| Friday,
June 4, 2003 Subject: FYI - Ray Bradbury on Michael Moore...
Dr. Pournelle, You might find the translation of a
Swedish interview with Bradbury to be of interest.
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/06/02.html#a5394
Some of the reader comments are particularly of
interest as well.
Regards,
--- Richard Johnson Instructor Computer & Information
Sciences University of South Alabama
Heh. Ray can be a bit colorful at times. Heh.
==============================
Subject: "Travellers" in the
UK
I followed the link from your site to the article
about the British villagers refusing to pay their council tax in protest of
the "traveller" incursion, and wasn't too surprised---both at the villagers'
action and the official response. The British authorities are, for reasons I
find opaque, apparently scared silly of "travellers," possibly because some
soft-headed type classified them as a "minority group," instead of a
subculture of thieves and scroungers, which is what the majority of them
are. The real Roma (gypsies), I am told, utterly despise them, both for
their filthy habits (using neighbors' lawns as a place to crap, forex) and
for the hostility their activities generate toward all travelling
folk---even though some of the "traveller" population does have an admixture
of Roma ancestry from 'way back when.
Not being up on the latest twists and turns in the
perversion of British law, I am unable to explain how it is that "travellers"
are allowed to invade and pitch camp more-or-less where they please, with
the law apparently unable to do anything about it for a matter of several
weeks---more than enough time for any caravans (camping trailers and the
like) in the neighborhood to disappear, the local crime-rate in general to
skyrocket, and anything made of scrappable metal to vanish mysteriously in
the night. After finding out about the Tony Martin case (in which a farmer
went to prison for shooting and killing a 16-year-old burglar, a "traveller,"
with _29_ prior convictions, who had broken into the farmer's home) my
curiosity was piqued, and I started sniffing around Usenet. A search under "pikeys"
on the rec.caravanning.uk groups yields some interesting data---it seems
that if you own a caravan in the UK, you have to keep it under tight lock
and key, or else it'll mysteriously disappear, and even if the police find
it, the "travellers" have torn it up and nearly ruined it---and to add
insult to injury, the owner is generally advised that pressing charges is
unwise, since the guilty parties and their friends and kin will do their
utmost to harass and steal from the complaining party, even in the unlikely
event of a conviction.
I'm not British. Anybody trying that sort of
shenanigans around here would receive mighty short shrift, either at the
hands of the landowners or of the law. I don't know what the British can do
about it, but I predict that sooner or later, this sort of thing is going to
breed an almighty huge backlash.
Eric Oppen
One does wonder just how long the English will put
up with what is being done to them. Perhaps indefinitely, but given their
history as, as Parkinson put it once, "one of the most war-like people in
history," it is a bit astonishing. But the Anglo-Norman experiment in
world order is over, apparently even at home.
And perhaps they are not alone in giving up their
heritage:
Jerry,
I'm very much an agnostic. However, I'm also very
opposed to the Politically Correct BS that appears to more and more
prevalent. Especially, the antagonism to religion. From what I've read, a
good number of the Founding Fathers were either agnostic or out-right
atheists. That didn't prevent them from agreeing that a person has a right
to worship or not as they wish.
This article from CNN is alarming in two ways - first
the discrimination against a religious function. What is worse (IMHO), is
the statement by one of the park's officials : "We don't want to tread on
anybody's First Amendment or constitutional rights," said Brian Robinson,
director of the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority. "What we try to
discourage is anything not formally permitted that just sort of occurs
spontaneously."
One definition that I have read regarding
totalitarianism is this: "What is not expressly permitted is forbidden."
Reads quite like the official's statement, doesn't it?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/02/baptism.ban.ap/index.html
In the same vein, we have this here in Florida (a
little north of Tampa):
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2004/6/2/44237.html
It amazes me that people accept this type of action.
While we were once citizens responsible for ourselves, we are agreeing to
our on subjugation in the interest of safety.
There is a phrase that was once very prevalent and
taken to heart by many: "Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a
little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."1
It says much about our society that so many so quietly
accept the loss.
Dean Sanchez
From Bartleby.com 1) This sentence was much used in
the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an
answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto
of Franklin's "Historical Review," 1759, appearing also in the body of the
work.-Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413
And the Los Angeles County Commissioners are about
to remove a tiny cross from the County Seal to avoid an ACLU law suit. It
will cost about a million dollars to remove it from all the places it
appears (sheriff's patrol cars, county buildings, flags, etc.) but that will
cost less than the law suit would have cost the county. I am sure the people
appreciate having their civil liberties so defended.
