<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Northman's Fury</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/NFAug2007-2.html</link>
<description>Musings and rantings about topics I know little of.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 15:35:37 -0400</pubDate>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>Conspicuous by its absence</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/tif210288784.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<blockquote><i>Toronto police performed a controlled detonation of three bombs in an isolated waterfront area on Friday after transporting the devices from the city's east end amid heavy security.<br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/08/31/letter-bomb-arrest.html">Police took the extraordinary step of closing off a major roadway to transport the bombs and perform the controlled detonation</a> at about 3 p.m. ET. A large plume of smoke rose from the site.<br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
Adel Arnaout, 37, of Toronto, has been charged with three counts of attempted murder, three counts of intending to cause an explosion, and possession of explosives for an unlawful purpose, police said. He was scheduled to appear Friday in a Toronto court.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
All in all, something that sounds like it would be a major story.  I checked over at <a href="http://www.memeorandum.com/">memeoradum</a> to see if anyone was talking about it and I found a story about <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_go_ot/explosives_arrest_terrorism_1">a couple of Egyptian students in Florida being arrested</a> for explosive-related charges that's being linked to by a group of right-wing blogs.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Two Egyptian students at the University of South Florida were indicted Friday for carrying explosive materials across states lines and one of them was charged with teaching the other how to use them for violent reasons.<br />
<br />
Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, an engineering graduate student and teaching assistant at the Tampa-based university, <b>faces terrorism charges</b> for teaching and demonstrating how to use the explosives.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Looking around other news sites, I don't see the Toronto story being carried widely, if at all.  I'm betting this Florida story will get far greater coverage despite the fact the Arnaoult had actually carried out attacks and was arresting while carrying working explosives.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, Arnaoult's actions probably were personal and not terrorism related, but I have to suspect that if his name happened to be Muhammad Yousef, this would be getting a lot more attention then it actually is.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:33:03 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Clearest sign yet that the subprime mess is big</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/kwv210271427.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/08/31/bush-subprime.html">Bush is telling people everything is fine</a><br />
<br />
Much like Iraqi democracy and the Katrina recovery, no doubt.<br />
<br />
He's offering some relief to about 80,000 people to stem the tide, out of what I've heard reported as nearly 14 million subprime mortgages.  Drop, meet bucket.  We'll be hearing more about this.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:43:47 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>I know I feel safer</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/iyc210269442.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<blockquote><i>Pilgrims on the Vatican's new chartered airline have been told to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6969748.stm">leave holy water behind for security reasons.</a><br />
<br />
Officials at Tarbes-Lourdes airport in southern France said that <b>bottles of water from the shrine at Lourdes could present a potential terrorist threat.</b></i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Another example of just how ridiculous some of these security measures actually are.  Creating an explosive by mixing various liquid components together is nearly impossible to begin with.  Despite that, I can understand banning liquids that can't be easily identified, but banning water just takes things past the point of stupidity.<br />
<br />
It does allow me the chance to share an amusing anecdote, however.  A friend of mine decided to try and get around said liquid ban by taking his larger bottle of water and tossing it in the freezer for the night, presenting it at the security gate as a solid block of ice.  Despite arguing his case that the ban is on liquids and that the bottle didn’t contain any, or at least very little, liquid at that point, they still confiscated the bottle.<br />
<br />
A foreseeable outcome, of course, but I can’t help but admire the effort.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:10:42 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Thanks for clearing things up</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/xax210216945.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[From the New York Times<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i><b><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Nuclear-Iran.html?ex=1346126400&en=e97d87c7079bfd0d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">Nuclear Agency Sees Progress on Iran</a></b><br />
<br />
The International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday reported ''significant'' cooperation from Iran with its nuclear probe and noted that Tehran had slowed uranium enrichment -- assessments that could hamper U.S. hopes for new U.N. sanctions.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
And from the New York Times<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i><b><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/world/asia/31cnd-nuke.html?ex=1346126400&en=11e9853dc7631090&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">Iran Expanding Its Nuclear Program, Agency Reports</a></b><br />
<br />
Iran is expanding its nuclear program in defiance of United Nations’ resolutions, even as it has promised to answer questions about an array of suspicious nuclear activities in the past, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Yep, both stories about the same IAEA report and published in the same paper on the same day. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:35:45 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Wild Vikings</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/ton210201077.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<blockquote><i>Three Norwegian men calling themselves<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/08/30/cambay-vikings.html"> the "Wild Vikings" were arrested in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut,</a> cutting short their attempted voyage through the Northwest Passage in a sailboat.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Admittedly, the part of me that's of Scandinavian extract is cheering these guys on.  The patriotic Canadian in me wonders if Harper's vaunted military patrol boats would have succeeded in stopping this dire threat to our sovereignty.  <br />
