Great Lakes Skydock

Go Joe!

2008-08-27T20:42:00.000-07:00

I guess great minds think alike. Lieberman for SecState, not Veep. I posted about this only a few months ago.

Hat tip: Hot Air.

Inside Georgia

2008-08-26T12:39:00.000-07:00

Michael Totten is an amazing individual. He comes off as almost a daredevil reporter, going to the hot spots of the world and bringing back the story. In this case, he happened to be nearby Georgia in Azerbaijan, and he headed into the conflict. What he found was shocking.

The conflict has been going on a lot longer than people have thought. The war actually began August 6th, and had less to do with controlling the region and more to do with stopping the Russian advance. This has brought his website under cyber-attack, so be patient if you can't get in right away.

I'm with Georgia

2008-08-11T18:06:00.000-07:00

To stand with Vladimir Putin or with the people who just finished helping us in Iraq - not a tough choice. I hope we back the Russians down and get them to hold to their borders. Our F-22s need some target practice, and our allies need a hand. Frankly, he US has a lot to gain from knocking Putin around.

Wretchard is providing excellent strategic analysis at the Belmont Club. He's following the Georgian strategy.

Interestingly, Georgia and other Caucasus republics are a common setting for conflicts in techno-thrillers and video games. The Tom Clancy stealth game Splinter Cell was actually set in Georgia. The reason is a tinderbox akin to the Balkans, and adventurer/journalist Michael Totten is headed there. He just returned from the Balkans, with stories of the most European Muslim country in existence.

A Pro-Nuclear Argument...

2008-08-01T23:35:00.000-07:00

...that I hadn't heard before. Something rather rare, to be honest, as I follow the issues quite avidly.

The idea is more efficient use of energy will reduce energy use. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way:

And when it comes to arguing the merits of energy efficiency, Lovins’s prime nemesis is a dead guy – William Stanley Jevons – a British economist who in 1865 determined that increased efficiency won’t cut energy use, it will raise it. “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuels is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” And in the 142 years since Jevons put forth that thesis, now commonly known as the Jevons Paradox, he’s yet to be proven wrong.

It makes sense, once you think about it. More discussion of the concept is here at the Nuclear Notes blog. "Negawatts", for all their usefulness, do not yield megawatts. Now conservation, that is a different story. The comment thread discusses the difference between conservation and increased efficiency. I consider the best way to illustrate the distinction to be the resulting effect.

Increased efficiency means you use less energy for the same effect. This is the result of improved systems in the product. Conservation is where less energy is used for a lesser effect. This is the result of changing consumption behaviors. Think of lighting: installing compact fluorescent bulbs increases energy efficiency, while leaving the lights off conserves energy. Conservation can reduce energy usage, but to actually take it to the point of useful reductions, it would need to reduce individual and collective standards of living, That is about as close to a politic sre loser as could exist...

More in the series in defense of nuclear power here.

Elephant House Party

2008-08-01T13:06:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Allahpundit at HotAir, I just heard that our GOP representatives decided to stay in the House until they can pass the energy policy bill. Speaker Pelosi appears to be acting like a mother with rambunctious kids, by turning the lights and microphones off. Let's just say the party's just getting started. Heck, they ordered pizza!

Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the dimly lit chamber is a "vision of the future by the Democrat Party: The lights are out, there's no power, and the air conditioning is gonna go off soon."

Good one.

More updates at Redstate

Politico has four parts of coverage here and here.
and the third update, featuring representatives coming back with quips in hand. The atmosphere gets wild in part four.

Updates:
Apparently, there was a delay, and they closed the event at 5.

They just finished the press conference. Still staying as far as I know. Looks like the police thing was just a threat.

It's after 5 Eastern, and they are holding the fort and bring people down. It is on CSPAN-2 currently.

As far as I know they are still there as 4:45 Eastern.

I said Pelosi was acting like a Mom. Maybe Mommy Dearest might have been more appropriate. WLS at Patterico describes the Dear (majority) Leader threatening to call in the cops at 4:30 PM Eastern to clear the place out. This will get... interesting.

I'll pass on the chlorine trifluoride

2008-08-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

One of the more interesting aspects of safety industry is the tales of danger that you pick up from fellow professionals and experience. I once heard of a response team finding a leaking can of potassium cyanide nearby a growing acid spill. They ran out and got the full self-contained breathing apparatus before going any further.

There are some experiments and chemicals which make that look like a picnic. These include condensing hydrogen cyanide and compounds that explode without much of a reason. And chlorine trifluoride

I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and is much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.

The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.

Whoa... (Emphasis mine, taken from here)

You can see more like these here. It is a great little list of nasty substances.

Apology for a Loser

2008-07-29T22:15:00.000-07:00

Mary Eberstadt has produced an interesting defense of religion against the recent series of books on atheism. It is an interesting satire, and while it lacks the sheer brilliance of the Screwtape Letters (Demons as evil bureaucrats was just perfect, though having a strung-out addict call God a loser is still pretty good), they make some interesting points.

I think she overlooks the aspect of God as parent that many atheists argue explains the formation of religion, as well as the attempts to use the modern jihad against all religions. She is spot-on in assessing why atheism isn't going to take off.

It would have been nice to have some better explanation of why atheists in general do not slide down the slippery slope. My friend over at ChicagoCon is a fairly harsh atheist, but is not some crazy deviant or monster. There are good explanations for this phenomenon that support religion, but she does not present them.

As for myself, I am a lapsed Protestant of unusual beliefs around an orthodox core.

Funny Fly Geneticists

2008-07-28T14:17:00.000-07:00

While searching the wiki, I ran across HERG in a serious article on arrhythmias. The acronym stands for Human Ether-a-go-go Related Gene. Thank the wonderfully crazy scientists who study the genetics of the fruit fly. I have done my share of time with FlyNap and tweezers, and I would imagine it would get to the most serious of scientists after a while. Reminds me of a classic I heard from a genetics professor: gene cheapdate, which when mutated will render flies more sensitive to alcohol.