Subject: "financial institutions"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5131685/site/newsweek/
-- Roland Dobbins
Taking reward against the innocent. But we were
born free...
Of Civil Liberty: Patriot Act vs. ACLU
Jerry,
I'm not generally on the side of the ACLU, but frankly
the Patriot Act has begun to scare me. Extra-legal arrests and warrants
should scare us all.
Brent brent@brentjones.org
From counterpunch.org [never heard of them before
this] which I linked to from this Slashdot.org "article"
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/31/0322243&mode=flat&tid=103&tid=123&tid=99
the Slashdot comments at level 5 are
excellent for thought provoking.
Ashcroft, Snoops and Gag Orders The Secrets of
Surveillance By ELAINE CASSEL
Everyone knows by now (or should) that the
Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct surveillance on Internet and email
usage. Using so-called National Security Letters (NSLs), the FBI directs
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide passwords and identifying
information that will allow the government to target people who are plotting
terrorism or who are otherwise potentially dangerous to national security. I
am sure that many of you reading this (and I, likely) have the government in
our computers.
The same mechanism of NSLs is used to obtain
information from librarians, health care providers, and business records of
individuals and entities. The party from whom the government demands
information is forbidden from telling the client that the FBI is being
provided information. And the target of the investigation won't know about
it until or if he or she is arrested for crime or detained without a charge
(say, as a material witness).
Until now, we did not know much about how the
government goes about this procedure. Now we do. Thanks to a suit filed by
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in New York in behalf of an
unnamed ISP. The government has tried mightily to keep the entire suit under
seal, but the federal judge has allowed the ACLU to release some information
about the case.
Following is a report on the case, with some
interesting heretofore unknown details. Never has the ACLU needed your
financial support more. Clearly, it is the only thing standing between us
and our fascist government. Read the briefs and supporting documents in the
case.
"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
yesterday released more information about the heavily censored legal
challenge it is bringing against the government's use of a controversial
provision of the USA PATRIOT Act that allows the FBI to obtain from
businesses sensitive personal information about their clients. Among the
documents unsealed today is a declaration by the ACLU's anonymous client in
the case, the president and sole employee of an unnamed Internet Service
Provider (ISP), referred to only as "John Doe." John Doe is prohibited by
law from revealing his identity to the public, even as he confronts the
federal government over the very section of the Patriot Act that forces him
to remain anonymous.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel05292004.html links to complete
article.
Brent brent@brentjones.org
Which is the sort of thing one expects a Civil
Liberties Union to be concerned with.
There are reasonable compromises between liberty
and the requirements of security in war time. The Civil War showed that:
there were Confederate sympathizers in all parts of the country, and some
were more than merely sympathizers. And then there were the World War II
American born saboteurs sent to wreak havoc (although they weren't very
competent, and at least one simply wanted to get back to his girl friend...)
More recently, the McCarthy era showed both that
the threats were real and the opportunities for abuse of power in
suppressing real threats can make the cures worse than the disease. (I
recommend Buckley's THE RED HUNTER, a fictionalized history of those times,
for those who want to understand what was going on then.)
But surely this is a more pressing matter than
replacing the Los Angeles County seal.
===================
Subject: The Outward Urge
Jerry:
I
have long thought that the call to space and the call of the sea have a lot
in common. People who feel the urge to break free of the Earth are, I think,
descendants of those who in a different age could not resist the hazards and
the loneliness of life under sail. I find myself moved by the literature of
the sea (e.g., Joseph Conrad, or C.S. Forester, or Patrick O'Brian) in the
same way I am by evocative science fiction (e.g., yours, or Larry's, or
Poul's). The same is true of poetry. I think we understand the answer to the
question Kipling asks in 'The Harp Song of the Dane Women'
("What is a woman that you forsake her
And the hearth fire and the home-acre
To go with the old grey Widow-maker?")
One
of the best answers to that question is John Masefield's 'Sea Fever," which
has always been a favorite of mine. It seems to me that we need something
similar to express the spaceward urge, so I have shamelessly adapted
Masefield for that purpose. Maybe some of my fellow astronuts will like it:
Star Fever
(with apologies to John Masefield)
I
must go out into space again, to a lonely place in the sky,
And all I ask is a swift craft and a star to steer her by,
And the countdown and the lift off and the g force growing,
And the MECO and the free fall, with the world's curve showing.
