|
Tuesday,
Balkanization.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/
articles/1105/1105balkanization.htm
- Roland Dobbins
Also known as self-determination of nations,
local autonomy, and consent of the governed.
==========
Roger Penrose
I've only met Roger Penrose once, when one of my
supervisors, Karl Pribram, invited him to speak at a neuroscience
conference. We talked about air travel and what airlines to avoid. As I
recall, in his lecture he suggested there is a relationship between
consciousness and the measurement paradox, involving gravity.
I think consciousness involves seeing the future to
choose one's current behaviour. As long as the world doesn't care what
you're doing, you can do that using a implicit process that converges
quickly. If the world does care (as in the social behaviour of advanced
primates), the interaction between your predictions of the consequences of
your behaviour and that of others becomes chaotic, so that your vision of
the future affects your choices which affects your vision of the future,
etc. (Think poker...) There are at least three possible mechanisms for
coping with this that I've thought about. The first is an actor-critic
system, but that has the weakness that it can't cope with changes in goal
values, and even half-ounce bats can do that. The second is an explicit
prediction of the future using a forward model of some sort. Digital systems
take this approach, but have *serious* computational problems with large
state spaces. (This is why I suspect strong AI won't happen except as a
partnership between a wet brain and a computer. The wet brain looks into the
future for the partnership.) The third is an explicit prediction of the
future using some sort of analog model, like a resistive grid, so that the
assessment can be done quickly in parallel. The striatum of the basal
ganglia looks like it may have the appropriate connectivity and
physiological properties, but I can't figure out how avoidance states are
encoded. Goal states are easy--there are a number of possible mechanisms,
but avoidance states turn out to be hard. The striatal afferents appear to
be excitatory projections from a number of areas, particularly the
prefrontal cortex, and dopaminergic projections from some output areas of
the basal ganglia. Both probably work together to code goal values and the
current state. Local collaterals within the striatum are GABAergic, but
actually appear to be facultative, rather than inhibitory. There may be
electrical synapses as well, but that doesn't solve the problem. What I
would want to represent an avoidance state would be a clamping of the cells
representing that state to the potassium reversal potential, and I don't see
how that is done.
By the way, this is the system that gets seriously
screwed up by cocaine.
-- "Truth is the intersection of independent lies."
(Richard Levins, 1966)
Harry Erwin, PhD
===========
Steve Jones
Jerry:
I knew Steve briefly -- he was still doing postdoc
work at Vanderbilt and Fisk, having finished his Ph.D. at Vandy the year
before I started the graduate program there. Though I doubt he would
remember me.
He is best known for his work in low-rate fusion of
deuterium from trapped water in geological subduction zones yielding the
helium-3 observed in volcanic gases; it was the impending publication of his
paper on this subject that forced Pons and Fleishman into early publication
of their original paper on cold fusion in electrochemical cells... However,
Steve's paper has stood the test of time considerably better than theirs.
That said, check out his web site at
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ , where you will find that
he is also active in early American archaeology; however, at earlier verions
of the connected web sites (this is not so apparent now) I had picked up the
impression that his interest is in the "alternative" archaeology necessary
to the explanation of Mormon legend.
In the bottom line, Steve has no particular experience
relevant to the forensic analysis of a modern building collapse. Skimming
his paper, his argument seems significantly less relevant to the collapse of
the twin towers than to the collapse of building 7. And he may well have
taken some comments in the post-mortem report too seriously. For example, I
doubt that there was much "vaporization" of steel going on in any even;
while the oil fires were undoubtedly not above the boiling point of steel,
neither would a cutting explosive yield vaporization temperatures, and
vaporization is not necessary to cutting; the relevant parameter for
explosive collapse is the absolute yield strength in plastic flow, which
does not require vaporization or even physical melting.
The bottom line is the overall building inertia.
Unless the building were literally knocked over by the force of the initial
impact, the only force directing the collapse is gravity, which operates
downward. The only other way to apply a transverse force is by a torque,
which would result from differential collapse due to, e.g, the impact side
of the tower "giving" before the rest of the tower does. However, the mount
of "give" would be rougly equal to the height of the plane chassis -- call
it 20' out of 1,000', or about 2%. So the maximum deviation from a linear
downward collapse should be on the order of 20' on the side of the impact.