<br />
I do have to say that our current method doesn't inspire much confidence.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The RCMP's news release said warrants for the men's arrests were issued after they failed to report in Gjoa Haven.<br />
<br />
Reporting to police ensures people who could be a threat to the country are not let in, Semotiuk said, but added that the Wild Vikings' arrest does not mean they pose a threat.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
So if you're an undesirable that we don't want in our country, please be kind enough to report in to the RCMP when you get here so we can tell you to leave.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:11:16 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Another Misleading Article</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/qsr210183076.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641">Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming theory</a><br />
<br />
Sounds like a victory for Climate Change deniers, but what is the actual data they are citing?<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Now if you are totally ignorant of how science works, you may find it odd that most papers don’t bother to accept or reject the hypothesis of human-induced climate change. Science by its very nature is supposed to be neutral, so unless one is studying the cause of global warming, bringing up human contributions to it is unnecessary from a scientific viewpoint.  There’s no indication that any of the studies, even the paltry 6% that actually reject the consensus, say that climate change isn’t occurring.  Even the story itself admits the globe is warming, even if they want to pretend that humans somehow have nothing to do with it.<br />
<br />
More to the point, the study looked at the papers and treated those who didn’t give an implicit or explicit opinion as though the scientists themselves were rejecting the consensus on climate change.  If they didn’t have an agenda and actually wanted to determine what the truth was, they could have contacted the authors of those papers and asked them.  After all, the title of the article speaks about published scientists, not their papers.  Why not ask all of these published scientists what their view is on humans causing climate change?<br />
<br />
I’m betting it is because then they would have to change the headline.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:11:15 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bush doesn't want to what?</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/nnh210096703.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6968186.stm">The BBC</a> is asking the same question I did this morning.  Not too much new there, but this line certainly caught my eye.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said: "There is a real possibility that President Bush will feel compelled not to allow this problem to pass to his successor.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Really?  Let’s think about that for a moment.  Conventional wisdom puts Bush as the President who will probably be <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/yse205862852.html">passing on more problems</a> to his successor than any other in history, possibly excepting the folks preceding Lincoln, not to mention that anyone with more than a few working brain cells would tell you that launching a military strike against Iran will create worse problems to pass on to his successor, not solve anything.<br />
<br />
It's actually that point, and the fact that the people around Bush may be so selfish, so partisan, or so past the point of caring, that they will launch the attack just to ensure that the person coming in after them will have the worst possible hand when they get behind the desk in the oval office, that makes me continue to rate the possibility of an attack quite highly.<br />
<br />
When people have nothing left to lose, they will do things normally beyond them, and that rarely benefits the rest of us.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:11:43 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Iran</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/fjy210082247.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[With Bush again warning the Iranians about their alleged support of Iraqi militias, the study saying the <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html">US is preparing for a massive military strike</a> against Iran, and the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6967850.stm">arrest of seven Iranians</a> in Baghdad yesterday, it certainly feels like the war drums are picking up there pace.<br />
<br />
The problem is that this has happened before several times, only to settle back down into the background.  I'm beginning to feel like the boy who cried wolf.  Will this time be different?  Will the escalation finally paint somebody into a corner and make war inevitable, at least in their minds?<br />
<br />
I don't know.  But given the consequences, it is certainly something to keep an eye on.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:10:46 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bin Laden is coming for our yellow ribbons</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/but210009472.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[I don't know if the terrorist are chortling, but I know I am.<br />
<br />
What kind of moron would think bin Laden is horribly concerned about the fate of a bunch of cheap, Chinese-made magnetic ribbons?  Well, <a href="http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2007/08/28/4451634-sun.php">now that you ask</a>.<br />
<br />
To imply that to wear a poppy and not allow magnetic ribbons is somehow hypocritical is also pretty laughable.  The poppy is to remember the fallen, the yellow ribbon was once intended to act as a signal wishing for the safe return of soldiers, but with the attached “Support the Troops” slogan, they’re now more part of a partisan campaign that implies like Mr. Jackson does, that the only way to support the troops is to give control of their fate over to the Harper government.<br />
<br />