I
must go out into space again, for the call of that rocket ride
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
And all I ask is a perigee with the thruster roaring,
And a clean burn to a Hohmann arc, with the r-dot soaring.
I
must go out into space again, to a star like a brilliant spark,
And the strange worlds that are out there, in the depths of the endless
dark;
And all I ask is a thrilling yarn from a fellow stellar rover
Of planetfall and xeno life, when the long trek's over.
Phil Chapman
===============================
Mr. Maas writes:
(and see above)
I do have to write that my SUBJECTIVE view of your
website leads ME to conclude that you show a marked favoritism to the Arab
viewpoint of the Mideast.
For example, you can read what you posted to Akiva on
June 2, 2004. You write "I am fairly certain that the Palestinians will
never put up with what the South African blacks would not accept, and so far
that's the best offer they have had."
But not a single opinion on why Arafat didn't make a
counter offer. My SUBJECTIVE view is that you place the failure to reach a
peace agreement then - and the responsibility for all the violence that
follows - solely on the Israelis.
And in the very next paragraph you explicitly state
the current violence is due to the actions of both the PLA and the Likud.
"It's as if Likud needs PLA"
It is my opinion that you are wrong. Once the
Palestinians stop Jew murdering and accept the right of the State of Israel
to exist in peace, the violence will end. It is my opinion that the entire
onus of violence rests solely on the shoulders of Arafat. It is my opinion
that the actions of Israel, and the tactics they employ, are both morally
legitimate and an effective means of self defense against a sworn enemy.
Ted Maas
Which certainly deserves an answer.
First: earlier Mr. Maas and others have said that I
generally have more to say about Israeli atrocities than Palestinian. I
agree; but surely there is no lack of information about the actions of the
Palestinians and Arabs? And surely everyone here is aware of them, and
anyone who thinks I have anything worth saying cannot possibly believe that
I am either unaware or indifferent?
If you want to break your heart, read Richard Ben
Cramer HOW ISRAEL LOST with its stories of losses on both sides. The Russian
single mother physician who claimed to be Jewish in order to get her
daughter out of Siberia (she vaguely remembered a Jewish grandmother),
brought her to Israel, raised her to her teens, and lost her to a suicide
bomber; the Palestinian mother whose teen-age kid was blown up in the
act of assembling a bomb to put into a model airplane; and on, and on. No
one not bereft of his senses can fail to be aware of the horrors; and having
been there in 1998 when there was peace and we could travel through the West
Bank as well as Israel, it is doubly horrible because I have seen what that
land can be like when the worst one sees are insults and insensitiveness;
but this was when everyone thought there would be peace.
(Worst one personally sees: but there were the
minefields in the Jordan Valley, and the busses of Settlers with 15 year old
boys carrying loaded machineguns with spare magazines taped on as they
toured Christian churches on Mount Carmel. And the armed checkpoints that
seemed designed to humiliate those who had to go through them: but balanced
by the continuing foot traffic about 200 yards away through the olive groves
of the Inter-religious Institute of Tantour.)
Yes: I have probably said more about Israeli
actions than Palestinian, but that is largely because the former generally
go unreported while the latter seldom do. When I write of such matters I
have a point; I don't write about atrocities because I like thinking about
them.
Now regarding the Peace Offer. Richard Ben Cramer
had a very great deal to say about that in his excellent book. Let me
summarize.
Arafat did make a counter offer, it was his
original offer, which was never even considered.
Cramer believes the Palestinians are ham handed,
and Arafat doesn't want peace any more than Sharon; if there is to be peace
it will have to be negotiated by someone with more claims to legitimacy than
that thug. I haven't Cramer's extensive experience in that area, but I have
long believed that. The PLO has no chance of retaining ownership of
Palestine in fee simple if normal conditions return to that land. It has
rivals, and so far politics and thuggery are indistinguishable, but it's not
certain that the PLO would win even in a battle to the death among thugs,
were it not for the threat if Israeli intervention.
As Richard Ben Cramer says in HOW ISRAEL LOST, if
the Israelis went back to roughly the Green Line keeping much of Jerusalem
and putting the Old City in some special status with possibly dual or
international sovereignty, removed the minefields from the Jordan Valley,
and stopped trying to exercise control -- check points, control of all
import and export, petroleum and food monopolies over everything going into
Palestine -- and pulled out the Settlements, there would be peace in an
instant. The Palestinians would not be happy about losing the rights of
refugees to return, but it would be pretty hard to get people to blow
themselves up slaughtering innocents over the rights of their grandparents
to properties in pre-1967 Israel, particularly if compensation were offered.