A few other classics here and here

A new age of Zeppelins?

2008-07-12T15:00:00.000-07:00

As an airship aficionado I was quite pleased to read this story on the resurgence of airship development. It has some flaws - the journalist focused almost exclusively on French airship development - but it discusses the issue well.

The airship has had similar strengths and weakness to the ship that travels the waterways. Both the airship and the ship are slower than planes, have better fuel efficiency for the weight they transport, and are tolerant of mechanical failure. The market air freighters will require a more durable material for airship design to reduce the effects of weather.

Hat tip: Original Cin

Science as an adventure

2008-07-10T08:36:00.000-07:00

On National Review Online, I was pleased to see an excellent article on the refreshing new law in Louisiana. As one who has studied science at the graduate level, it was always amazing to see how different the perception of science that was presented in my earlier education from the actual practice of science. Theories go back and forth, researchers try to either extend or overturn conventional wisdom, groundbreaking work runs into bureaucratic and personal disputes, etc. Much like an other field of human endeavor, science is quite capable of making errors and barking up the wrong tree Fortunately, science includes many ways of correcting errors, including rival researchers eager to disprove your theory.

Science also avoids errors by using consensus. Generally, the more researchers who have tested a theory and found it superior to previous knowledge, the more likely it is true. This is necessary to have some form of knowledge in science. A group of researcher seeking to present findings that challenge consensus have to provide very convincing data, as scientists are taught to see most differences from consensus are erroneous. If you notice two like charges apparently attracting, as I experience in a physics class, you do not assume Coulomb's law is in question.

However, most truly dramatic scientific discoveries involve adding up the problems facing the consensus, and composing a rival theory. Some of these types will be cranks or frauds like the cold fusion fiasco, but a significant number will have a useful perspective. After all, scientific consensus has been wrong in the past on the Earth being the center of the universe (Why can't we see an parallax if it is revolving?), the Ether (What wave propagates without a medium?), and even classical mechanics (You expect us to believe that we have an uncertain position and momentum?) Perhaps it could be wrong on something else. And there lies the adventure.

The Louisiana law frees up the science classroom from these attempts at enforcing an orthodoxy, and is thus to be commended. Teaching science as it is would be much more exciting for students and better for public knowledge. Next time, a news article reporting that scientists have found some odd medical discovery, people would wonder about what other scientists think of the matter and if other studies have backed it up. It also might make debates on areas where science touches policy, such as climate change and evolution. While my views on these subjects are for a later post, the efforts to crack down on differing theories and brand them as crazy or unscientific are reprehensible. They bring back memories not of the great scientists like Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein, and Curie. Rather, they bring to mind zealous inquisitors enforcing the tenets of an iedological religion.

Obama - whatever you want him to be

2008-06-20T18:17:00.001-07:00

Obama is an interesting candidate. His supporters are all over the map, and remarkably enthused over him. Christians see him as a fellow Christian based on his professed faith, while Muslims see him as a covert Muslim based on his childhood. Racial separatists see him as the standard bearer for the beliefs he learned under Rev. Wright, while racial reconciliation activists look to his multiracial makeup. Hard leftists look his past community organizing activity and work with Ayers* and Dohrn, while moderates look to his current positions. He has courted the Israelis and Palestinians, patriots and anti-American activists, and all races. What is wrong with this? Is not wide appeal necessary to win the election?

Yes, but it leaves the candidate with no set position. If everyone projects their desires onto Sen. Obama, what is left that is distinctly Barack? What will he actually be in office? I'd appreciate some clarity, but it seems there really is no pressure on the Senator to do so. When he clarifies a position, he'll lose the other side, so why should he? Normally, you would expect the media to pounce on a politician playing a shell game like this, but they seem too enthralled (a thrill up their legs?) with him to ask tough questions. Sad, really.

Perhaps he will run this all the way the White House, but it could just as easily come crashing down. All it takes is a little reporting and a lot of guts.

*I met Ayers at an Iraq War Forum. For a man who still advocates explosives as a form of political discourse he was less than terrifying. I'd even say he was charismatic. All in all, he was a fairly likable terrorist.

China: A uniter, not a divider

2008-04-13T15:16:00.000-07:00

Witnessing the outbreak of protests against China's treatment of the people of Tibet is an interesting experience. It is striking just how much diversity there is among the protesters. Citizen photojournalist Zombie documents just how many different groups joined together to protest the Torch rally in San Francisco. I have to say I would normally be opposed to the protest, as I dislike protesting in general, but it seems to be a valid cause. After all, the point of the torch ceremony is to give public support for the Olympics, and what better time to remind people of the darker side of China? This points to a deeper issue.

How many of those protesters would be at each others throats on another day? The hard Left would likely have a problem with the South Vietnamese flags, as they are an unpleasant reminder of their past failures. The march even brought out 9/11 conspiracy nuts, who don't get along with any sane person. Conservatives are lining up behind this cause alongside hippies. This doesn't happen often, save in fiction. In fiction, the various enemies unite against a common foe so often it is a cliché. Usually, this foes is such a terrifying threat and menacing evil that it is in the best interests of all to unite.

Has China achieved that status? Perhaps it has. It is a post-Communist state that has kept the repression of Maoism while unleashing laissez-faire capitalism to line their pocketbooks. China has no use for petty regulations concerning clean air, drinkable water, worker safety, or even copyrights. Chinese spies regularly attempts to steal both state and corporate secrets, particularly from the United States. It is a state that annexes land for their own use. From a certain perspective, the usual caricature of the United States as a brazen imperialist capitalist authoritarian regime fits China awfully well.

