Inquiry on Piracy; call for nominations for orchids and onions.

View 704 Monday, December 5, 2011

Today was devoured by locusts, which is to say work on maintenance including of my car. I am preparing a column, starting with the major topic of the Internet Piracy Protection act now in review by Congress, and the great dispute between Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

Anyone with strong ideas on the subject is invited to send me mail about it.

I also want to remind everyone to nominate items for the annual Orchids and Onions Parade, as well as the products that you found most useful/interesting last year.

I’ve been hard at work developing characters and plot items for the new novel Niven and I are doing, and Steve Barnes has just finished his work producing the first draft of the Novella by Niven, Pournelle, and Barnes set in the Legacy of Heorot world. Niven has taken a pass through it, and it’s my turn, after which we need to confer. But it won’t be all that long now before that goes out.

All in all it’s easy to stay busy.

clip_image002

clip_image003[2]

clip_image005

clip_image003[3]

Martha Stewart, Military Tribunals, and Mactribesmen

Mail 703 Sunday, December 04, 2011

· Solyndra

· Leaving the work force

· Talking to government agents

· Military Tribunals

· Mactribesmen : a voice from the past

·

clip_image002

Solyndra scam

Hello Jerry,

Apparently ‘Solyndra scam’ is moving toward recognition as a generic

term, much like the much loved ‘Ponzi scheme’. Or should be:

http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/

Take the government loans and subsidies for your ‘green solution du

jour’ up front’, make the money disappear, then bail. So far, it has

worked better than all historical Ponzi schemes (not counting the

ongoing government versions) combined. Its only down side is that it

requires active collusion between the government and the scammers.

The upside is that the required collusion appears to be readily

obtainable.

Bob Ludwick

I am sure that many of those involved meant well. That’s one of the big problems with modern debate: much of it is based on an ethics of intention. “We meant well” is supposed to excuse all. Apparently prudence is no longer a required virtue.

The classic four cardinal virtues are Prudence, Temperance, Courage, and Justice. Without Prudence there is a far greater likelihood that a given action will not be virtuous at all. Pleading good intentions for imprudent actions is common now, but the plea ought not be accepted.

clip_image002[1]

: Gave Up Looking?

Jerry,

I am constantly skeptical of the often reported notion that ‘x number of people gave up looking for work last month’. How is that counted? If someone is laid off from a job, and five months later is still unemployed, they are counted as unemployed, yes? But if they are still unemployed after 25 months and their unemployment insurance payments have been exhausted they are declared to have given up looking for work? Really? I know this has been commented on before, but I feel compelled to bring it up because going along with such misleading labels clouds perception and thereby judgment.

I understand that people do give up looking for work, either temporarily or permanently. That figure can only be estimated indirectly, as with the number of Americans who are still seeking jobs but for whom unemployment insurance payments have run out. The automatic classification of a person whose unemployment insurance payments have run out as having ‘stopped looking for work’ is ludicrous and is only useful as political propaganda by whomever is in office at the time. It’s akin to counting an emergency surgery successful because the (now deceased) patient no longer has a life threatening condition. I’m sure you know the old saying.

Regards,

George

I don’t think that’s how they count the “looking for work” crew. I could be mistaken.

clip_image002[2]

Don’t be another Martha Stewart…

Give ’em a dose of their own medicine.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/delsignore010812.html

Charles Brumbelow

Heh. Actually, I wonder if some more prudent variant of this might not be a good idea. As it stands, it really is a bad idea to talk to government officials about anything; yet self government requires that the citizens cooperate with the officials. Of course the whole notion of self government is not only under attack, but in many places and on many levels lies prostrate in defeat.

clip_image003

This Brit’s take on the situation is the funniest and most down-to-earth commentary that I have heard in a long time. Great ending.

British Commentator on Bin Laden

The British Commentator returns to discuss the ass-whopping OBL got. The last minute is hilarious. This guy is good.

http://dotsub.com/view/26655849-5998-4895-ac4e-3a073a16f639 <http://dotsub.com/view/26655849-5998-4895-ac4e-3a073a16f639

clip_image002[3]

Subject: Yet another case of TSA terror Political Correctness

This young lady was likely to miss her flight because she was late, but clearly, the TSA overreacted.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/02/travel/air-passenger-gun-purse/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I have a consulting engagement in Colorado Springs next week … it’s a 8 hour drive or one hour flight for me to Denver. The cost is about a wash, but I’m driving because of the TSA and what will happen when mixed with the holiday air traffic.

