This is a day book. It's not all that well edited. I try to keep this up
daily, but sometimes I can't. I'll keep trying. See also the monthly COMPUTING AT CHAOS MANOR column, 4,000 -
7,000 words, depending. (Older
columns here.) For more on what this page is about, please go to the VIEW PAGE.
If you have never read the explanatory material on that page, please do so.
If you got here through a link that didn't take you to the front
page of this site, click here for a better
explanation of what we're trying to do here.
If you are not paying for this place, click here...
If
you have no idea what you are doing here, see the What is this
place?,
which tries to make order of chaos.
If you intend to send MAIL to me, see
the INSTRUCTIONS.
Boiler Plate:
If you want to PAY FOR THIS there
are problems, but I keep the latest HERE. I'm trying. MY
THANKS to all of you who sent money. Some of you went to a lot of
trouble to send money from overseas. Thank you! There are also some new payment methods. I am preparing a special (electronic)
mailing to all those who paid: there will be a couple of these. I am also
toying with the notion of a subscriber section of the page. LET ME KNOW your thoughts.
.
O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation; Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!” And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods!
My allergies, or summer cold, or both are back and keeping
me from sleeping. The only relief is to use the nasal irrigation system, and
that works very well, but it has become rather temporary. We have air
cleaners. Apparently there is something in bloom that has the Indian sign on
me.
I am not usually in a car in the mornings, and since I only
hear Rush Limbaugh when I am driving -- I guess I could get his show here,
but my office radio is tuned to KUSC classical music and pretty well stays
there -- since I only hear Limbaugh when driving I don't usually hear him at
all. The other day I had to go to Niven's in the morning to pick up the maps
for Burning Tower, and today we had to go feed a cat for someone traveling,
so I heard Rush's show. He was talking about The Wedding Party, and I was
mildly surprised to learn I have better sources than he does.
Then I got to thinking about it and realized I probably have
better sources than anyone except perhaps Drudge, and often I get things
even before Drudge does. Getting beats is not the point of this web site,
and in fact I often wait a bit for the dust to settle: I'm not in the
topical news business, where you are likely to be wrong on the facts quite a
lot of the time.
That's not to say I am never wrong, but usually when I am
wrong about facts, it's because I leaped up to get in comments early.
I don't like to be wrong. I particularly hate it when I have
the facts right but the wrong conclusions, but fortunately that doesn't
happen often. Of course, depending on your view, it almost always happens:
but what I meant is being wrong even on my own view.
At least I care: I try to correct errors. When I do my
computer columns I often submit them to the people I review with the
stipulation that "I will correct errors of fact, and I will listen to
arguments concerning errors of judgment, and I reserve the right to decide
which is which." That's pretty well the way I run the rest of this
place. I'll correct errors of fact if I think they have any significance,
and I'll run letters arguing that I've made errors in judgment, sometimes
with and sometimes without comment.
Note also that you will find a lot of views in mail, some I
agree with, some I disagree with, some I think interesting but I haven't any
expertise or experience so I can't say how correct they are; and sometimes I
run something I don't particularly agree with but I don't comment because I
have run out of time, or energy, or I was about to comment when the dog
detected an intruder, or it was time to go to the opera.
There's only me, and I have other things to do, but I
do the best I can; and listening to Rush this morning, I find that sometimes
that's not as bad as I had feared.
===================
If you want to know why occupation of a large foreign
country with a combat army is a dicey thing to do, see:
"General Ryder, the Army's provost marshal, reported that
some Iraqis had been held for several months for nothing
more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the
American occupying forces. The Nov. 5 report said the
process for deciding which arrested Iraqis posed security
risks justifying imprisonment, and for deciding when to
release them, violated the Pentagon's own policies. It also
said the conditions in which they were held sometimes
violated the Geneva Conventions. "
Note that this was last November, as we brought the
blessings of freedom and democracy to Iraq.
==============
Overheard at a Conference on Law and Artificial
Intelligence:
John McCarthy: "Some of these lawyers are very smart."
Marvin Minsky: "What a pity."