I think everyone knows this. It is certainly
arguable.
The Israelis have never offered sovereignty -- a
return to pre-1967 conditions with territorial adjustments -- and it doesn't
look as if they ever will.
Years ago I said, here and elsewhere, that if
Israel wanted peace all they had to do was to build a Wall more or less
along the Green Line adjusting for really critical military topography but
not for economic, keep Jerusalem but offer to negotiate on its form of
government, pay for whatever they left inside their side of Wall, remove the
Settlers (paying them to leave, and leaving their improvements as a prize
and partial compensation; why blow them up?) and just declare themselves RID
of Gaza and the West Bank. Let it be sovereign, let Jordan have the West
Bank, invite the Martians to come in: but get out and stay out and let the
Palestinians sort out who will be in charge.
Instead, they have built a Wall that includes deep
incursions into Judea and Samaria and separates villages from cities, they
insist on control over everything imported or exported from Gaza and all of
the West Bank, and they keep check points deep inside Palestine; and keep
the Jordan Valley a desolation on the West side. Driving along the road from
Jericho to Galilee is an experience: on the Jordan side all is green. On the
West bank of the Jordan they have built a desolation, mined it heavily, and
call it a defense policy.
The new Wall isn't a peace offer, and it won't be
secure; it's a perversion of the notion.
As I said earlier, there are plenty of arguments
about the morality and who's in the right and the rest of it; and perhaps
the chaos that is there is justified because not going back to the Green
Line (more or less) is worth fighting and dying and continuing the
occupation and making the Jordan desolate; but surely that ought to be
debated?
One more point: the fortification of the Jordan
Valley, and the retention of high ground Settlements in Judea and Samaria,
are often justified by the needs of military security. I think this
demonstrable nonsense.
The Golan Heights are a different matter, and were
I an Israeli military officer I would immolate myself before acquiescing in
my government's surrender of the Heights. Take the high ground, boy, or they
will kick hell out of you in the valley. But that's entirely different from
the Jordan valley. Palestine isn't part of Jordan any longer, and Jordan
isn't likely to build a mass tank army and send it across the river. Nor is
Egypt likely to attack again. The military security of Israel in these days
of electronic surveillance, satellites, and even embassies in Jordan and
Egypt, doesn't depend on watchtowers on Mount Gerizim and minefields north
of Jericho.
Israel is far stronger, relative to her neighbors,
now than in the dire days of the Yom Kippur War, when they really did come
close to losing, or thought they had; and military intelligence is much
better. And for that matter, the US maintains forces in Sinai to oversee the
demilitarization of that area. Probably the only world power that could
defeat Israel now is the United States. The likelihood of any
combination of Arab and Muslim states and their allies being able to do it
is negligible. Israel's peace is not threatened by armored armies and air
forces.
What would I do were I a Palestinian? I'd get out.
But of course some Palestinian, Christian, Muslim, and Druze, have very deep
roots. Some families have lived in Bethlehem since their ancestors were
converted to Christianity by the Apostles. They are not leaving, and they
have sad stories. But one thing I would not do is encourage my children to
blow themselves up killing other children. I'd also keep them far away from
any armed Palestinian. And cry a lot, just as the Russian physician cries
for her lost daughter.
And a last point: I would think it obvious that
Israel can be: democratic; big; Jewish -- pick any two. To remain Jewish and
democratic, Israel must have a majority of Jews. Ben Gurion said that in
1949 to the Knesset when the Green Line was proposed. He said that the
Haganah could conquer all of the Land of Israel, from the Sea to the River;
but it would then have a minority of Jews, and after the next election the
government would be Arab. Those numbers have not changed much.
===================
And now for something a
little different:
Subject: travellers and Brits
Dr. Pournelle,
An answer as to why the British put up with the
travellers - Brits pride themselves on being of a rather stoic nature. Any
real complaints, or taking up the cause of another's complaint, may be
viewed as weakness. In this manner, they view Americans as being rather weak
and easily distracted.
This also explains the English phenomena whereby a wal-mart
style superstore is put up in town, and it immediately starts out by pricing
it's goods ABOVE the prices in small stores. There is a rather common saying
among Americans who live in England for more than a few weeks that "England
is a third world country working half days to catch up." Every Brit I've
talked to here will quite cheerfully point out little British quirks that
the whole world considers to be backwards, but since nobody complains,
nothing ever changes. A big example is kitchen and bathroom water faucets.