Tracy

TSA as Fashion Police

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/florida-teen-detained-tsa-design-her-purse-221835034.html

Security Theater continues.

clip_image002[4]

“The irony is that even with all that cheating we still got an F on our latest progress report.”

<http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ed-dept-probes-principal-sharron-smalls-credit-scam-jane-addams-h-s-south-bronx-article-1.984905>

Roland Dobbins

Yeah.

clip_image002[5]

Large volumes of water-ice found on Mars?

<http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMUGI2XFVG_index_0.html>

——–

Roland Dobbins

I follow this story with great interest. Of course I had thought we would have a colony on Mars by 2020.

clip_image002[6]

“Silver bullets have won a lot of battles and for a long time. There’s not a lot of glory in winning by bribing the enemy commander or buying his supplies out from under him, but it’s almost always cheaper in blood and usually cheaper in gold than fighting it out.”

——————-

No, not if you want to nuke nuke nuke…

When the opposing country no longer exists, no more threat…

That is indeed true. Carthage was no longer a threat to Rome. But that hasn’t happened often in Western history; we usually accept surrender rather than insisting on extermination. Under the Constitution only Congress can declare war, as opposed to the King of England who could make war on anyone he chose (but then had to get Parliament to pay for it). As to wanting to nuke someone, I never met anyone who really wanted to do that. Certainly the people who controlled the weapons didn’t want to use them. They also knew there might be a situation in which they had to. One reason I wanted a policy of Assured Survival rather than Assured Destruction. When deterrence fails, you may have no choices left – Herman Kahn wrote a lot about that in Thinking about the Unthinkable, but not many read that book now. Perhaps they should.

clip_image002[7]

Top Five Regrets of The Dying

Jerry

Top Five Regrets of The Dying:

http://exposingthetruth.info/top-five-regrets-of-the-dying/

“For many years I worked in palliative care. My patients were those who had gone home to die. Some incredibly special times were shared. I was with them for the last three to twelve weeks of their lives. . . . When questioned about any regrets they had or anything they would do differently, common themes surfaced again and again. Here are the most common five” <snip>

Worth thinking about, I believe. I think I can see why you do what you do.

Ed

clip_image002[8]

I have a lot of mail about military tribunals, and in particular the tribunal that tried and convicted the World War II saboteurs who landed in Florida and New York.

WWII military commission

Dear Dr Pournelle:

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/summer/cramer.html

states that the complete trial records are held by the national archives, including the Executive Order convening the Commission and naming the members of the court, the prosecutors and defense counsels, all serving army officers I believe. Other material may prove of interest.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes

Very Respectfully

Matt Hayball

Robert Matthew (Matt) Hayball

Nazi tribunal info found in book

The book is "Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid on America" by Michael Dobbs.

The starting point was FDR’s orders. To quote from p. 204: "The president signed two documents relating to the saboteurs. The first was an order establishing a military commission to try the eight invaders, giving the chairman of the tribunal the right to admit any evidnece that would have "probative value to a reasonable man." The tribunal’s verdict and sentence would be transmitted directly to the president for action, rather than being subject to the normal review procedures contained in the Articles of War.

The second document was a presidential proclamation denying the defendants access to civilian courts. [Attorney General Francis] Biddle was worried that lawyers for the saboteurs might try to invoke a "troublesome" Supreme Court decision that dated back to 1866, just after the Civil War, restoring liberties suspended by Abraham Lincoln while he suppressed the Confederate rebellion. The Supreme Court had ruled in Ex parte Milligan that civilians could never be brought before a military tribunal at a time when civilian courts were "open and properly functioning." It was unclear whether the saboteurs were civilians or not: only two of them, Burger and Neubauer, were formally enrolled in the German army. It was also unclear whether the Supreme Court decision applied to foreigners. Roosevelt’s advisers hoped to avoid this legal controversy with a presidential order carving out an exception to the Milligan ruling."

(Let me see if I can pick out a few facts from a quick scan of the rest of the chapter. The tribunal consisted of Major General Frank McCoy and six others — three major generals and three brigadier generals.