==============================
If you have not seen this, it sure got me to look:
I was clearing up some old mail today and came across this recommended
reading by Roland. It's about the Kelly scandal at USA Today, and still
worth looking at if you're concerned about such things:
There is a lot of mail cleanup. And the workmen are here
to make my deck stop leaking down into Roberta's office, my head is still
stopped up at nights so it's hard to sleep, I haven't tried snake biles yet
but I may, and the best remedy to my nasal passage problems I have found yet
is that irrigation pump with baking soda and salt.
And it's column time.
+++++++++++++++
My Weekly Standard arrived today, and I must say I am a
bit astonished.
I am no fan of Senator Ernest "Fritz"
Hollings, who has been part of some of the most egregious legislation
regarding Internet communications, Spam, and other matters of concern to
readers. I have had bitter things to say about him before; but I have to say
that Weekly Standard is being a bit unfair in its page 2 editorial for May
31, 2004.
Hollings says (the Standard says "revealed") that
he recently asked his staffers how they supposed they'd react were the
Israeli Army to bulldoze their families' homes. "Wouldn't you want to cut
their throats?" They replied, Hollings said, "In a New York minute."
This, according to the Standard, is a "detail about how anti-Semitic Sen.
Hollings' arguments truly are."
Which is a remarkable act of
self-delusion by the Standard.
If the Saudi Army, or the Palestinian Army, were to bulldoze
my parents home, I would certainly be far more than annoyed; does this make
me an anti-Semite? Or, if you consider that a trick question, does it make
me anti-Arab? If the American Army were to bulldoze my parents home I would
resent it a lot; depending on the circumstances I could conceive a desire
for revenge. Does saying this make me unpatriotic? Let's go further. If the
American Army, as an act of national policy, were to cut a swath through
Memphis south of Beale Street, bulldozing houses to widen the streets to
fifty or a hundred feet without much regard for who lived in the houses, do
you suppose the local black population would enjoy it? And does it make one
anti-American to say that under those circumstances the local populace might
well feel rage and resentment and a desire for revenge?
The
Israeli army is in fact bulldozing homes in Gaza; Hollings' false to fact
subjunctive postulates only a change in to whom the action is done. I have
heard it suggested that the US ought to be doing such things in Iraq. Is it
permitted to discuss the wisdom of such actions without being unpatriotic?
The Weekly Standard speaks for the neo-conservative movement; is it now the
official policy of the neo-cons that those who have their doubts about the
effectiveness of recent Israeli operations in Gaza are anti-Semites who hate
Jews and want to suppress Americans of Jewish identity or origin? Really?
Another of Hollings' anti-Semitic crimes was his insistence on the
legitimacy of his "notorious reference to the late Howard Metzenbaum as 'the
senator from B'nai B'rith'". Now this remark was unfortunate and unwise, and
of course untrue: the Senator's constituency was Ohio; but the fact is that
the positions of Metzenbaum and B'nai 'Brith were often well nigh
indistinguishable. In any event, Heaven knows worse things are said about
Senators every day. Many of us used to refer to Scoop Jackson as "The
Senator from Boeing", and we liked Scoop Jackson. (And given that Boeing was
the biggest single employer in the state of Washingon at a time when the
second largest employer was the University of Washington, the third largest
was the State government itself, and Weyerhauser Timber came in fourth, it
was hardly astonishing that any Senator from that state would look out for
Boeing's interests.)
There once was a shepherd boy who got
bored, and ran into the town crying "Wolf, wolf!" when all he had seen was a
coyote puppy. Another time he did the same, having seen a house cat. Finally
he called "Wolf! Wolf!" when he had seen a mouse. Do I need to continue? If
the neo-cons are now going to haul out their biggest insult -- Anti-Semite!
-- over a retiring Senator's all too true remarks about the effects of
recent activities in Gaza, they will take all the sting out of the charge.
Is that what they want?
The Israeli actions in Gaza don't
seem to have accomplished much except to show what the US should not be
doing in Iraq. They may be necessary to Israeli security; but that is surely
a debatable proposition. They may have the effect of recruiting a never
ending supply of suicide bombers. Now, is it anti-Semitic to point out that
without the Intifada, it's more than possible that Sharon would not be the
Prime Minister of Israel? He isn't all that popular, and one suspects that
Labor would win an election not dominated by issues of security. One can
argue that Sharon's integrity is so great that he would never do such a
thing?
