tortured before he laid
accusations of heresy against Christopher Marlowe (the two were roommates
and probably more) but that was in 1593.
Marlowe died under very mysterious circumstances. It
looks, even now, like a hit. The other three men in the room were all agents
of the Secret Service. As for Guy Fawkes, I don't know. I didn't get that
far, but it was soon enough after that Cecil would have still been running
the shop. What you wrote is reminiscent of the Babbington Plot in 1585.
There those involved were encouraged by the Secret Service inflitrator in
their midst, Robert Poley, who was, by probably no coincidence, one of the
men who murdered Marlowe.
Regards, Francis Hamit
Parkinson lays it all out in great detail, but it
has been a while since I read it. The moral of the story is that secret
services have their own agendas...
=============================
If that wasn't enough to worry about:
Google has implemented a new feature where you can
type someone's telephone number into the search bar and hit enter and you
will be given a map to their house.
Think about it - if a child, single person, or anyone
gives out his/her phone number, someone can actually look it up and find out
where he/she lives. (It's worse than this - a predator could just place
calls until he finds a target, then google search the address.) The safety
issues are obvious, and alarming. This is not a hoax, mapquest will actually
put a star on your house on your street...In order to test whether your
phone number is mapped, go to www.google.com and type your phone number in
the search bar with dashes (e.g.555-555-1212) and hit enter. Note, if your
phone number is not public you should be fine. If you want to BLOCK Google
from divulging your private information, simply click on the telephone icon
next to your phone number. You will see a link where you are allowed to
remove yourself.
Please, please, everyone do this! Let everybody you
know...know about this.
------------------------------------------- I thought
this was a hoax until I went to Google and put in my home phone number. I
got my and my wife's name along with our street address. Included were links
to Yahoo! Maps and Mapquest. This is scary stuff. If you value your privacy,
go to Google and check your phone number.
Braxton S. Cook
I put in my phone numbers and nothing happens. I
then tried another of a friend who doesn't have unlisted phone got his
name and "Beverly Hills" as the address. He actually lives in Sherman
Oaks. Clicking on the map did nothing.
The Author Services phone number gives the address
but still no map. My Hollywood Agent's number got nothing. My New York
Agent's number got a lot, including the web site addresses of most of her
clients like Spider Robinson, but again no map. I haven't tried for
the kids down the street; I'm a bit afraid to. But it's not quite as
frightening as it looks: if you haven't got a listed number and address,
this doesn't find you.
Sue says: In my case, your writer is absolutely correct. And I did click
on the phone to have myself removed.
S.
So if your number is listed, they can find you, BUT
Dr. Pournelle:
Regarding the Google Phone Number Lookups...this has
been around for a while, and is good fodder for the conspiracy theorists and
the paranoid. There aer any number of sources on the Internet that will do
that, for free or fee. ( A Google on "reverse phone directory" showed over
500K results.)
But my quick testing of the Google links doesn't show
it to be very helpful. I tried several numbers, including one my parents
have had for 40+ years, and got no results. I've tried other 'white pages'
type lookups, and they aren't very efficient either; they are usually wrong
or not found.
So, it would appear that there are better things to
worry about.
Rick Hellewell, Security Dweeb, security@digitalchoke.com
Which is pretty much my conclusion but some people
may be disturbed by all this and ought to know...
=================================
Dear Jerry
Very well said.
A speech at the USAFA.
http://www.usafatoday.com/?story=7>
Douglas
Douglas M. Colbary
Indeed
And on the following:
Dr. Pournelle,
That guy who shot the lawyer in front of the
courthouse may qualify as a hero instead of a wacko. It almost sounds like a
justified shoot.
From a CNN report: (
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/05/
courthouse.shooting.ap/index.html )
--begin quote
Strier's civil attorney, Steven Trolard, has
said his client injured three disks in his back last year in a car accident
and won a $100,000 settlement, which was kept in a trust fund administered
by a court-appointed trustee and attorney.