The real question is why irhabi terrorists and Islamic supremacists have not united the civilized world against them. Their brutality is well documented, as is their hatred of gays, blacks, Jews, and just about every other victim group. Women are treated as intrinsically evil. They openly mimic the Nazi regime and have declared war on all countries that do not submit to them. How is it that a group of thugs with a level of evilness that would be unbelievable in a fictional work is unable to get people stand together against them?

Secretary of State for President McCain

2008-02-17T02:43:00.000-08:00

Senator McCain is going to want to outline cabinet choices for important departments. The state department is a particularly tough choice. Handling the foreign relations of the United States is a big job in and of itself. That is not the only challenge, however. The State department has a very liberal organizational culture (a bit like public health), likely due to the background of those working there. Most international relations students tend to be liberal. Getting Foggy Bottom (a nickname for State) on board with the president's agenda requires a lot of dedication. Condi was proof that being a genius was not good enough. You have to be stubborn and willing to be disliked, or you will go native.

Who then do I recommend for this contentious but important post?

Senator Joseph Lieberman. The Connecticut Democrat is a long-time friend of McCain, and even more of a maverick in his own party than McCain. His principled stances on foreign policy win him much praise from Republicans and Democrats. I've always hoped he could get a chance at a position in the executive, and I mentioned him in a discussion of pro-defense liberals here. Ralph Peters goes into detail about why Joe is a good choice in this NY Post article. Joe is particularly good on the war on terror.

He's also easier to confirm than someone like John Bolton, who deserves a spot with a tough bureaucracy like state or intelligence. Sadly, Bolton is so controversial that he will be a hard sell for a top level position. Lieberman could probably pull it off, and actually stay worthwhile as opposed to giving in to pressure.

Solidarity

2008-02-14T14:11:00.001-08:00

Cartoons are not worth killing over. Ever. Until Muslims learn that free speech applies to their religious figures, they will be unable to live in our societies. I pray the you remain safe, Mr. Westergaard.

The estimable Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has a list of solidarity bloggers, which will hopefully include your humble author.

A man I'm happy to see dead

2008-02-14T12:37:00.000-08:00

The Hezbollah terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyah has reportedly bit the dust by a car bomb. (I sense some irony) If he is actually dead, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the people who took him out, probably the Mossad. I first read about at Pajamas Media where I came across a link to a bombshell.

It was listed as an "Alternate view", but is strangely no longer present. The link is from Jane's, hardly a disreputable source. It is dated 9/19/2001, and it alleges that Imad and Dr. Zawahiri were behind the attacks, sponsored by - Iraq. If this still held as an opinion it changes the entire national security debate. I am attempting to investigate this. (Update after the jump)

I sent this to Andrew Cochran , founder of the Counter-Terrorism Blog an email asking if this was the current thought among CT professionals. Here is his response:

No - and this article forgot that Al Qaeda was behind Ramzi Yousef's 1995 Bojinka Plot to bomb 11 US jetliners, and that KSM had already planned a second 9/11-type attack, which OBL iced. See http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/08/london_the_latest_in_a_string.php. Certainly Mughniyeh was more experienced as of 2001, but OBL and Zawahiri were brilliant pupils.

I'd also imagine the Iraq connection also did not fair well with time. I have read elsewhere that Imad was an inspiration to Al Qaeda. That, and and the blood countless innocents on his hands, is more than enought reason to celebrate his death.

Let's get serious...

2008-02-12T16:26:00.000-08:00

We all know that John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination for president. However, not many on the GOP side are happy. (Contrast this with the deification of Obama on the left) The question most are asking is why, but that is easily answered. McCain has repeatedly shown disrespect to the Republican base. His comments on evangelicals turned me off from him in 2000. His stance on immigration was foolish, and he defended in the in the most disgusting matter. For many, he was their last choice as a candidate. This means that a little lack of enthusiasm is understandable.

The sizable number of individuals deciding to favor the democrats is a different matter entirely.

How is this any different from the krazy kos kids blowing up over Lieberman? What happened to the big tent?

The question is one of victory. McCain is not going to surrender in the War. Ever. He does not have a surrender bone in his body. The problem has been and will be getting him lower his guard around us as opposed to staying in fighting mode.

The opposition candidates are worthless on the war. They are in a hurry to surrender as soon as they entire the role of Commander in Chief. They won't own the war - did the democrats get any flack for leaving our allies to die in Vietnam? The military also took a long time to recover. Honestly, is there any position where the Democrats are more conservative than McCain?

I understand the desire to keep ideological purity, but McGovern and Goldwater showed that this doesn't work. Carter did not inevitably lead to Reagan, and we are still dealing with his fallout. (Iran, anyone?) Clinton did not lead inevitably to Bush - that election was quite close. Not only that, but Bush and even Reagan were less conservative and more maverick than is often remembered. Notably, both favored amnesty for illegals...

I hereby endorse McCain-(insert actual conservative here) for president in 2008.

Back from the dead.

2008-02-12T16:25:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the hiatus, I'll try to be better at maintaining this site.

Still No Free Lunch

2007-11-24T23:30:00.000-08:00

Wretchard at the Belmont Club, discusses the newly-discovered perils of green buildings with his typical intelligence and eloquence. It seems that designing a building to be energy-efficient also makes it a target for birds. Yet another case of the law of unintended consequences playing havoc with the plans of men. Suddenly, the green strategy is discredited, and yet another green strategy takes its place. The building owners are left holding the bag and wondering why they bothered to build green in the first place.

Wrethchard extends this to a discussion of the precautionary principle and the Kyoto Protocol.

But the point is that we expect a return on all the effort being poured into Kyoto and are being charged for the investment. But what if it's a dry hole? What if there's no return? What happens if in fact we have to pay for fixing the damage we did with Kyoto because we didn't care about the science since the "precautionary principle" took care of everything? What then?

What then indeed? This is the fundamental argument against the precautionary principle cast in an unconventional light. Not only could a decision made without sufficient evidence lead to a solution that fails to work or justify its cost, it could create further problems that we failed to recognize. The pregnant woman has morning sickness - quick, give her the thalidomide!