Charges of anti-Semitism, like charges of "Fascist!",
are intended to end discussion; apparently the neo-conservative Weekly
Standard has said, on its editorial page, that there shall be no more
discussion of Israeli practices in Gaza. And that is astonishing.
Hurrah. Once again, let me caution you: while this is a great step in the
right direction, neither Space Ship One nor the engines it uses have any
path toward orbital flight: either achieving orbit, or getting back from it.
This is strictly a high flyer. That said, there's still a lot to be learned
from it.
As for me, I still hope that there will be a series of X ships, not the
horrible ripoff of the so-called x-33 which was a grab at the public trough
by people who pretty well betrayed the dream, but a real X program leading
through incremental steps to ships that can get to orbit and return at low
cost. The DC/X was such a ship. It was built and flew. The SSX which was
proposed by the Council I chair back in 1989 was such a ship. It lead to the
scale model DC/X, but the SSX itself (about 600,000 pounds Gross LiftOff
Weight) was never built largely because the SDIO thought they had to build a
ship that could perform a mission (rather than an X ship) and they didn't
have enough money: by the time they had enough reserves to assure a payload
they were up to 1,400,000 lbs GLOW and they didn't have the money to build
that. Thus the scale model DC/X.
I don't know if the right way to orbit is one stage or two recoverable
stages; arguments can be made for either. I don't know if the right way to
orbit is Vertical Takeoff/Vertical Landing as the SSX and DC/X were, or if
there needs to be a horizontal feature in there. Horizontal runway takeoff
makes more sense with a two-stage system with the recoverable booster being
flown back to land; it makes almost no sense for a single stage to orbit
ship, but even that isn't entirely certain.
And that's the point. We need some X projects to get answers to such
questions. We need data we don't have. And that's a perfectly legitimate
function of government. Find out some fundamentals, and let private industry
work with them.
And put up some prizes. That will get us to the stars.
But, I am told, there are no problems with recruiting.
Let me say it again: there is never a problem getting the warriors to
join up, provided that you look like a winner and treat them reasonably
well. War is good for recruiting that kind of soldier including some street
kids who can be made into quite good soldiers.
The problem with a modern army has always been getting the specialists
who can make more in civilian life, aren't warriors by nature, and who often
join for the training. Extending their hitches may work for a while, but it
slows the input down as the IQ 110-120 troops look for other alternatives.
Which is not much of a surprise. Stewart's case
makes one thing clear: NEVER cooperate with the government. Being a good
citizen can destroy your life. You are safer seeing no evil, hearing no
evil, speaking no evil, and particularly never speaking to government agents
at all. Even denying you did something that is not a crime can get you in
deep trouble. Your best bet is not to talk to them at all.
It was not always thus. At one time you got a signed
statement you signed under penalty of perjury: that had to be the truth. But
now, if the investigator has NOTES that SAY you said something false you can
be charged. Better never talk to them at all. If you refuse to talk to them
you have a chance.
Anarcho-tyranny: failure to do much about real
crime. Inability to protect the citizens against real danger. Vigorous
prosecution of smaller matters that are safe for the investigators and get
them a winning record.
"Preliminary results from the world's largest survey on mental health
indicate that mental illness is widespread and undertreated, and that
wealthy people with mild illness receive more and better treatment than poor
people with severe illness."
It's that time of the month again, when I must
produce about 10,000 words, preferably interesting, about the computer
industry. There is a bit of mail. And
a poem from an astronaut.
And on June 21 Burt Rutan is going to go for space with his Spaceship
One. I will be there: I already have my motel reservation (and anyone going
had better get one fast). I'll file a story here from Mojave, with
pictures...
"The F.B.I. officials concluded around March 20
that it was a "100 percent match," to Mr. Mayfield, according to court
records and prosecutors in Portland. They informed their Spanish
counterparts on April 2 and included Mr. Mayfield's prints in a letter to
them.