Harper at least appears to be intelligent, if manipulative, controlling, and secretive.  Jackson's column is little more than talking points and hatred wrapped up in vitriol to smear his opponents as terror supporters.  He'd have to rise several levels to get to shameful, and despite that I'm sure he doesn't have the good sense to be embarrassed about his efforts.<br />
<br />
His column does leave me ashamed and embarrassed.  Not for him, but for the rest of us, because his column represents what now passes for political discourse in this country.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:57:51 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Homeland Security recruits the Clergy</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/rmn209949307.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987">This scares me</a> in all sorts of ways.  Apparently the Department of Homeland Security has been training "Clergy Response Teams" to quell dissent in case martial law is declared.  If that's not creepy enough, the second last paragraph really bring things home:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13.  Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know.  And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith.  That's what's stated in the scripture."</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+13">Romans 13</a>, for those of you reading along at home, is apparently where the idea of the "divine right" of kings comes from, and what could be more American than that?<br />
<br />
The government using the clergy to suppress people's rights.  I'd be hard pressed to find a better argument for the separation of Church and State than that.]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:15:06 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The War on Drugs</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/gbr209924639.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[Given that Afghanistan has manged <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26heroin.html?ex=1345780800&en=12169fc0636c85e2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">to again produce a record crop of opium</a>, I thought a post on the drug trade may be appropriate.<br />
<br />
The US has spent billions of dollars on its War on Drugs, and the results so far have been counterproductive on every front.<br />
<br />
According to the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701716.html">Washington Post</a>, BC now has more organized crime syndicates than anywhere else in the world.  That’s applying a very broad definition to the term “crime syndicate”, but then the federal government in the US defines people licensed by states like California to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes crime syndicates, so I suppose anything is possible.<br />
<br />
An attempt by our government to decriminalize possession of marijuana was met by threats from the Americans, promising harassment of Canadians at the border and interruptions in cross-border trade. <br />
<br />
The focus on prohibition and punishment for possession in the US has led to them having the highest prison population on the planet.  Despite this, drug use continues to increase.<br />
<br />
Paranoia over pot is so high in official circles that the US is the only country in the world where it is illegal to grow industrial hemp.  The argument usually given is that high-THC cannabis would be hidden within the legal crop, though in reality, the likelihood of cross-pollination with the low-THC industrial hemp would make such areas amongst the worst to grow a drug crop.<br />
<br />
Legalization is given as a solution for many of the problems the Drug War has caused domestically.  While I do support legalization for marijuana, I can at least understand the reason behind banning some of the harder drugs, but prohibition is certainly not working.  It is only increasing the profit margins for traffickers.<br />
<br />
And on the international stage, for too much effort is put into attacking farmers and other people who produce crops that can be turned into drugs rather than focusing on ways to divert the crops from drug production.<br />
<br />
The article in the Post is remarkable for its litany of failures in the US drug wars.  The long-time support from the US for the eradication of coca production in Columbia is a good example.  $4.7 billion spent from 2000-2005 alone, 98% on eradication efforts, and 70% of it in the form of US-manufactured military equipment.<br />
<br />
The result:  Coca cultivation growing from 6 to 24 provinces of Columbia’s 32, cocaine supply increasing every year and the wholesale price decreasing year-over-year for the entire multi-decade span of the program.   Hardly a success story.<br />
<br />
FARC, the 17,000 man terrorist army, controls an area the size of Switzerland and draws support from the peasants whose crops and villages are sprayed by pesticides by US planes.  The plan is particularly harsh in that in targets areas known for coca production, but doesn’t bother to check and see which farmers may have legitimate crops in the area.  This form of collective punishment allows FARC to portray themselves as defenders of the local population, which is how they have maintained their presence throughout the US campaign.<br />
<br />
And now the US has decided that this brilliant strategy is also the one they should attempt in Afghanistan, regardless of the fact that <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070808/pl_bloomberg/atxr_fvpfgvu_1">the Afghan government</a> and some of their allies like the British don’t approve of it.  (Anyone believing in the fiction that we’re over there defending a sovereign Afghan government can try explaining this power dynamic.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/pyp204303361.html">I’ve argued before</a> that the best way to approach the situation in Afghanistan is to use the example of Turkey and legalize the poppy crop for use in painkillers such as morphine.  The US actually supports that program with considerable funds, though with very little coverage.  Poppy farmers make ten times what they could growing alternative crops, just as coca farmers in Columbia make more per acre with that crop.  Both crops have legitimate uses outside the illegal drug trade, and in both cases, it is not the farmers but the traffickers who make the real money from turning the crop to illegal uses, but it is the farmers and not the traffickers who are for some reason the focus of the American campaign.<br />
<br />
Given the other major war on a noun happening in Afghanistan right now, the way the US decides to fight the drug war there has consequences far beyond the ever increasing poppy cultivation and drop in heroin prices worldwide which marks their effort being every bit the success Plan Columbia has been.<br />