Here’s a profile of the "reasonable man" in charge: "A distinguished soldier-diplomat, McCoy was the epitome of the ‘reasonable man’ standard established by the president for the conduct of the tribunal. Like most of his fellow judges, he had no legal background. But he had impeccable military credentials. He served in the Spanish-American War with Theodore Roosevelt and was wounded in the Rough Riders’ charge up San Juan Hill. TR later described his protege as ‘the best soldier I ever laid eyes on.’ Determined to prevent the saboteur case from getting bogged down in technical legal wrangling, McCoy even objected to [defense attorney Kenneth C.] Royall’s use of the term ‘court’ to describe the proceedings.

‘This is a military commission,’ he lectured. ‘Please use that term.’"

(me again) The men were charged this way:

* "Charge One: Violation of the Law of War." The defendants were "enemies of the United States acting for and on behalf of the German Reich," who had passed through American defense lines "in civilian dress contrary to the law of war … for the purpose of committing acts of sabotage, espionage, and other hostile acts." They were also charged with violating the eighty-first and eighty-second Articles of War. The first of these articles dealt with "relieving or attempting to relieve enemies of the United States with arms, munitions, supplies, money, and other things"; the second punished "lurking or acting as spies in or about the fortifications, posts and encampments of the armies of the United States." The final charge was criminal conspiracy."

"The defense lawyers objected that the accusation of "relieving" enemies of the United States was designed to be used against U.S. citizens who aided the enemy. Furthermore, the clients had never "lurked" about U.S. army encampments. McCoy overruled the objections in his usual brisk manner, causing Royall, who had been born and raised in the South, to think of an old saying from Reconstruction days: ‘Give the nigger a fair trial and hang him quick.’"

Regards,

Bill Peschel

1942 Tribunal

Jerry,

Perhaps this is what you are looking for:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/eo/1942/eo2.htm

Order Establishing a Military Commission to Try Eight Captured German Saboteurs

July 2, 1942

The Military Order:

By Virtue of the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the United States, and more particularly the Thirty-eighth Article of War (U.S. C. Title 10, Sec. 1509), I, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, do hereby appoint as a Military Commission the following persons:

Major General Frank R. McCoy, President

Major General Walter S. Grant

Major General Blanton Winship

Major General Lorenzo D. Gasser

Brigadier General Guy V. Henry

Brigadier General John T. Lewis

Brigadier General John T. Kennedy

The prosecution shall be conducted by the Attorney General and the Judge Advocate General. The defense counsel shall be Colonel Cassius M. Dowell and Colonel Kenneth Royall.

The Military Commission shall meet in Washington, D.C., on July 8th, 1942 or as soon thereafter as is practicable, to try for offenses against the Law of War and the Articles of War, the following persons:

Ernest Peter Burger

George John Dasch

Herbert Hans Haupt

Henry Harm Heinck

Edward John Kerling

Hermann Otto Neubauer

Richard Quirin

Werner Thiel

The Commission shall have power to and shall, as occasion requires, make such rules for the conduct of the proceedings, consistent with the powers of Military Commissions under the Articles of War, as it shall deem necessary for a full and fair trial of the matters before it. Such evidence shall be admitted as would, in the opinion of the President of the Commission, have probative value to a reasonable man. The concurrence of at least two-thirds of the Members of the Commission present shall be necessary for a conviction or sentence. The record of the trial including any judgment or sentence shall be transmitted directly to me for my action thereon.

Karl

Which pretty well settles this. Thanks.

clip_image002[9]

clip_image002[10]

You made the cover –

Jerry, you made the cover of the Modern Mechanix blog today. This blog

posts scans of old magazine articles and advertisements. Many of the

articles are from the early part of last century, but lately he’s been

mining the latter part of the century. Today’s top article is your

column from the July, 1984 Byte magazine. I’ve had to pause in reading

the article because I’m hyperventilating at the prices for hardware

and sizes and capacities. Oh, how times have changed!

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2011/12/01/computing-at-chaos-manor-macheads/

–Gary P.

Chaos Manor column from 1984 – ‘Mactribesmen’.