This site (http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/wtc/)
has the following description of the 7 World Trade Center collapse:
This is the 7 World Trade Center building. It
collapsed late in the afternoon on September 11, 2001. This building was not
hit by aircraft, nor was it significantly damaged in the collapse of the
main World Trade Center towers. Its collapse remains a mystery to this day,
and it is the only steel frame building to collapse strictly due to fire.
The building was evacuated that morning, and firefighters made the decision
to let it burn and focus their efforts on recovery of victims from the
collapse of the twin towers. Seven World Trade Center was somewhat unique in
that it was built above a Con Edison power substation, so it had a
complex series of braces in place of support pillars in the power
substation area. It is believed that this bracing was only marginally
sufficient to support the building, and these braces bent due to heat of the
fire, leading to failure of the building as a whole.
No complex conspiracy theories are required.
As to explosions or fires in the basements of the
buildings, which way does jet fuel flow after the tank is ruptured?
Bottom line, I'm quite astonished that Steve Jones
came up with this. It is an area in which he has no experience or particular
training, and his arguments hinge on the apparent similarity of the puffs of
"smoke" as the collapse occurs compared with equivalent photos of an
intentional implosion. This is not a proof, and I don't think it stands as a
plausibility argument.
I would be willing to be proved wrong, but I'm not
uncertain.
Jim Woosley
[Emphasis added]
Thanks. I hadn't realized the odd
construction of Tower 7; that explains a lot. As you say, once the collapse
starts, gravity is all the force there is. And see below
=============
Subject: Alex's Page
I was just reading that old entry about Word 97 on
Alex's Page (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/alex/alexpage.htm)
and wonder if he ever learned the workaround. For all versions of Word from
and after Word 97 this will clear up this and similar (hidden format) types
of problems for an individual document, although it won't make the original
cause show up OR go away.
1. Open a new, blank document. 2. In the new blank
doc, modify the Normal style to however you want the text to appear in the
problem document (font, spacing, etc. etc.). 3. Open the problem document
and press Ctrl-A to highlight the entire document, then press Ctrl-C to copy
the entire document. 4. Go back to the new blank document, and click Edit-->
Paste Special, and in the pop-up menu that appears, click on (and this is
the critical point!) Unformatted Text, then click OK. 5. Go back to the
problem document and close it without saving or modifying it. 6. You should
now be looking at your nice, clean text in the new (formerly blank)
document. Try your spellcheck; it should work just fine. Click File--Save As
and save it in the same location as the original problem document, using the
exact same file name. It should overwrite the problem document with the new,
clean copy. If you had any styles other than Normal applied within the
document, you will have to re-apply those styles, though that usually takes
less time than repeatedly manually checking the spelling & grammar.
I have been through many different Word issues (in
Word 97 to Word 2003) in my years at large law firms, deservedly known as
heavy users of word processing/text editing programs. I admit to a strong
love/hate relationship with the various apps in MS Office (all versions), as
I have been supporting my family for years on fixing people's problems in
their files & documents for these apps, especially Word and PowerPoint.
Valerie Milewski
That sure takes me back. Alex's Page was a
feature here at one time, long ago. Since I never take anything down it
stayed up, and the Word 97 problem remained. We haven't used Word 97 for a
very long time.
If you're cruising the site for good old
stuff, Reports is a good place to
look... And even that page need revision. There's a lot of good stuff on
this site, but I admit it's sometimes hard to find.
==============
Subject: Republican Party
policies: why they're unpopular, and how they could improve
Jerry,
Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam in the Weekly Standard
have some painfully acute observations about why Republicans can't just stay
the course and expect to then stay in power:
"Therein lies a great political danger for
Republicans, because on domestic policy, the party isn't just out of touch
with the country as a whole, it's out of touch *with its own base* ... you
can't have an 'ownership society' in a nation where too many Americans owe
far more than they own."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/312korit.asp
I hope somebody in the Republican Party is actually
reading this. Heck, I'd be happy if somebody in either party was.
--Erich Schwarz
The problem is simple: Congressional
districts are set to be Republican or Democrat, and they almost never change
hands. The only election is the primary. Primary elections don't get much
turnout, so the people who can turn out the vote dominate the primaries.