<br />
By focusing on the farmers, and by using heavy-handed military tactics to destroy their livelihoods, it allows the traffickers and Taliban, who are making the real money, to ride in as the saviours of those whose crops are destroyed, and as defenders of the people for those whose crops are at risk.  That, in addition to the rightful anger at those who are trying destroy their farms, means that the local populations are unwilling to provide intelligence to the international forces at best, or are willingly supporting or carrying out attacks against those forces at worst.<br />
<br />
I'm conservative by nature and abhor waste.  By that measure alone the War on Drugs is a disaster.  But it gets even worse when the strategy actually undercuts far more important missions like the one in Afghanistan and makes the already miniscule chance we have at succeeding over there virtually impossible and leads to our soldiers dying to support a US strategy that targets Afghan farmers rather than Taliban fighters, and that the supposed Afghan government we're there to give legitimacy and support to opposes itself.<br />
<br />
The Drug War isn't just wasteful; it's insane, and somebody needs to bring some sanity back to the policies.<br />
<br />
Cross-posted to <a href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=bb64adb7-7ce9-4fb7-8363-82ecca03ab02">BlogsCanada: E-Group</a>]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:23:58 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Unicorn Museum</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/vpx209846518.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[Because the Creationist's museum just doesn't go far enough!  After all, if you're going to argue that the Bible is the literal truth, you can't just pick and choose which passages to agree with.  The KJV of the Bible mentions the unicorn repeatedly and <a href="http://www.unicornmuseum.org/index.html">a new group has set out to show this "truth"</a> in all its magical glory at a location next to the highly publicized <a href="http://creationmuseum.org/">Creation Museum</a>.<br />
<br />
Good luck to them, I say.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:41:58 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>US Home prices to drop</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/ifo209839298.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[More fallout from the bursting credit bubble as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/26housing.html?ei=5090&en=9bd44f2f8b0ef4f4&ex=1345780800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all">overpriced housing market</a> is set to begin correcting.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The median price of American homes is expected to fall this year for the first time since federal housing agencies began keeping statistics in 1950.<br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
The reversal is particularly striking because many government officials and housing-industry executives had said that a nationwide decline would never happen, even though prices had fallen in some coastal areas as recently as the early 1990s.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Housing is a commodity like any other and therefore follows the same rules.  Once enough people forget that and buy into the hype that this market will somehow be different, its bubble time, and the bursting will be bad.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Unless the real estate downturn is much worse than economists are expecting, the declines will not come close to erasing the increases of the last decade. And for many families who do not plan to move, the year-to-year value of their house matters little. The drop is, of course, good news for home buyers.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
So much in one little paragraph.  The declines won't erase the gains of the last decade unless the downturn is much worse than economists are expecting?  Are these the same economists who predicted that there would never be a national decline in housing prices?  I refer you to <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/mnc209664691.html">my post on Friday</a>, where I linked to a couple of folks comparing the situation to a similar bubble in Japan.  It's quite possible this will be much worse than those trying to stem the tide want to admit it could be.<br />
<br />
The year-over-year value <i>shouldn't</i> matter to those who don't plan to move, but that ignores one of the other big drivers of this crisis; the push for people to treat their houses like a giant piggy bank they could borrow more and more against to finance other spending.  Take an example from later in the article:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>In the Old Town neighborhood of Chicago, the town house that Ian R. Perschke, a technology consultant, and Jennifer Worstell, a lawyer, bought in late 2004 has appreciated more than 30 percent, they estimated. The gain was big enough to allow them to take out a larger mortgage and renovate two rental units in the house. But Mr. Perschke said he understood that he was “not going to see that appreciation over the next three years.”</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
These two were smart in that they used the refinanced, bigger mortgage to produce a bigger income stream from the rental units, but many used that money for consumption purchases, and the danger is not that the house won't appreciate more, but that it will depreciate enough that the mortgage winds up being worth more than the property.  When that happens, and when it happens to people in the sub-prime category who can't keep up with their payments, the banks foreclosing on the properties can't get their money back, and the large number of those foreclosures in starting to flood the market and driving prices down even further.<br />
<br />
Now all of this would be good news for home buyers, except that because of all those defaulting loans and drop in the value of properties, the banks are having a more difficult time finding the money to lend for home buying even for those with good credit.<br />
<br />