<http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2011/12/01/computing-at-chaos-manor-macheads/>

—–

Roland Dobbins

Interesting. Not sure about copyright. That was a well known column…

clip_image002[11]

College students and nuclear secrets 

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

I thought I would pass on to you this report on students at Georgetown university who have demonstrated the Chinese nuclear arsenal may be quite a bit larger than we’ve led to believe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/georgetown-students-shed-light-on-chinas-tunnel-system-for-nuclear-weapons/2011/11/16/gIQA6AmKAO_story.html

Congratulations to the kids. Outstanding work.

The thing I don’t get is the criticism by the "non-proliferation experts" referenced in page 2 of the article. Their condemnation stems from the fact that this gives more countries a reason to hold onto nuclear weapons. I find their logic puzzling. Are they saying we should make policy based on what they want us to believe rather than the truth?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The ethics of intention are pretty fundamental to modern liberalism. And after all, can’t wishing make it so?

clip_image002[12]

clip_image005

clip_image003[1]

Foreign developments

View 703 Sunday, December 04, 2011

 

clip_image002[2]

Pakistan has now authorized its troops to return fire on NATO forces firing on Pakistani troops. This in the aftermath of the border incident in which Pakistani irregulars and militia fired on a NATO post and counterfire including air strikes killed 24 Pakistani. Meanwhile, Autralia’s Federal Labor party has voted to approve sale of yellowcake uranium to India. Australia is a major source of uranium ore. It already sells to China, but India was left out because it had not signed (and will not sign) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Actual sale of uranium to India won’t begin instantly, but the way has been paved.

Meanwhile former Secretary Gates has made a speech blistering NATO. NATO has always been an entangling alliance within the meaning of George Washinton’s warning. It was deemed necessary to US interests during the Cold War, although as B H Liddell Hart wrote as far back as the 1970’s it was more useful to Europe than the US. Some NATO assistance in Afghanistan has been enormously useful – Canada stands out, as do the Brits – but the notion that the US benefits from alliances with nations encircling the former Soviet Union has been at best questionable.

And in Libya NATO is out of munitions and needs the help of the US. And the French are learning that adopting NATO standards might have been a good idea – they insisted on their own and we don’t make that and neither, apparently do the French, at least in sufficient quantities. NATO was important so long as the USSR existed and posed the threat of a drive to the Rhine, but now that there is no part of the Wehrmacht as a major ally of the Red Army (and for that matter there is no more Red Army) that threat is gone.

The US is backing the Philippines in their naval disputes with China. China is ready to denounce any assistance we give, and will do their best to prevent it. What will we do? And the United Viet Nam has sent many signals indicating that they would like to be our friends, and perhaps allies.

The Democratic controlled Senate Armed Services Committee wants to zero out further development and possible deployment of electric rail guns. There doesn’t seem to be much discussion of this, probably because of a lack of understanding of their possible importance to a modern navy.

In other words, foreign policy is still important, and the US needs people with a long view of history. There is no evidence that the current White House has any view of history at all.

clip_image002

Alexander the Great discovered that it was a lot cheaper to bribe the Afghanis not to attack his supply trains than it was to try to use military force. Gold worked a lot better than war. There is little evidence of much change since. One thing that unites Afghanistani is the sight of armed enemies in their country. One of the things they are united on is that foreigners on their soil are fair game, for looting or for blackmailing. The presence of the foreigners is an insult, but the insult can be washed out by gold. So has it been, so shall it be.

Silver bullets have won a lot of battles and for a long time. There’s not a lot of glory in winning by bribing the enemy commander or buying his supplies out from under him, but it’s almost always cheaper in blood and usually cheaper in gold than fighting it out. Depends, of course, on just what you want, and just how serious the other guy takes your threats. Mostly it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Paying Danegeld is seldom a good idea. Even if you call it foreign aid.

clip_image002[1]

clip_image002[2]

clip_image002[10]

clip_image005

clip_image002[11]

Cain is out, Newt leads, the debates go on.

View 703 Saturday, December 03, 2011

Well, the self-made black business leader and non-politician is out of the race. One supposed he will endorse Romney, but I have no real evidence of that. Cain terrified the White House. With Cain in the race, Obama had to run on issues, and there wasn’t much Al Sharpton could say except to call Cain an Uncle Tom, which doesn’t really carry much weight now. So Axelrod was loosed on Cain, and the Party that not long ago assured us that personal life and social values aren’t important – look at how good Clinton was! – has found a way to knock Cain out of the race.