This is labor unions and liberal organizations in the Democratic districts,
and either religious right, or people with money, in the Republican. Indeed,
money dominates the primaries in both parties. The result is that once one
has won a primary, there is no need to move to the center to appeal to most
voters. There are clearly exceptions but in general this makes for politics
of division. The notion of a man of the people who represents all the people
is silly -- although it is possible. There are issues we all agree on, like
immigration. Unfortunately none of the political parties cares. The money
people want open borders and that is what we will get. I have no idea of how
to get out of this, but it might start with districts that really are
compact and contiguous and respect local political boundaries. This will
never happen since the Courts got in the act and helped set up weird
districts set aside for black and other minority voters.
===========
Subject: Nurses and patients
Jerry P:
Your comment about the nurses and patient ratios was
good. But the important thing, I think, is that the rich and middle class
have private medical coverage, many insured in some form. The poor have
government medical programs, called emergency rooms, at public hospitals.
There they come in with often life threatening conditions and where they get
good service, in comparative terms, but often leave and never return without
correcting the problems. It is extremely expensive to provide this service
since preventative health care is usually cheaper than health care
subsequent to a serious condition. At least that is what doctors tell me.
The point is that as tax payers we subsidize some of the most expensive
treatment. Of course these are people who wash dishes in the restaurant you
frequent, who pass among us with communicable diseases that they can't
afford to have treated; can't afford to take off time at work for; and often
don't realize that they are spreading disease due to lack of health
awareness. There lies the vector for a pandemic of the future. Government
funded health care from the emergency room will not stop that one. And the
governor meddles about with nurse to patient ratios, which he knows nothing
about in any case. It is often the loudest politicians who know the least
about real problems. Yes, we need more nurses, but we need a lot more
attention paid to public health in general, and in particular for those
among us who are largely invisible but who provide a whole host of services
that touch our lives, and personal health.
Charles Simkins
In California the emergency rooms are
filled with illegal immigrants. This costs California about 6 billion a
year. Of the 8 billion deficit in California budget at least 7 billion is
due to illegal immigrants.
You will never have good public health
when there is an infinite supply of people who stay outside the system. The
US Melting Pot worked very well to make citizens of immigrants from many
places; but it does require some time, and it does require that people
assimilate, not remain apart in their own communities. And it does require
that everyone works toward citizenship; which illegal immigrants do not do.
Amnesty never works, because it tells
those who did go through the assimilation process that they were suckers,
and tells future illegal immigrants that they too will one day get amnesty;
just come and wait.
This can't go on.
As to nurse to patient ratios, these were
established by politicians who know nothing about the process either, and
the governor was trying to adjust legality to reality. There is no chance
that most hospitals will comply with the older regulation which the governor
tried to ameliorate, and if the regulations are strictly enforced many
hospitals will simply go out of business. This cascades to overwhelm the
successful hospitals, and it goes on and on.
Way to go.
=================
Subject: Light vs. heavy rifle
rounds
Dear Jerry:
John Edwards wrote (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail387.html#Dust)
:
"On a related topic, I wonder if the weapon designers
decision to go for a small light round was unduly influenced by Viet Nam.
Much jungle shooting is necessarily spray and pray as the enemy can always
find cover from view which is not the same as cover from fire. For this duty
the amount of ammunition that can be carried is paramount and justifies a
small light round."
Actually, it wasn't influenced by Viet Nam at all.
Before WWI, the armies of the world tried to get rifle
rounds with good accuracy at extreme range. Long story short: they
succeeded, almost all adopting rounds of 7 to 8mm, with bullets of 9-13g at
around 750-900mps muzzle velocity (here after known as "full-power" rounds.)
Then the actual war came, and the damned enemy all
eventually stopped getting up and slogging forward in step, holding
formation. The inconsiderate SOBs ran forward in irregular groups, used
cover, and otherwise inconvenienced all but the best of long-distance
marksmen -- and even they mostly got their thousand meter hits with the aid
of surprise.
Instead, most hits were at fairly short distances. The
German strusstroopen, leaders in the tactical revolution, used carbines
extensively, and hand grenades. The submachine gun was invented. The U.S.
Army issued pump shotguns, and planned to issue the Pedersen Device, which
enabled a Springfield to fire .30 caliber pistol ammo full auto. Combat was
driving people to short, light, weapons with a high rate of fire.