One of the problems with this whole thing was the perception that housing is always a good investment, that it always goes up, that it never loses its value, and that it therefore a safe and secure way to make money.  The truth, as is noted in the article, is that housing over time has historically done little better than basic inflation.  The perceived gains were only due to the fact that most people kept their houses for a long time.  Over 20 or 30 years, prices rise dramatically as inflation drives things upwards.  When the housing prices unhitched from the inflation rate and started to soar, they were moving into bubble territory.  They will fall back to at least a level consistent with inflation gains, which is going to hurt a lot of people who bought during the boom.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:41:37 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Giving a story context</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/fjc209751150.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[One of the biggest complaints that a lot of political bloggers have against the Mainstream Media, is that they report stories almost as if in a vacuum.  They never dig into assertions made by spokespeople or give a proper context for a story.  (What information they were supposed to dig up depends greatly on which side of the story the blogger happens to be on, but the complaint is the same across the spectrum.)<br />
<br />
Take <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070824/pl_nm/usa_military_vehicles_dc">this story</a> I came across yesterday about how the military's new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles are becoming a symbolic target now that they are being deployed to Iraq.  Apparently it has something to do with the hype surrounding them, though the story says only about 225 are in Iraq at this point, so it may just be their rarity, or it may be that the insurgents know that large numbers of these vehicles are now in the pipeline and are refining their tactics to be ready for them, which would be my opinion.<br />
<br />
Down at the bottom of the story I read this bit:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Brogan said the military and its contractors were working as hard as possible to get MRAPs to Iraq.<br />
<br />
"We're going to get them there as quickly as we can," said Brogan, the head of Marine Corps Systems Command, which is in charge of procuring the vehicles for the military.<br />
<br />
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made MRAPs the Pentagon's top procurement priority. In June, he said scores of Americans would die for every month of delay in getting MRAPs into the field.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Now that sounds really good, but you may wonder why this has become a priority now, four and a half years after the US invaded Iraq.  If you didn't know better, you could assume these vehicles were some new design just recently developed to deal with the problem of roadside bombs in Iraq.<br />
<br />
What's missing is context and history.  In this case what's missing is <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/hxe206295051.html">the fact that the military commanders on the ground were asking for MRAPs as early as December 2003</a>, and were well aware of them long before that, but it was only this summer that those in charge finally started to procure them.  <br />
<br />
<i>"[S]cores of Americans would die for every month of delay in getting MRAPs into the field."</i>  Takes on an entirely different meaning now, doesn't it?]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:12:30 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>They were cops</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/lnr209666408.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html">No surprise here</a>, the evidence was piling up pretty heavily to point this way.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.<br />
<br />
However, the police force denied allegations its undercover officers were there on Monday to provoke the crowd and instigate violence.<br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Yeah, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow">watch the video</a> and see how well these three guys "blend".  Refusing to throw objects but carrying rocks towards the police line while wearing masks and fatigues?  Let's just say their credibility isn't all that high right now.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:40:07 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>How big will the housing bubble's burst be?</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/mnc209664691.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[If you want to know, there's a very <a href="http://efinancedirectory.com/articles/The_Dangerous_Disconnect_Between_Home_Prices_and_Fundamentals.html">interesting article</a> linking the current mess in the US with the Japanese real estate boom/bust cycle in the 1980’s, and some <a href="http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20070823/how_bad_will_the_housing_bubble_hangover_be">additional analysis from Ian Welsh</a> at the Agonist.<br />
<br />
If they are even close to the truth, things are going to get very ugly, not just because of the similarities to the Japanese crisis, but because of other factors which will add to the United States problems.  The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will continue to drain government coffers for quite some time even if they ended immediately, and whose drain will continue to rise the longer they continue.<br />
<br />
The Baby Boomer Bulge of retirees is about to start putting stress on the Social Security, health programs, and pension plans.<br />
<br />
And the massive budget and trade deficits are reaching a point where they will have to be balanced.  These all add up to a very nasty fall for the US and everybody who depends on their consumption to drive world markets.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:11:31 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Most Americans "in the dark" about world politics</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/tis209510232.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<blockquote><i><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070822064927.3gb131i5&show_article=1">Two-thirds of US adults admit to being in the dark</a> about political issues outside the United States, and only a third are well-versed in US politics, the results of a poll published Tuesday showed.<br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
Global political knowledge was miniscule, with just three percent of women and 14 percent of men saying they are extremely knowledgeable on world politics.<br />
<br />
One reason for the knowledge gap is lack of interest, according to the poll.<br />
<br />
"Well over half (57 percent) say they do not like learning about political issues in other countries," and 32 percent expressed a lack of interest for homespun politics, the Harris Poll group said.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
And I get the feeling a lot of the guys were exaggerating.  This wouldn't be such a problem if it weren't for the fact that the US has a tendency to invade other countries on a not infrequent basis.<br />
<br />