'The market will fix it'. Yes, but we've fixed the market because it wasn't working to our satisfaction. Kyoto has the potential to be greatest single boondoggle since Charles Ponzi began his illustrious career. That's not to say it won't benefit mankind. But then, how would we measure that benefit? Oh, I forgot: the precautionary principle renders that question unnecessary.

Unnecessary for the people who campaign for and launch the program. No cost will fall upon them. Ironically, Charles Ponzi also seemed to have good intentions.

There are often delays in publishing environmental and occupational regulations. Much of the time, it is simply the result of industry lobbyists seeking to buy time and stave off reduced profits. However, it would be foolish to always rush to implement new standards before the controversy is addressed. Better to wait and solve the original problem than to hurry and add more problems.

Alternative Energy: Also good for cutting terror funding

2007-09-24T01:45:00.000-07:00

One of the beneficial side effects of reducing our oil demand is that we reduce the income of major oil producing nations. (It's the simple result of the law of supply and demand) This is especially apparent in the Arab world, where the majority of their GNP is derived from oil. When you consider the backing many of these states provide for terrorism and insurgencies, it makes sense to deny them excessive funding. Israeli writer Yair Lapin lay it out here.

Initially I planned to sell myself an immediate holiday. Why should I bother the Israeli public with something that even I think is boring? Then I thought about it a little more and a little more and after two weeks I had an answer. I am a little reluctant here because honestly it’s not politically correct. The only way to sell environmental protection to the Israeli public is to explain the one advantage:

It’s a way of screwing the Arabs.

I want to make it clear I am not including in this, God forbid, those peace-loving Arabs who believe in coexistence with the State of Israel. I am talking about the other billion and a half or so for whom the whole issue of environmental protection was created in order to screw them. The only reason this has not been presented to you before is that most of the people who deal with Green activism are well meaning lefties and people who wear round glasses who have no desire to screw anyone. They prefer a quiet clean world where everyone wears white and listens to folk music. That’s very nice but it will never work in Israel. We’re not programmed that way. If we can’t screw someone then we are not interested.

But it is possible because in the larger context, environmental protection includes a subject no less important called "alternative sources of energy". Green activists will be happy to explain the details to you, but the bottom line is that burning oil releases soot and heat, contributes to the melting of the icebergs in Antarctica and sends pollution into the atmosphere of this wonderful planet of ours.

Crap, I fell asleep again.

For example, I would create a much more original environmental start up. I would carve up the Antarctica into shot-glass size ice cubes. The real reason we need to find alternative sources of energy is not the troubled environment but the fact that it's Arabs who sell most of the oil to the rest of the world. The sad outcome of this is that they have lot of money and we know where this money goes: To Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as well as to the funding of terror worldwide much of which is directed at us.

It’s aggravating to think that every time we get into the car we are giving money to Hamas, and that is something we Israelis needs to seriously think about. Sixty percent of the country’s oil consumption goes to our vehicles. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were the first to use cars which don’t run on petrol. (The technology exists. It just keeps getting stonewalled by the big oil and automotive interests.) We have everything going for us: We’re smart, technologically savvy and when money is involved we’re pretty industrious. Besides, we are small enough for trials that could be carried out by the entire population and we are big enough to export the technology to the entire world. The Jewish intellect has changed the world in the past and there is no reason it can’t do it again in the future.

Fire up the nuclear reactors, crank out the biofuels, and conserve some oil. It's time to do our part in shutting down the money supply for Al Qaeda and IEDs. I'm ready for the new propaganda posters - "When you drive alone, you drive with Osama!"

No Free Lunch

2007-08-08T21:23:00.000-07:00

One of the most important lessons to learn about environmental issues (which are a branch of public health) is that almost everything has a trade off. Every benefit has a cost, and as citizens we have to assess that cost before deciding on a method to achieve the benefit.

Take organic food, for example. Agricultural pollution is a major concern , with a number of rural water supplies showing levels of pesticides and manufactured fertilizers that worthy of concern. Going organic eliminates this problem, but creates several more. It turns out that the methods of organic food production release more carbon dioxide from the soil than industrial methods, and also require more land.

There are no simple solutions to problems. If there were, we would have solved all of our problems already.

The Price of a Bag of Popcorn

2007-08-07T01:38:00.000-07:00

Microwave popcorn is something quite tasty and a nice snack for home movies. Diacetyl, the flavoring that gives the popcorn its buttery taste is quite safe to eat. Even inhaling the vapors for a short period of time is not hazardous. However, like many chemicals, long term exposure at industrial levels (such as in a popcorn manufacturing plant) can have serious effects on the lungs. The characteristic lung damage has been termed Flavoring Worker's Lung. The Pump Handle, a public health blog, has more on the health hazards of prolonged exposure and the gradual efforts to protect workers from the substance. More on Wikipedia.

Naturally, there have been calls to ban diacetyl, and the matter is under debate. Bans or enforceable standards like an OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) actually are the best approach from a business perspective, as they level the playing field. This reminds me of a story about how hockey players did not wear helmets intially, despite receiving safety warnings. It wasn't that they didn't believe the warnings, but that they thought the helmets would reduce their fields of vision, thus putting them at a disadvantage. (It may also have had something to do with not wanting to look like a coward) They asked the League to require it for them so that they would all be equally effected. This logic is the ethical basis for nearly all regulatory law - it removes a decision from competitive pressure. Think about taxes: we all know the government needs money to perform its tasks, but it would be hard to get people to pay the money voluntarily. The Angry Toxicologist (who is actually one of the most dispassionate and rational public health bloggers) has more on this, as well as on the devastating effects of diacetyl on the lungs.

Now for a question to any of my readers: are you aware of an alternative to diacetyl? I've read many times that safe alternatives are available, but no actual chemicals are listed.