The Brits are unable to engineer a faucet that is capable of combining hot
and cold water to create warm water out of the faucet. Most sinks have
either a cold and hot spigot, or a single spigot that has 2 closely spaced
hot and cold outlets at the end instead of combining the cold and hot water
early enough to create warm water before it is dumped out. They are also
unable to make a simple locking doorhandle. Most doors have a bolt lock that
requires the use of a key both inside and outside, and a fixed knob in the
center of the door, ensuring that there is only 50% of the leverage
available to pull the door closed and the door must be locked with the key
or it swings open freely.
Brits openly acknowledge these as throwback
engineering failures, but the stores do not sell faucets that can create
warm water, and they do not sell any doorhandles that can latch a door shut
without locking it or requiring a key to keep it shut. It's because nobody
complains, and nobody requires anybody to actually DO anything about
anything.
About the only thing they're good at is driving...
It's refreshing to see people actually following traffic laws and not
driving 10 mph below the speed limit in the fast lane, but that's because
the training required to get a drivers license is tough enough to be
considered discriminatory and racist in the US since it requires a
significant cash investment, the ability to read, and a lot of time as a
restricted driver before an unrestricted license is issued. But anything
else, road safety conditions, law enforcement, household engineering, it's
all "good enough" and doing anything to fix inconveniences is seen as weak,
something a mere colonist might do, and frowned upon in general. So the
issue with the travellers is not going to change. There are too many
generations of socialist stoics around for anything to happen. They are a
pacified, socialist, unarmed populace and it shows via a nearly complete
lack of ambition or progress.
But it sure is a gorgeous looking place to live. Green
beyond belief. I grew up in S. California and this place is amazingly lush
compared to most places in the US. Nice architecture, lots of history,
plenty of things to do.
Sean Long
I think I have no comment...
==============
Subject: Virus warning
There's a new virus, Korgo, exploiting the same
exploit as Sasser. This one logs keystrokes and sends them back to the
creator so that passwords, credit card info and other personal data can be
recovered. As before, it only affects XP/2K machines, making those of us
that stuck with 98 safe. <snicker!> Details and a link to the MicroSoft
patch are at
http://www.overclockersclub.com/?read=8636435.
-- Joe Zeff The only problem with
trouble-shooting is that sometimes trouble shoots back. http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz
http://www.lasfs.org
Thanks. These things are thick on the ground
lately. Actually this one has been around for a while. Anyone who has been
taking care of OS updates ought to be safe, but for those who don't:
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.korgo.a.html
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-011.mspx
============
Many long years ago I took Poul
Anderson to Edward Teller's OPEN SPACE AND PEACE conference at Stanford,
where I presented a paper on operational factors. It has been a while...
Open Skies Treaty
-----Original Message----- From: statelists@STATE.GOV
[mailto:statelists@STATE.GOV] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:34 PM To:
DOSFACTS@LISTS.STATE.GOV Subject: Open Skies Treaty
Fact Sheet Bureau of Arms Control Washington,
DC June 4, 2004
Origin and Purpose
The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on
January 1, 2002, and currently has 30 States Parties. The Treaty establishes
a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of
its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and
confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in
gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to
them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to
date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities.
The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President
Eisenhower in 1955; the Treaty itself was an initiative of President George
H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and
the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. The
United States ratified it in 1993. This Treaty is not related to
civil-aviation open skies agreements.
Membership
The 30 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty
are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian
Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine,
and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty
depositaries are Canada and Hungary.
The Treaty is of unlimited duration and open to
accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union that have not
already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time.
Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus
decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based
organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to
which all States Parties belong. Four states have acceded to the Treaty
since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The
OSCC has also approved applications for accession by Lithuania, Estonia,
Slovenia, and Croatia. Croatia ratified the Treaty but has not yet deposited
its instrument of ratification. Cyprus s application for accession is
pending before the OSCC.
Basic Elements of the Treaty
Territory. The Open Skies regime covers the
territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land,
islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the
entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation
flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons
of national security.
Aircraft. Observation aircraft may be provided
by either the observing Party or (the "taxi option") by the observed Party,
at the latter's choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass
specific certification and pre-flight inspection procedures to ensure that
they are compliant with Treaty standards. The official certified U.S. Open
Skies aircraft is the OC-135B (a military version of the Boeing 707).