Between the wars, various people concluded that in
future wars long-range rifle fire would seldom be used by most infantry. And
they were correct -- a study in the fifties showed that the median range for
rifle shots in the Korean War was 100 meters, with almost all at 300 meters
or less. And studies of wound ballistics showed that the existing rounds
were overkill as far as lethality was concerned. Short, light weapons with
high rates of fire looked better than ever. The problem was physics. Recoil
momentum is a constant (it's the momentum of the round, plus the net
downrange momentum of the propellent), while recoil energy is a
non-constant, inversely related to weapons mass. Until a fundamental
breakthrough in recoil control is made, the recoil energy of full auto
rifles using "full-power" cartridges makes them uncontrollable and unduly
punishing to the user, unless they mass around nine kilograms (the BAR
started out around 7kgs, and was made more massive later).
So a new cartridge was needed, and by the mid
thirties, people were working on "intermediate-power" rounds. This would
enable the a 4.5 kg weapon to fire full auto with good control and
acceptable accuracy out to at least 300 meters. Germany adopted the first
one during WWII, the Sturmegewehr 44. The Russians were impressed, and
developed the AK-47. The British worked up a 7mm intermediate round for a
'bull-pup' design rifle proposed around 1950.
But the U.S. had won the war, so it must be the fount
of military knowledge, and there were lots of people in the U.S. Army who
set their faces against intermediate power rounds. And they insisted that
the new rifle have a traditionally shaped stock, one with a drop behind the
barrel that causes muzzle rise in full auto fire (straight stocks were
considered ugly). So the U.S. designed the 7.62mm round and forced NATO to
adopt it. Then they produced the M-14 to fire it, a a drop stock rifle that
could fire full-auto, and take a 20 round box magazine. Then they tried it
in combat, and found, surprise! the laws of physics were the same in SE Asia
as in the rest of the world, and a full-auto M-14 was uncontrollable (well,
the Army could have used the M-14 action in a straight stock, and issued
cartridges that fired less massy 7.62 caliber bullets at lower velocities,
but no one was willing to do that).
Meanwhile, various operations research people had
looked at the various intermediate power rounds, and concluded that an even
smaller round, at an even higher velocity, would have even less recoil and
acceptable kinetic energy, making possible rifles around 3.15 kilos. The
Army wouldn't even look at the idea, but Curtis LeMay would, and SAC wanted
some new, light weapons for air crew and air field guards. And a guy named
Gene Stoner had developed a new, lighter 7.62 NATO cartridge rifle for a
company named Armalite. Lemay knew the operations research people and some
Armalite executives, and told Armalite that version of Stoner's rifle,
firing a high velocity 5.56mm, would interest the Air Force very much. And
lo!, the M-16 was born. And as more troops were sent to Viet Nam, it was the
only game in town if you wanted a rifle that was controllable full-auto.
In retrospect, 5.56 millimeter may be too small.
British and U.S. studies have indicated that rounds around 6.8 to 7mm would
be optimum for battlefield performance. But no one who makes decisions on
caliber is ever particularly influenced by battlefield perfomance. It's a
law of military organization. So the best we can probably hope for are
5.56mm rounds with improved penetrating capacity.
Best, Stephen M. St. Onge
=========
From France:
Bonjour,
Last Saturday, the attempt of the MRAP (officially: an
anti-racism association) to show their strenght in Paris has been a fiasco:
about 1.000 people only, and they did not succeed in provoking a clash with
policemen (a testimony tells that they were filming policemen while
provoking them in the hope to get something to complain about).
This fiasco has decreased a lot the tensions, and
since the media keep repeating that "the situation is slowly returning to
normal"), and that these riots had nothing to do with Islam but were only
the consequence of despair in front of French racism. Some have noticed that
the comparison with Lebanon in 1970s is much more adapted than the
comparison with Gaza: it had been the same denial in front of reality, the
same weakness, the same... which were decisive in the war. But censorship is
so much applied in France that it's completely impossible to know what
happens really.
Last night, Chirac has promised a lot of money and
affirmative action for "jeunes" (= Muslims), and to fight "discrimination".
He has also employed the term "territoires", that many people have
understood as an acceptation of the control of suburbs by Islamists
(acceptation of "Millets"). A cartoon (in English) is a good summary:
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/holy-toledo-1994.html
The "funny" thing is that now French are complaining
about the image these riots could have given of France outside, and about
the precision of the reports by journalists in USA (in France everything is
hidden). This is somewhat surprising when we remember how Kattrina was
presented here, and when we see the very precise listing of all problems
existing in Irak and Israël repeated day after day by the official press
(AFP).