Advances in Medicine: Worth the Cost

2007-08-05T01:05:00.000-07:00

Cancer remains a major killer in the US and abroad. It's good to hear of new developments like electric field therapy. I almost lost a good friend to brain cancer, and I can only imagine how precious a few more months are to someone with a terminal disease.

Early detection is key to fighting cancer effectively. Generally, most cancers that are caught prior to spreading are treatable if not curable. That's why public health officials favor screening programs like mammograms and Pap smears. In public health terms, this is referred to as secondary prevention. Pancreatic cancer is known for being almost always fatal due to how hard it is to detect. This may change that. Remember that this kind of advance requires large amounts of time and effort, as well as money, next time you hear about health care costs.

Far more terrifying (to me at least) than terminal cancer is brain damage. For one such as myself who believes in the afterlife, death is lacks some of its sting. The thought of becoming a lesser being mentally is something out of nightmares. (Literally, in my case) The idea of bringing someone back from the abyss of brain death is still a ways off, but the idea of stimulating the brain back to a functional state is amazing. I wonder if this will cause us to reconsider what a persistent vegetative state actually is.

Victory for Iraq!

2007-07-30T21:04:00.000-07:00

My congratulations to all Iraqis on their magnificent victory in the Asian Cup. Omar at Iraq the Model lays out a blissful scene:

Our players, tonight our heroes, learned that only with team work they had a chance to win. May our politicians learn from the players and from the fans who are painting a glorious image of unity and national pride, and let the terrorists know that nothing can kill the spirit of the sons of the immortal Tigris and Euphrates.

The fear is gone, the curfew is ignored, tonight Iraq knows only joy...

Water Vapor: Not a form of pollution

2007-07-30T20:01:00.000-07:00

Water vapor is usually not thought of a form of pollution. In fact, it is a necessary part of the water cycle. When water vapor condenses into a suspension of water droplets, the puffy result is an often beautiful part of nature. However, conventional wisdom is less and less conventional. Don Surber reports:

The tax-exempt Environmental Integrity Project in Washington, D.C., issued its annual list of the 50 dirtiest power plants in America. This is illustrated by a photo showing steam — water vapor — escaping from a cooling tower. Sigh.

Sigh indeed. However, not satisfied with simple error, the EIP decided go head over heels into error.

Bill Hobbs unloads on the rest of the report. It proves to be alarmist distortion and dedicated pessimism. He states the following about the water tower:

As for the water vapor image, that’s not surprising. Some years ago when the environmentalist groups in Nashville decided to target the city’s innovative trash-to-steam plant, which provided steam for heating and cooling about three dozen downtown buildings and also helped the city process its garbage, the local alt-weekly illustrated its attack stories on the project with ominous-looking pictures that also really just showed steam rising from the plant’s cooling tower even though they knew that’s what they were doing.

This is a bit like a certain liberal journalist inferring that milbloggers are afraid to serve their country, despite having interviewed one of them. (See Blackfive for more details. ) It's just completely and deliberately wrong.

The environmental movement has developed a strong streak of alarmism, which is great for fund raising, but not so great for actually discussing an issue. It's a bad idea to exaggerate or portray something deceptively. What is missing in all of this worry over a declining rate of emissions is the increasing energy demand and the requirement for a usable method of meeting said demand. As Mr. Hobbs says:

I’ll be impressed with the Environmental Integrity Project when they have the integrity to either endorse expanded nuclear power, or admit that they don’t have a viable replacement for all the coal-generated power they want to shut down.

Same here. What has made the environmental movement decide to limit it's alternatives to energy sources hat are laughably inefficient in terms of money, unable to be applied to much of the Earth, and are about as reliable as a stopped clock. I call them complementary energy sources, for like complementary medicine, they cannot replace actual base load power sources. You want a real alternative? Try splitting atoms.

Hat tip: Pajamas Media

On a lighter (than air) note

2007-07-20T19:34:00.000-07:00

Λαστ Εξιλε
As a fan of airships of all shapes, sizes, and types, it was perhaps foreordained that I would like Last Exile. To say this anime features airships is an understatement. The only other transportation seen in the series is a horse and buggy. The story follows a pair of immensely likable air couriers throughout their adventures in a time of war. What's remarkable about the series is that it is extraordinarily unlike many animes I've seen. (This perhaps explains why I like it)

Most animes I've seen have a lot of sex, scanty clothing, etc (called fan service). A few feature over the top violence and gore. Others toss in excessive brooding and angst-filled heroes. Last Exile is almost something I could show to kids - a bit too much violence, certainly not enough to bother adults. The main hero is very upbeat and optimistic for 90% of the show. Music is also a high point, with only the theme song being a disappointment. The entire show strives to capture the era of steam and early biplanes, focusing on the WWI era. The DVDs are available, and it is worth a watch, especially if you would normally pass on anime.

How goes the battle?

2007-07-13T20:54:00.000-07:00

This is probably the best summary of what the surge is trying to accomplish. Dr. Kilcullen is a State Department expert on counter-insurgency whose doctoral dissertation focused on the nature of insurgencies. He also is one of the architects of the current plan, and is thus supremely qualified to explain it.

For regular updates on progress in Iraq, I suggest Bill Roggio or Michael Yon

Al Qaeda Capitol Seized

2007-07-13T04:32:00.000-07:00

Generally, when you take an enemy's capitol, you have seized the initiative and are winning the war. There are exceptions to this, of course: The USA had its capital burned and yet it achieved a stalemate in the War of 1812. Napoleon reached Moscow, and found it empty, the Russians having used scorched earth tactics. The key is to build on the success and expand on it.

In the Long War, I hardly thought we could take a capitol city of Al Qaeda. In fact, this has been used as an example of the difference between this war and others. Imagine my surprise when I read of a Hugh Hewitt interview of Michael Yon in which the self-proclaimed worldwide capitol of Al Qaeda was taken.