"But after conducting their own tests, Spanish
law enforcement officials said they reported back to the F.B.I. in an April
13 memo that the match was "conclusively negative." Yet for for five weeks,
F.B.I. officials insisted their analysis was correct.
<snip>
"Despite never being charged with an actual
crime, court transcripts and interviews with Mr. Mayfield show he was told
that he was being investigated in connection with crimes punishable by death
and jailed for 14 days. On May 24, after the Spaniards had linked that same
print from the plastic bag to the Algerian national, Mr. Mayfield's case was
thrown out. The F.B.I. issued him a highly unusual official apology, and his
ordeal became a stunning embarrassment to the United States government."
<snip>
"At the end of the meeting, Mr. Melida said,
the Spaniards said they would continue to study the fingerprint matter, but
they "refused to validate" the F.B.I.'s conclusions and maintained that the
match was negative.
"Asked about Spain's determination that the
Mayfield match was a negative, the F.B.I. official told The Times: "We
didn't know what it meant." F.B.I. officials were uncertain how or why the
Spanish had come to that conclusion, and the F.B.I. was confident of its own
findings, he said.
"And so on May 6, in an affidavit in support of
Mr. Mayfield's arrest warrant, Portland prosecutors, who had been briefed by
the F.B.I. on the Madrid meeting, stated that the Spaniards would continue
to analyze the prints but that they "felt satisfied" with the F.B.I.'s
conclusions."
<snip>
Be sure you're right, then go ahead, said Davy Crockett; which is no
bad thing for children's stories, but may be the wrong attitude for the
FBI, particularly when the Spanish keep telling you the fingerprint is not
a match.
It came out well; but if the Spanish police had not determined to whom
the fingerprint actually belonged, and arrested a Moroccan, would Mayfield
still be in jail?
Make no mistake, the United States needs a competent Federal
investigation agency, and a national fingerprint identification facility;
but whether the FBI or BATF needs powers of arrest on its own hook without
cooperation of the local sheriff, is another story. I would propose that
they don't: that in order to make arrests on their own, the FBI must either
show an emergency situation or demonstrate that the local sheriff is
compromised.
And why are not the agents who swore the facts in the warrant were true
not in jail or released on bail? They lied to the judge. Why aren't they
facing at least 15 days in the slammer?
As it turned out, I was to
spend 26 hours in detention. My crime: I had flown in earlier that day
to research an innocuous freelance assignment for the Guardian, but did
not have a journalist's visa.
One begins to wonder if the authorities have lost their minds. As Ms.
Lappin says in the article,
"Somewhere along the way, in the process of
trying to develop a foolproof system of protecting itself against genuine
threats, the US has lost the ability to distinguish between friend and foe.
The price this powerful country is paying for living in fear is the price of
its civil liberties. "
Although in this case the liberties are those of friendly allies, not
citizens. But the price is high.
We must assume a degree of incompetence in the system; which means we
must assume mistakes will be made; which means spending what it takes to
reduce the consequences of those mistakes. If we are going to detain people
for not having a journalist visa, then the facilities ought to be something
better than what was done here: if for no other reason than the costs in bad
publicity and loss of tourist trade...
Once again: why isn't someone in trouble over this?
And given all these displays of competence and good judgment, should we
be concerned about
Policy decisions have consequences. Most won't be apparent when the
policy is adopted. Is this a matter for Congress?
And once again reflect on what is appropriate to empire and what to
republic.
This is not the last we will hear of these matters.
===========================================
Ronald Reagan, RIP
There will be hundreds of obituaries and articles, and I can't add much.
I have told my story of how he once said to me, "Professor, I may have read
as many books as you have." And how my wife as county co-chairman of the
Republican Party in San Bernardino in 1964 urged this actor whom she had
hired to make a rallying speech to the party faithful to run for office.
I have one letter from him thanking the Council I chaired for its
contribution on Strategic Defense. Beyond that, I know nothing that won't be
in thousands of papers and web sites.
He was a great man. He has been gone for years, so we say farewell to a
husk. We have missed his counsel in the past dozen years; had he lived,
functionally, during the 1990's who knows whether things might not have gone
differently; he understood more than most know.
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