It’s still not clear just what Cain is supposed to have done that disqualifies him from being President. A math major with a Purdue Master’s in Computer Science, he would have been about the best technically educated President we have had for a long time (or indeed ever). He was also clearly unprepared for what happens when you run for President.

Cain and Newt are friends, and it may be that Cain will endorse Newt. Cain is also a powerful fund raiser, and that gives him influence. There’s a good quick take on Cain’s influence in the Christian Science Monitor coverage of his drop out. Meanwhile the campaign continues, and we can be sure that it will get rougher. You have to have a lot of fire in your belly to run for President.

The United States makes it a career to learn how to get the office of President; we don’t require that you have learned how to do it. A math degree in a successful businessman argues a very good approach to assessing probabilities, but we don’t want that in a President. Precisely what we do want isn’t clear. In any event, Cain won’t be there, but with any good fortune he will be part of a new government. Secretary of Labor, perhaps.

We need someone who KNOWS what the regulations and bureaucracy have done to American commerce and labor. That’s assuming we would like to remain the land of the free.

clip_image002

I note that the ten year projected deficit is about $40 Trillion. That is largely from ten years of increased growth of government, ten years of exponential increase in spending – all of which is assumed to be “normal.” Note that the Supercommittee was charged with reducing that $40 Trillion by $1.4 Trillion, and they couldn’t do it.

I can remember when the nation was shocked: Lyndon Johnson was going to spend more that $100 Billion in one year. This would give us a great society, and take care of just about all poverty. We had a War on Poverty, and this $100 Billion a year would win it, and –

And now we cannot find a way to cut the increase in spending by $1.4 Trillion in ten years.

We may deserve what is happening to us. But feel good: there will be big pensions for government workers, raises for the civil service, continuing good times for those who live on taxes. We’ll have to raise taxes on those who actually produce something, and we’ll have to confiscate most of that loose capital that corporations have accumulated (how dare they flee overseas!!) and we can have sales taxes as well as more progressive taxes, but we’ll be able to pay the government workers and their pensions.

Then there’s the health care we can provide, and open borders, and all we need is for those people who work to go on working. But it is wrong to talk about teaching work habits. We teach entitlement habits. Let the rich teach their children work habits. Someone has to work. Who should it be, me?

We can’t reduce the increase in deficit from $40 Trillion to $38 Trillion over the next ten years. Just not possible. We can’t cut spending, so we just have to raise taxes. If anyone objects, occupy the public squares. We’ll teach them.

Sorry about that. It’s just a tirade. Never mind.

clip_image002[1]

The best display of the remaining candidates I have seen yet was on the Fox channel with Governor Huckabee and three state attorneys general questioning each of the Republican candidates in turn. It wasn’t exactly a debate since the candidates didn’t interact, but it did give each a chance to present clear answers to relevant questions on such matters as constitutionalism and states’ rights. No one won, but none of them lost, either. They all tried to contrast their views with those of Obama, and they all came off well, very much including Mitt Romney.

Newt was impressive. Peggy Noonan in her current Wall Street Journal column “The Comeback Kid of 2012” (link) says

Even Mr. Gingrich’s biggest supporters begin conversations about him with, "Believe me, I know the downside, I understand the criticism." They stress his strong points: experience, accomplishment, intelligence. But they are to a man surprised by his new appeal—they didn’t really know he had any—and they’re surprised by his resurrection. They are impressed by his brains, and always have been, and impressed by his will. They also fear he will blow it, that he’ll prove unsteady, impulsive.

I will refrain from comment on most of that, but the notion that Newt’s friends didn’t know he had any charm and appeal is an odd one. During the 1980’s Newt and his team made speech after speech to an empty House chamber, carrying the conservative and constitutional message, and over time that built to the position of Minority Whip, then the coalition that led to the Republican takeover of the House for the first time in some forty years. I don’t know where Miss Noonan was – well, actually I do, but apparently she was so involved with what she was doing that she didn’t notice Newt’s steady progress toward becoming Speaker. Newt’s got plenty of appeal.

However, he also spent years as a public intellectual never expecting again to hold public office, and he managed to do some foolish things that will come back to haunt him now. It should be interesting to see what the attack machine will develop now that he’s the front runner.

clip_image003

clip_image002[12]

clip_image005

clip_image002[13]