Some bloggers have written that even Libération (2nd
French national newspaper) is publishing calls for war by this first page:
http://phnk.com/blog/images/libe-emeutes.png Title: "Banlieues : Les femmes
à vif" "à vif" means litteraly not protected by the skin, and is used about
people when they are so nervous they could go to fight. Subtitle (bottom
left) : "The mothers and sisters of the young muslims of the cités tell
about their daily life of angryness and frustration and tell their approval
of rioters". It's a way of saying that ALL people from Cités are guilty
(which is untrue), and to increase resentment in other people.
Optimism is not the dominant feeling: polarization has
increased a lot, as is shown by Libération, and I can't see how it could be
reduced now.
A bientôt,
Philippe
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away Philip K. Dick
===========
 Potentially
millions of hosts compromised by Sony rootkit ( priority one).
http://www.doxpara.com/?q=sony
-- Roland Dobbins
And see the
Hellewell warning letter in View. This is serious stuff, folks.
=
And people thought I was over-reacting when I
suggested boycotting Sony, let alone bringing criminal charges.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson
=
You were spot-on. Look at the visualizations of
rootkitted host distributions (based upon the 'phone-home' component's DNS
queries):
http://www.doxpara.com/planetsony_usa.JPG
http://www.doxpara.com/planetsony_asia.JPG
http://www.doxpara.com/planetsony_europe.JPG
Roland Dobbins
==========
The TSA remains a huge boondoggle. The smirking,
leering trolls "making our country safe" are a bigger disgrace than our
federal prison system. I fail to see how removing my rockports & suspenders
makes air travel safer, especially when...
TV Stations Get Their Reporters On Planes --
Repeatedly -- Without Proper ID
http://www.aero-news.net/news/commair.cfm?Content
BlockID=76b32250-d7bd-4bc5-b93c-cb1754a8ea1e&Dynamic=1
Robbie Walker
=====
G'day Jerry,
I don't know if you have heard about the counter
terrorist raids in Sydney and Melbourne last week, but we seem to have
nabbed the world's stupidest terrorists.
Picture it,
You got the explosives.
You got the detonators.
You've rigged up your suicide vest.
You're all set to blow away some infidells and start
banging those virgins in paradise.... but mom wont let you!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17248964%255E5001561,00.html
<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17248964%255E5001561,00.html>
Mommies boy suicide bombers, tell me the World's not
crazy?
"Can we do the attack before 7pm? Mom doesn't like me
going out late."
Best Regards,
Chris Papalia.
Perth, Australia.
==========
Subject: Interesting Take on
Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design
From Lee King
Dr. Pournelle:
From the blog of Scott Adams, the creater
of "Dilbert":
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html
Intelligent Design, Part 1
To me, the most fascinating aspect of the
debate over Darwinism versus Intelligent Design is that neither side
understands the other side’s argument. Better yet, no one seems to
understand their own side’s argument. But that doesn’t stop anyone from
having a passionate opinion.
I’ve been doing lots of reading on the subject,
trying to gather comic fodder. I fully expected to validate my preconceived
notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the
Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as
scientists. That’s the way the media paints it. I had no reason to believe
otherwise. The truth is a lot more interesting. Allow me to set you
straight. (Note: I’m not a believer in Intelligent Design, Creationism,
Darwinism, free will, non-monetary compensation, or anything else I can’t
eat if I try hard enough.)
First of all, you’d be hard pressed to find a
useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you
could use to form your own opinion. I can’t find one, and I’ve looked. What
you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other’s position and then
making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don’t
believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)
To make things more complicated, both sides
have good and bad arguments lumped into them. If you make a good argument on
your side, I respond by attacking your bad argument instead. If it were a
debate contest, both sides would lose.<snip>
I've said much the same things. Clearly
some evolution has taken place. Clearly there is a universe which may or may
not have a purpose. Clearly there is no current scientific method for
determining that purpose if there be one. Clearly science is the best weapon
we have for understanding how things work.
And clearly children will be contaminated
beyond belief if anywhere in the country there is a school teacher who
suggests that the Hand of God might guide certain events, and all those
teachers need to be rooted out and sent to the salt mines. How we ever
survived as a nation with all that talk about Divine Providence from the
Framers and the Patriots, and all that religious stuff put out by chaplains
to the military is beyond me.
==========
Subject:
Steve Jones, 9/11, and conspiracies
"...where you will find that he is also active in
early American archaeology; however, at earlier verions of the connected web
sites (this is not so apparent now) I had picked up the impression that his
interest is in the "alternative" archaeology necessary to the explanation of
Mormon legend..."