If there has ever been another country in history that has managed to amass such power and have such faith in their ability and right to rule the globe while simultaneously being both ignorant and uncaring about what that entails, I have never came across it.<br />
<br />
It does explain a few things, though.  While Mr. Stereotypical American may wonder, "Why do they hate us?", he isn't interested in learning the reason.  Just go bomb some more people and hope it makes things better.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:17:12 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Turns out Iraq is like Vietnam after all</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/igd209491512.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<blockquote><i><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958824.stm">President George W Bush has warned a US withdrawal from Iraq could trigger the kind of upheaval seen in South East Asia after US forces quit Vietnam.</a><br />
<br />
"The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," he told war veterans in Missouri.<br />
<br />
Mr Bush said the Vietnam War had taught the need for US patience over Iraq.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
So stick it out for another decade or two, I guess.  I'm really curious where they're going to find the troops.  More to the point, I give you <a href="http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/22/7002">Jim Henley</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The President is going to argue that after the US pulled out of Southeast Asia, millions of people died.<br />
<br />
One more time. Millions of people died while we were there. A fair proportion of them were people we ourselves killed. In any reckoning of the costs of intervening and withdrawing from Indochina, those people count too. It’s a bizarre, narcissistic blind spot to imagine otherwise.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to Iraq, per the President’s insistence. It is possible that if we leave, hundreds of thousands will die and millions be displaced. That has already happened under our government’s tender and expert care. There is no short-term prospect that it will stop happening. But I guess if you die while the US is around, you have the comfort of knowing we were trying.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
As with so much else, this is just another way to keep the US staggering along in Iraq until Bush can pass the problem off to somebody, anybody, else, and hope they can pass the blame for the disaster off as well.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:05:12 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Average Incomes</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/aeu209422049.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[The New York Times has a story about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/business/21tax.html?ei=5088&en=051a1fd734c999bc&ex=1345348800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1187701253-XyERK4v6WxWzE7yi0A+9KA">the average income of Americans</a> that simply amazes me for the utterly incompetent use of statistics.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The fact that average incomes remained lower in 2005 than five years earlier helps explain why so many Americans report feeling economic stress despite overall growth in the economy.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
It tells you no such thing.  The important number when trying to figure out how the average person is doing income-wise is the median, not the mean or average.  There are some hints in the article about where the average person actually fits:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.<br />
<br />
These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000. <br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
Nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
That means the median income of Americans is somewhere around $30,000 a year.  The 0.25% of people who make over $1 million a year are hardly representative of the population as a whole, but they can pull up the average considerably.  Whatever the point the author was trying to make gets lost in the fact that he's using the wrong data point.<br />
<br />
If median income has dropped, that means most people are making less and therefore are right to feel poorly about the state of the economy.  If it has risen, people should be feeling better about the economy since most people should be making more.  Using that with other data can help show if the gap between rich and poor is growing or shrinking.  Whether or not the average person is doing better or worse is the crux of what people want to know, and it frankly confuses the hell out of me that the author would do a story on incomes and fail to include that data.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:47:28 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Subtle</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/nyv209389581.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<blockquote><i>U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, will likely <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2029117920070820">testify to Congress about progress in the war on September 11</a> or September 12, the White House said on Monday.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
Of course, I'm sure the holding of Congressional hearings on the status of an increasingly unpopular war on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is just a big coincidence.  No nefarious pandering here.  And to think, some people believe the Bush Administration is still trying to link the 9/11 attacks with the Iraq War in people's minds.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:46:20 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Interesting Choice of Headlines</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/ycy209357136.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[From FOXNews.com
<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293815,00.html"><b><i>Sens. Warner and Levin Travel to Iraq, Praise Surge Results</i></b></a></blockquote><br />
From McClatchy
<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19063.html"><b><i>Senators offer bleak assessment of Iraq after governor killed</i></b></a></blockquote><br />
The story from both articles is basically the same; while the "surge" is creating some military successes, there is no progress on the Iraqi political front and they saw little hope in its prospects.  As I said about the upcoming September report, there will be enough points contained in it for both sides to latch onto to "prove" their side of the story.  It's just that the side coming out of the White House and Fox News has to play down the really important points about the lack of political progress to make their case.