HH: Now Michael Yon, a lot of people don’t know the significance of Baquba. And so can you explain what peace in Baquba means for the larger war effort?

MY: Well, it’s huge, because al Qaeda had claimed Baquba as their capitol, their worldwide capitol. And you might recall one of the things that kind of upsets people about my reporting is I said Iraq was in a civil war, and I said that way back in February of 2005, and I continue to do so. But when I first wrote that, I was in Baquba, in 2005, and I spent two or three months here. And it was just total…you could see it, and you could see al Qaeda was trying to foment that civil war, because that’s their underlying strategy, is to do that. And so getting, fracturing al Qaeda here, and al Qaeda alienating so many Iraqis, it’s helping us to put a damper on the civil war.

This is a significant victory for the Coalition forces. Apparently, the Democratic party was busy talking about surrender while the military was planning to take control of the enemy capitol. As for Michael Yon's view of this attitude:

HH: Now yesterday, Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate that the surge has failed. Do you think there’s any factual basis for making that assertion, Michael Yon, from what you’ve seen in Iraq over the last many months?

MY: He’s wrong, he’s wrong. It has absolutely not failed, and in fact, I’m finally willing to say it in public. I feel like it’s starting to succeed. And you know, I’m kind of stretching a little bit, because we haven’t gone too far into it, but I can see it from my travels around, for instance, in Anbar and out here in Diyala Province as well. Baghdad’s still very problematic. But there’s other areas where you can clearly see that there is a positive effect. And the first and foremost thing we have to do is knock down al Qaeda. And with them alienating so many Iraqis, I mean, they’re almost doing it for us. I mean, yeah, it takes military might to finally like wipe them out of Baquba, but it’s working. I mean, I sense that the surge is working. Reid is just wrong.

Read it all. Michael Yon notes that this is certainly not the end of combat. The leadership of Al Qaeda is trying to emulate (unconsciously, of course) the survival of the American leadership in 1812. However, the irhabists have lost a lot of popular support, and they may find they have few safe havens left. The reference to a massacre is from Yon's dispatch entitled Bless the Beasts and Children, whose title comes from a movie and its theme song. You read more about some of the controversial things that he has reported in this dispatch.

Music Induced Hearing Loss

2007-07-06T02:25:00.000-07:00

I noticed in the wikipedia article on Ted Nugent in myprevious post that he was nearly deaf in his left ear. Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it can't destroy your hearing. Hearing loss due to high sound levels can involve permanent damage to the nerve endings that respond to sound in the inner ear. This irreversibly distorts sound, especially high sounds around 4000 Hz. This isn't just limited to musician - a night at a concert can leave you with ringing ears and hearing loss. A better choice is to protect yourself.

Some the best hearing protection is also among the cheapest. The humble yellow foam plug is very useful for industrial settings. However, normal hearing protectors distort sounds when used. The problem comes from the acoustics of the outer ear. This article describes the idea. E-A-R, a major hearing protection company, makes a reasonably priced pair of flat attenuation ear plugs. The flat attenuation is like turning down the volume on a stereo - there is very little distortion. If you plan on going to a big concert, you may want to find a pair on the Internet.

Also, for those who are fond of firearms, they have a specially designed hearing protection system made for the military. It is designed to stop impulse noises like gunfire and explosions without compromising the ability to hear ambient sounds. Given how much noise to which someone in a firefight is exposed, I'd say they are a good idea.

Damn Hippies...

2007-07-06T01:20:00.000-07:00

I've never been a fan of hippies, despite growing up listening to rock from the Sixties. I can admire the musical talent that went into "All you need is love" without believing in the silly philosophy it espouses. Ted Nugent was part of the music scene back then. Unlike many people, he was sober enough to remember what he calls the Summer of Drugs:

Forty years ago hordes of stoned, dirty, stinky hippies converged on San Francisco to "turn on, tune in, and drop out," which was the calling card of LSD proponent Timothy Leary. Turned off by the work ethic and productive American Dream values of their parents, hippies instead opted for a cowardly, irresponsible lifestyle of random sex, life-destroying drugs and mostly soulless rock music that flourished in San Francisco.

The Summer of Drugs climaxed with the Monterey Pop Festival which included some truly virtuoso musical talents such as Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, both of whom would be dead a couple of years later due to drug abuse. Other musical geniuses such as Jim Morrison and Mama Cass would also be dead due to drugs within a few short years. The bodies of chemical-infested, brain-dead liberal deniers continue to stack up like cordwood.

As a diehard musician, I terribly miss these very talented people who squandered God's gifts in favor of poison and the joke of hipness. I often wonder what musical peaks they could have climbed had they not gagged to death on their own vomit. Their choice of dope over quality of life, musical talent and meaningful relationships with loved ones can only be categorized as despicably selfish.

It's amazing that musicians manage to survive that decade. I wonder how much they really relied on the drugs for inspiration. What could Jimi Hendrix have done had he stayed sober? He had a talent with the electric guitar that was extraordinary. Think about the continuous use of drugs in the modern music scene. (Kurt Cocaine anyone?) How many good artists are going to bite the dust before this over? Say what you want, but I'm glad there are drugs which are illegal.

Clean and sober for 59 years, I am still rocking my brains out and approaching my 6,000th concert. Clean and sober is the real party.

Damn straight. Keep on rocking, Ted.

US Troops in Iraq, 40 years before OIF

2007-06-15T01:18:00.000-07:00

Yes, back then we had US forces stationed in the Sandbox to repel any Middle Eastern adventures by Hitler. The guidance provided to them is surprisingly relevant to today.