Strier's doctor recommended surgery to repair
the disks, but the trustee, Evelyn Murphy, and Curry, who was Murphy's
attorney, would not release the money, Trolard said Sunday in a telephone
interview.
At a hearing just before Friday's shooting,
Murphy was removed from the case, but not before she and Curry were
authorized to withdraw more than $6,000 from Strier's trust for their work,
Trolard said.
--end quote
So this guy gets hurt in an accident, gets a
settlement, but although the lawyers won't release the money for his medical
treatment, they feel free to dip their grubby hands into the trust fund to
pay themselves before they ditch the client? As if the accident itself
wasn't enough to ruin the client's life, they had to withhold the money
needed for his medical procedures and then take money from him as payment
for ensuring he couldn't get his back fixed?
After reading that, shooting the lawyer sounds like a
great idea. Too bad he missed and couldn't go after the trustee too. At
least the lawyer will carry around one un-removed bullet in his neck to
remind him of what happens when he plays god with other people's lives.
I know we can't have people going around shooting
lawyers all the time, but if nobody else will keep the bloodsuckers in
check, there has to be some system in place to halt abuses of the system. A
law degree seems like nothing more than a license to take money in return
for playing with people's lives, and this shooter is the first one in a long
time to actually do anything about it.
Sean Long
Yes, I saw that at the time. My remark was that
it was a good start, and my wife told me to wash my mouth out with soap. I
don't really condone shooting down lawyers in front of the court house.
I might be persuaded to help pay for some fuel for
the tar pot to be kept bubbling out there...
======================
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
Francis Hamit wrote: "The secret service was taken over by Robert Cecil
and it was he who instituted such innovations as the Star Chamber, which I
think he modeled on the Spanish Inquisition, some of whose tactics had been
used under Queen Mary. "
I believe that Mr. Hamit is remembering incorrectly. The Star Chamber
dates back to the reign of Edward IV; its original use was to intimidate the
godfathers (a/k/a "feudal nobility") who treated the regular assizes with
contemptuous violence (of course, we know what road is paved with good
intentions). See the Paston letters for the state of armed anarchy that
Englnd had fallen into.
The Tudors and early Stuarts were not particularly innovative in the
means of internal security/oppression; the innovator was Edward IV, who was
determined (particularly after the abortive restoration of Henry VI) that
his dynasty be fixed on the throne and that the nobility of England, grown
presumptuous during the incompetent reign of Henry, be brought to heel.
Again, good intentions, etc.
------------------------------------------------ John W. Braue, III <braue@ratsnest.win.net>
http://www.win.net/ratsnest/
"Gold cannot always get you good soldiers, but good soldiers can always
get you gold" -- Niccolò Machiavelli
I should have caught that. Star Chamber grew out of
the Court of Chivalry, which was a part of the King's Court. Henry VII, that
old serpent, set it up to stand on its own.
The Court of Star Chamber was a court of law
which evolved from meetings of the king's royal council. Although its roots
go back to the medieval period, the court only became powerful as a separate
entity during the reign of Henry VII. In 1487 the court became a judicial
body separate from the king's council, with a mandate to hear petitions of
redress.
Hampden and some of the early Parliamentary
partisans called it a "Court unknown to the law" but in fact it wasn't; and
its use was largely against really powerful nobility.
Shakespeare in Merry Wives (I thought Henry IV, but
I was mistaken) has Falstaff threaten to make a Star Chamber matter of some
trivial law suit, to the amusement of his audience. And of course Wolsey
made considerable use of Star Chamber under Henry VIII, until he was himself
caught in the threads. ("Had I served my God half so well as I served my
king, He would not leave me to die in this horrible place," a rather
chilling set of last recorded words."
Which set me off to find what Shakespeare had
Wolsey say at his end:
Had I but served my God with half the zeal
I served my king, he would not in mine age
Have left me naked to mine enemies.
And enough. We all of us have work to do...
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW
|
If
your Phone Number is listed, better read this
Actually,
I wrote