]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:45:35 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Why Study War?</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/fec209337535.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[Victor David Hanson has <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_military_history.html">an interesting article</a> up arguing for a greater emphasis on the study of military history.  I can't exactly recommend the article, because he sprinkles in all sorts of his regular ideological foolishness into the argument.  This nugget in particular is just lovely:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The 2003 removal of Saddam refuted doom-and-gloom critics who predicted thousands of deaths and millions of refugees, just as the subsequent messy four-year reconstruction hasn't evolved as anticipated into a quiet, stable democracy-to say the least.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
I get a picture of Hanson writing in Germany in 1945, "The swift conquest of France and crushing of several Russian armies in 1940-41 refuted those doom-and-gloom critics who predicted millions dead and the destruction of Germany, just as the subsequent messy attempts to establish a glorious thousand-year Reich over the last four years haven't evolved exactly as anticipated."<br />
<br />
Anyway, I can't speak to the state of military history education in the US, but I do think that it is something people should learn a lot more about, if only because I think it is the general ignorance of such that allows people like Hanson to get away with their highly selective readings of it.<br />
<br />
My recommendations are for two books not on Hanson's list.  The first is Sun Tzu's "<a href="http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm">The Art of War</a>"; short, philosophical, and ever contemporary despite it's being written 2,500 years ago, and Israeli historian Martin van Creveld's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Transformation-War-Martin-Van-Creveld/dp/0029331552">The Transformation of War</a>", which explores how warfare has changed and evolved over time, why the dominant form is no longer the state-on-state warfare the US military is trained for, and how assuming what worked in the past will work in the future is a good way to find yourself on the losing side.]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:18:54 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Roadside Bombs</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/xea209267035.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/08/19/soldier-killed.html">Another Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan</a> by a roadside bomb.  It's the third such attack on Canadian troops in a week, though this was the first fatality.  Going beyond that and looking at the <a href="http://www.icasualties.org/oef/">fatality details for coalition troops</a> as a whole, it appears that the roadside bomb is becoming an ever more popular way for the insurgents in Afghanistan to attack, no doubt learning from the example of what the Iraqis are doing to US forces there.<br />
<br />
Such weapons are very difficult to deal with in a counterinsurgency situation.  The strike without warning, and the people responsible for the attack are nowhere to be found afterwards.  The frustration from that can lead to heavy-handed tactics when an enemy does appear, and such tactics alienate the people who are needed as an intelligence source to show you where the bombs are being planted.  An ugly cycle.<br />
<br />
As a side note, do you think Harper really should have linked the mission in Afghanistan with the complete disaster of the Dieppe raid?<br />
<br />
UPDATE:  <a href="http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2007/08/obscene.html">That would be a no</a> to the Dieppe/Afghan link.   ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:43:55 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Outsourcing Government Functions</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/atg209230694.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[There is a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081800992.html?nav%3Drss_print/asection&sub=new">story in the Washington Post</a> regarding a move by the US Defense Agency to hire private contractors to gather and analyze intelligence data.  While that all kinds of issues about privacy and security, there was one point at the bottom of the article that really caught my eye, (and why is it that the important information always seems o be at the end of articles?)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The committee questioned the additional costs involved in using contractors, citing an estimate that a government civilian employee costs on average $126,500 a year, while the annual cost of a core contractor, including overhead and benefits, is $250,000.<br />
<br />
Many companies that provide contract workers to the CIA and Pentagon intelligence agencies are headed by former employees of those agencies. For example, Abraxas, which is run by a former CIA case officer, has hired -- and then contracted out to the government -- more than 100 former intelligence employees over the past six years.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
This doesn't surprise me in the least.  It is pretty much a running joke that the way to real wealth is to quit your government job and get hired back as a consultant to do the same thing.<br />
<br />
One of the main arguments for outsourcing or privatizing government services is the contention that the private sector can do the job more efficiently and therefore cheaper.  The truth is usually neither, and even if the first turn out to be true in some cases, it only means a greater profit margin for the companies, not cheaper costs for customers.<br />
<br />
Hiring an outside contractor to do work is always going to be more expensive than finding an employee that can do the same task.  That said, there is an argument to be made for hiring contractors to do work.  The key is in ensuring that the work is of a temporary nature.  If a position requiring considerable expertise is unfilled, hiring a contractor to fill in while a candidate is found can be beneficial.<br />