Unconventional Insights on the Long War

2007-06-11T09:42:00.000-07:00

Public perception of reality is far more important than reality itself. And who better to discuss public perception than a journalist? What color is your gator? Read it all, as is so often said. Counterinsurgency is a war of perceptions - is the government perceived as the lawful ruler and able to protect its citizens? If the government is perceived as a failure, it will fail in reality. By the way, Michael Yon is a excellent writer and probably the best war correspondent we have. His site is worth a prolonged visit.

The Mesopotamian, an Iraqi blogger, made an interesting point a few weeks back. Normally, we like to think of insurgencies as war on the cheap, but it isn't free. Even if the weaponry is less expensive, someone has to pay for it, and plastic explosive is hardly free. I don't know if I agree with his conclusions, (Iran has a lot of money, enough to build nuclear weaponry, after all) but we would be foolish to neglect the flow of money to the insurgents - often provided by the thirsty gas tanks of our cars.

For all those feminists out there who think the war on terror is not worth winning, I suggest this article. Dressing like a sack of potatoes is not exactly liberating.

Marshal(l) Corps?

2007-06-10T01:26:00.000-07:00

John Edwards has posted an interesting idea for counter-terrorism. While much of it has been deservedly trashed on the blogosphere, I think he may have a point.

"Marshall Corps": Weak and failing states create hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability that creates security dangers for the U.S. and our allies. As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions. He will also implement new training for future military leadership and create a undersecretary for stabilization and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff.

I think the Marshall Corps could work, if it was well-administered. This would be a force of police, reconstruction specialists, and emergency response personnel. All of these people would receive training to prepare them for hostile, lawless landscapes like Iraq... or post-Katrina New Orleans. This unit would be a deployable, non-military force that could operate inside or outside of the United States. They would also cross-train with current contractors and military personnel who have reconstruction related roles.

I'd like to see him actually detail it further. If he neglects the security element, it would be a waste of time. Does he mean Marshall as in Marshall plan or as in US Marshals? The latter would be more useful.

Look, an Airship!

2007-06-06T12:11:00.000-07:00

I was riding to a friend's comedy event as I noticed an airship passing by the skyline. Now, as you may guess from the name of my blog, I love airships. Unfortunately, I was only able to get a very low quality cell phone picture. It was clear which blimp it was: the Sanyo blimp. The blimp is operated by the Lightships Group, who have the enviable job of flying glowing airships. The lightship term does not refer to being lighter than air (i.e. they float in air as opposed using wings to create lift), but the lightship is actually lit from the interior...
Although it is in Minneapolis, that is basically how it looked last night. Check out out Mitch's site for more awesome images.

America loves Tony Blair

2007-06-01T12:58:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair has always been an interesting character. He's from the Labor party, which is considerably more liberal than the Democrats here in the US, yet he is one of the most dedicated supporters of the war against Jihadism. He's proof that this is not a Left vs. Right issue. Honestly, you would expect the Left to be in favor of defeating an ideology that demands the subjugation of women, the execution of homosexuals, and the suppression of all four freedoms (I sometimes wonder if some democratic leader like Lieberman could have done a better job in keeping the country united.) He's an excellent communicator, and a man of considerable intelligence.

Take this, for example. His reflections on his tenure as prime minister show him to be the kind of intellectual and statesman we need right now. While I don't agree with all of his points, he makes an actual argument worth engaging. This is sadly rare on the Left. Wesley Clark, despite being anti-war, had this level of intellectual clarity.

Mr. Blair, you're welcome here in the States anytime.

Memorial Day

2007-05-28T12:53:00.000-07:00

Remember them.

They died so you could be free.

Impeach Bush!

2007-05-27T00:59:00.000-07:00

I'm with the Anchoress (who is atypically ferocious here) Let's bring on the accusations, the cheap charges, the standard rants. Let's see them challenged in open court, under oath. Come on, you know you want to impeach him. Your base would love it... at least until all of their ideas suddenly sag under the weight of reality.

Why Skynet won't happen.

2007-05-26T23:53:00.000-07:00

The Terminator: The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
Sarah Connor: Skynet fights back.
The Terminator: Yes. It launches its missiles against the targets in Russia.
John Connor: Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?
The Terminator: Because Skynet knows the Russian counter-attack will eliminate its enemies over her

The idea of a supercomputer gaining sentience and turning on its creators is a classic of science fiction. It goes back to early Gothic sci-fi, like Frankenstein facing down his horrible monster - brought to life, forsaken, then returning with a vengeance. Looking backing even further, we see the idea of hubris in Greek tragedy. A audacious man dares to stand above his station and challenge the gods (the creators of life) and is destroyed by the horrific results of his actions.

However, a careful reading of these stories shows a common thread. It isn't just the AI/creation of life that causes the horrific results. The creator is horrified by his work, and tries to destroy his creation. I've often though that AIs would probably be treated better than that. The product of so much effort would probably endear itself to others.

It's already happening:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have become an unprecedented field study in human relationships with intelligent machines. These conflicts are the first in history to see widespread deployment of thousands of battle bots. Flying bots range in size from Learjets to eagles. Some ground bots are like small tanks. Others are the size of two-pound dumbbells, designed to be thrown through a window to scope out the inside of a room. Bots search caves for bad guys, clear roads of improvised explosive devices, scoot under cars to look for bombs, spy on the enemy and, sometimes, kill humans.

Even more startling than these machines' capabilities, however, are the effects they have on their friendly keepers who, for example, award their bots "battlefield promotions" and "purple hearts." "Ours was called Sgt. Talon," says Sgt. Michael Maxson of the 737th Ordnance Company (EOD). "We always wanted him as our main robot. Every time he was working, nothing bad ever happened. He always got the job done. He took a couple of detonations in front of his face and didn't stop working. One time, he actually did break down in a mission, and we sent another robot in and it got blown to pieces. It's like he shut down because he knew something bad would happen." The troops promoted the robot to staff sergeant -- a high honor, since that usually means a squad leader. They also awarded it three "purple hearts."