A quick look a those "archaeology" links will show
that Dr. Jones' interests in conspiracy and fringe are not unique to his
building collapse analysis. The group to which he's scientific advisor
believes there to be a grand academic conspiracy to hide, destroy, steal,
and deny any artifacts or "proofs" that contradict accepted history (sound
familiar?). Example of such "proofs" consist of Egyptian hieroglyphs in the
U.S. Southwest, ancient "European" artifacts in Illinois, etc...
That's not even Mormon-ized alternative archaeology.
That stuff is the purest of fantasy - very much akin to space-aliens
building the Egyptian pyramids, Egyptians building Cahokia mounds, Native
Americans being the lost tribe of Israel/Atlanteans/[insert supposedly
missing peoples here], or other similar works of fiction.
The headings are interestingly "Archaeometry" rather
than "Archaeology" also. Wouldn't be surprising for a physicist.
For those that might not know "Archaeometry" is that
application of physical and biological sciences to issues related to
archaeology. For example radiocarbon dating, metallurgical analysis of
artifacts, isotope or other chemical analyses of materials or residues are
all under the heading of "archaeometry".
..."History of the Ancients" it isn't...
I'm sure Dr. Jones has perfectly valid credentials in
some things, but it's pretty obvious that he likes a good conspiracy in
whatever form...
Scary thing is - there's plenty of folks out there
willing to believe such nonsense whether it be the U.S. gov't covering up
the "real" cause for the towers' collapse (or according to some I've heard -
actually blowing them up to get us into a war) or wanting to think that the
pharaohs were running around prehistoric Colorado...
Since his paper seems to be stirring at least some
small discussion, thought I'd give him another bit of context for people.
Regards,
--J. Scott Cardinal
All news to me. Thanks.
============
Subject: thoughts on pirates
Dr. Pournelle,
I have been reading about these Somali Pirates and
their mysterious "Mother Ship" with interest. Having grown up on stories of
swashbuckling pirates, their real incarnation is no doubt fascinating to
many of us. What I wonder about the whole thing is why we cannot deal
decisively with them once and for all. I have no knowledge of naval tactics,
but it seems to me that one destroyer from a western navy should be able to
sail in there with impunity and simply destroy this vessel and all of it's
partners. I wonder why no one
has done so. Is freedom of navigation on the high seas
not vital to U.S. National Interests (epecially those particular seas)?
Would not any American Destroyer Skipper be simply chomping at the bit to be
given the chance? If they are anything like your average American Infantry
Battalion Commander (with which type I am much more familiar) I would guess
that they would be. I understand that your son is a Naval Officer. Perhaps
he can shed some light on the subject? Thanks and keep up the good work.
Matt Kirchner Baghdad, Iraq
=
Subject: RE: thoughts on pirates
Dad,
It is every Naval Officer's dream to take on and
capture/kill pirates. I can think of few conflicts where the good guys
versus bad guys could be so clear. The challenge is not being labeled a
pirate yourself.
The pirates in question are apparently operating out
of Somalia. Like any parasite, they come out in the dark and slink back into
their hiding place.
Technically Somalia is a sovereign nation. Gaining
permission to enter their territorial waters is impossible. I don't want to
potentially expose any current operational planning, but I'm certain the
Joint Task Force for Horn of Africa is looking at the issue very closely.
Love, Phil Pournelle
Godspeed
===========w
The greatest degeneration.
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4986
- Roland Dobbins
<snip> How is it, I ask you, that
millions of American parents became convinced that it was normal and
healthy to treat their kids like pagan princes and princesses, indulging
their licentious desires and hedonistic impulses? And make no mistake
about it, this isn’t Beaver Cleaver and these students don’t journey to
paradise to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey or bobbing-for-apples . . .
it’s more like the forbidden apple.
Let’s be blunt, one way a daughter could frame
this is, “Hey, Mom and Dad, can I go to Cancun for spring break (or to
celebrate, or some other occasion)?” But translated that often means, “Hey,
Mom and Dad, can I go to Cancun, where I’ll most likely have sex with some
libidinous boy you don’t know from Adam – maybe even with lots of boys –
drink, smoke, and perhaps even do drugs?” That sounds crazy but is, in
essence, accurate. Crazier still is that the parents’ answer is often
“yes.”<snip>
TOP
CURRENT VIEW Tuesday |