Sensors. Open Skies aircraft may have video,
optical, panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infra-red
line scanners for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a
day/night, all weather capability. Photographic image quality will permit
recognition of major military equipment (e.g., permit a State Party to
distinguish between a tank and a truck), thus allowing significant
transparency of military forces and activities. Sensor categories may be
added and capabilities improved by agreement among States Parties. All
equipment used in Open Skies must be commercially available to all
participants in the regime.
Quotas. Each State Party is obligated to
receive observation flights per its passive quota allocation. Each State
Party may conduct as many observation flights -- its active quota -- as its
passive quota. During the first 3 years after EIF, each State will be
obliged to accept no more than 75% of its passive quota. Since the overall
annual passive quota for the United States is 42, this means that it will be
obligated to accept no more than 31 observation flights a year during this
3-year period. Only two flights were requested over the United States during
2004, by the Russian Federation and Republic of Belarus Group of States
Parties (which functions as a single entity for quota allocation purposes).
The United States is entitled to 8 of the 31 annual flights available over
Russia/Belarus. Additionally, the United States is entitled to one flight
over Ukraine, which we share with Canada.
Data Sharing/Availability. Imagery collected
from Open Skies missions is available to any State Party upon request for
the cost of reproduction. As a result, the data available to each State
Party is much greater than that which it can collect itself under the Treaty
quota system.
Implementation of the Treaty
Provisional application of portions of the
Treaty took place from signature in 1992 until entry into force in 2002.
During that period, participants conducted joint trial flights for the
purpose of training flight crews and testing equipment and sensors. With
entry into force of the Treaty, formal observation flights began in August
2002. During the first Treaty year, States Parties conducted 67 observation
flights. For 2004, States Parties have planned 82 missions. The OSCC
continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and
other implementation issues.
Since the signature of the Open Skies Treaty in
1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open
Skies Treaty continues to contribute toward European security by enhancing
openness and transparency among the Parties. For further information please
see www.state.gov/t/ac.
[End]
*********************************************************** See http://www.state.gov/
for all State Department Fact Sheets
************************************************************ To change your
subscription, go to http://www.state.gov/www/listservs_cms.html
=========================
On Michael Moore:
Subject: Michael Moore follow-up
You all probably know by now my feelings regarding MM
and his lying "documentaries."
Here's a link to reactions regarding his latest:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/06/02.html#a5394
make sure to follow the links downstream to get a
clear picture of his shenanigans.
As background, [let me just say that] I enjoyed his
first film and had an open mind regarding his work, even if I felt that he
stretched things a bit beyond normal bounds.
But it was when he premiered his TV series that one
segment he aired destroyed his credibility as a documentarian en toto. And
that's the worst sin a documentarian can commit. Lie, whether due to
ignorance (meaning he did not research the subject sufficiently) or by
pursuing an agenda and ignoring the facts (i think the latter is the case).
In a nutshell, the segment castigated the big, bad HMO
for refusing the "life saving" pancreas transplant to a victim of diabetes.
Well... not to draw a too fine picture, diabetes is
successfully managed by insulin injections and patients treated in such a
manner live long and fruitful lives. The only difference between such
treatment and a functioning pancreas is the avoidance of having to suffer
the daily injections. So, rather than a life/death situation, as it was
portrayed in the segment, it's a quality of life issue, and one not severely
impacting the diabetic. While I have no love lost for HMOs, I have to side
with them in this case.
And to quote Ray Bradbury, "Michael Moore is an
asshole." I think that Moore himself has provided all the evidence we need
to come to that conclusion.
Bas
=========================
The above triggered several
letters on diabetes; let this stand for the dozen or so I received:
Subject: Diabetes more than a nuisance - buffy willow
Dr. Pournelle,
The statement "The only difference between [regular
insulin injections] and a functioning pancreas is the avoidance of having to
suffer the daily injections" is not true. There are a lot of long term life
shortening health complications caused by diabetes (blindness - diabetes is
supposedly the biggest cause of blindness in under-65s, kidney disease,
neuropathy, heart disease, infection, amputation, etc), and the diabetics
I've known worry much more about that than the injections. There are some
short term risks, too, particularly if the diabetic gets away from their
insulin supply or regular diet (unexpected plane delays, the distraction
when a parent dies, etc). Not everybody is perfectly disciplined either,
although you can say that is the responsibility of the diabetics or their
parents (but ever try to get a teenager to consistently do something that is
good for them when you are not around?).
Insulin injections are a life saver and the argument
about Moore vs. the HMO can still be made (do all diabetics get a new
pancreas?), but injection-controlled diabetes is more than just a nuisance.
I bet you'll get a lot of mail on this one.
Tom
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