Humans have long displayed an uncanny ability to make emotional connections with their manufactured helpmates. Car owners for generations have named their vehicles. In "Cast Away," Tom Hanks risks his life to save a volleyball named Wilson, who has become his best friend and confidant. Now that our creations display elements of intelligence, however, the bonds humans forge with their machines are even more impressive. Especially when humans credit their bots with saving their lives.

Ted Bogosh recalls one day in Camp Victory, near Baghdad, when he was a Marine master sergeant running the robot repair shop.

That day, an explosive ordnance disposal technician walked through his door. The EODs, as they are known, are the people who -- with their robots -- are charged with disabling Iraq's most virulent scourge, the roadside improvised explosive device. In this fellow's hands was a small box. It contained the remains of his robot. He had named it Scooby-Doo.

"There wasn't a whole lot left of Scooby," Bogosh says. The biggest piece was its 3-by-3-by-4-inch head, containing its video camera. On the side had been painted "its battle list, its track record. This had been a really great robot."

The veteran explosives technician looming over Bogosh was visibly upset. He insisted he did not want a new robot. He wanted Scooby-Doo back.

"Sometimes they get a little emotional over it," Bogosh says. "Like having a pet dog. It attacks the IEDs, comes back, and attacks again. It becomes part of the team, gets a name. They get upset when anything happens to one of the team. They identify with the little robot quickly. They count on it a lot in a mission."

The bots even show elements of "personality," Bogosh says. "Every robot has its own little quirks. You sort of get used to them. Sometimes you get a robot that comes in and it does a little dance, or a karate chop, instead of doing what it's supposed to do." The operators "talk about them a lot, about the robot doing its mission and getting everything accomplished." He remembers the time "one of the robots happened to get its tracks destroyed while doing a mission." The operators "duct-taped them back on, finished the mission and then brought the robot back" to a hero's welcome.

Near the Tigris River, operators even have been known to take their bot fishing. They put a fishing rod in its claw and retire back to the shade, leaving the robot in the sun. Of the fish, Bogosh says, "Not sure if we ever caught one or not."

Who hasn't named their car or become used to their computers little quirks? When you work with a machine, you begin to apply human-like qualities to it. Now, imagine robots that actually simulate or possess personality and emotions. Rather than pulling the plug, you might see the robots in the barracks or with the unit on shore leave. Kind of hard to see Skynet deciding to eliminate humanity after playing poker with NORAD staffers...

Victory or Death

2007-04-29T22:53:00.000-07:00

It seems Harry Reid, with his vast experience in matters of strategy and the Middle East geopolitical climate, has declared the war in Iraq is lost. Strangely, General David Petraeus, the current military commander for Iraq, has a different view. I think I'll just trust the counterinsurgency expert on this one.

Not everyone is on the popular new bandwagon stating that the war in Iraq is lost. In fact, some people are dedicated to victory in the War on Terror.

The Victory Caucus

Victory PAC

No End But Victory

On a side note, victory in the Long War also requires that we defeat Islamism, (aka Islamic Fundamentalism, aka Jihadism, aka radical Islam) the brutal ideology that fuels Al Qaeda. This is not impossible, and those of an astute mind can turn themselves around. Like this guy.

A question of training

2007-04-08T17:35:00.000-07:00

As all of the readers for this site likely know, Iran has released the British sailors it took hostage. Many people seem to be quite critical of their conduct, which was rather embarrassing. Not being an expert in such things, I turned to someone more with the subject: Former Spook He is formerly of military intelligence, and ascribes the matter to a lack of training. This is understandable - sailors aren't expected to face capture, just as pilots aren't expected to deal with a hull breach. At least, until now.

As for tactics, it might be helpful to keep a helocopter overhead, especially one with a nice chaingun on it, in order to deter future Persian pirates. Given how close this is to the mainland, a land-based ground attack aircraft might also work.

Another page in the history of the galaxy!

2007-04-06T15:58:00.000-07:00

I'm not a fan of anime in general, especially subtitled anime. However, a few stand out as excellent, or at least a pleasure to watch. One of these is Legend of Galactic Heroes. The most important word for this series is Epic. The story is a classic space opera featuring a noble Empire squaring off against the democratic Free Planets Alliance. The story centers around the heroic admirals and other related personnel for each side, especially the Empire's Admiral Reinhardt and the FPL's Admiral Yang. Reinhardt is a paragon of nobility - far from being a villain, he is a man of honor and courage. Yang, a would-be history professor, is a paragon of democracy. He is loyal to the principle of civilian control of the military almost to a fault, and has no love of the military for its own sake. Both the proud noble and the humble professor are amazingly gifted strategists. They are among the literal thousands of characters, each one having a name and story. The story itself is told in a format similar to a historical documentary, with a continuous narration describing the events and proving background.

What prompted this discussion is my friend Silence over at Fortress Iserlohn has begun a project of identifying all of the flagships from the series. He just started, so there are only a few ships up as of yet. In addition to simply pointing any visitor in that direction, I decided to post a few thoughts on the weapons of LOGH. The predominant weapon is the beam weapon. The laser-like beam from the handheld weapon has been shown to go right through flesh, doing little secondary damage. Any heat effects seem to secondary, as the woulds are not cauterized. The small beams can be stopped with little secondary effect by armor or heavy objects. They also react explosively with zephyr particles, an aerosol mixture, resulting in melee units being rather common for a time the far future. This all leads me to the conclusion that the "blue beams" of LOGH are packets of atomic particles accelerated to a relativistic speed. The packet leave a trail of energetic gas behind them, which creates the beam effect. Then again, this is all conjecture.

Welcome to the Skydock!

2007-04-05T02:37:00.000-07:00

Ωελχομε το τηε Σκϊδοχκ!

I had been thinking about starting a blog for some time, and it seems quite a few of my friends have taken up the role of blogger, so I decided to yield to the peer pressure. Expect posting to be irregular, covering multiple topics.