<br />
The other use is usually for short-term projects that it wouldn't make sense to hire a full-time employee for.  This is more common and also more problematic if the situation isn't closely watched.  Some consultants have a tendency to use the knowledge gained while working on the project they were hired for to find or create more work for themselves and therefore keep the gravy train going.  IT contracts tend to be notorious for this, in no small part because the knowledge base for such work is quite limited and because once you've installed a custom program, the only people who can service it are usually the people who did the installation.<br />
<br />
Basic rule of thumb for this is:  Hire employees to do the work in house for all but the most transitory of tasks.  It will save you , and the taxpayer, money.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:38:14 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>CBC Story on Libel</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/svu209163916.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[Via <a href="http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2007/08/17/libel-chill-featured-on-cbc/">Saskboy</a>, (whose blog for some reason won't allow my comments.)<br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uXsc3gFGIpA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uXsc3gFGIpA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br />
<br />
There's two things about the story that leap out.  The first is the implication that there are unscrupulous individuals using the court system to sue people just to silence critics, hoping that the nuisance or expense of defending against charges of libel will be too much for most bloggers to be capable of fighting back.<br />
<br />
I can't say much about that.  I know there are some methods to have cases dismissed as frivolous without causing too much of a drain on the person being sued.  To argue that such laws should be strengthened and damages for bringing them should be incurred to stop wealthy types from using them to silence poorer critics ignores the fact that doing so would almost certainly also have the effect of preventing poorer victims from suing for damages and risking financial destruction if the case goes against them.<br />
<br />
The second point is the one where Canadian law appears to need serious improvement.  The fact is that there are folks out on the internet who do post libelous attacks, and I have little problem with seeing such people punished.  The issue raised by this story though, is how far the responsibility for such posts goes in our legal system.<br />
<br />
If I write something libelous on my blog, I can understand that I may be sued for posting it.  Personal responsibility is a value I take seriously.  On the other hand, if somebody posts a comment on my blog that is libelous, do I now become responsible for it?  To my mind, the responsibility lies with the author, but thanks to anonymous posts; finding the responsible actor could be difficult.  Can you be sued merely because you allow open comments?<br />
<br />
And the story seems to indicate that the line of libel suits may go far beyond that point.  I've linked to Saskboy's post.  If he has something libelous in it, or someone posts something libelous in his comments section, do I get nailed because I've highlighted the post?  If I send this over to <a href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/">E-Group</a> as I do some of my posts, do they also become liable?  How about the companies who host our respective blogs?  Is there a difference between the post itself and the comments it generates?  What about if I link and talk about a small piece of a long post that contains a libelous statement in another section?<br />
<br />
What about blog aggregators?  The CBC itself has a blogwatch that shows links to blogs that are talking about CBC stories.  Will they find themselves sued because they've driven traffic to posts containing libelous content?<br />
<br />
Enough rambling.  Suffice to say it seems pretty clear that the law surrounding this issue need to be updated.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:05:16 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Russian Bear out of Hibernation and SCO flexes muscles</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/gtl209155453.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[A couple of interesting stories regarding Russia and east Asia and the prospects of a new Cold War.  The first is the Russian announcement that it will be <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6950986.stm">resuming the Cold War practice of sending strategic heavy bombers</a> on long patrols and buzzing NATO and US bases.<br />
<br />
The second, and more interesting in my book, has to do with where the announcement was made; in the midst of an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6951370.stm">SCO joint military exercise</a>.  While the SCO is a long way from becoming a replacement to the Warsaw Pact, it is also looking like it may become more than a merely economic alliance.  It certainly has the ability to act as a counterweight to the US and the EU, and it will be very interesting to see what happens to the observer states of India, Pakistan, and Iran.  Their joining would make the SCO less likely to become a military alliance, but it would also certainly play havoc with US plans for the region.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:44:13 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Chinese Toy Conundrum</title>
<link>http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/nua209060335.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18956.html">McClatchy has a good article</a> on how the push for ever lower prices by US retailers such as Wal Mart combined with the lack of direct US regulation of of product-safety standards has helped create the situation for the cheating by Chinese manufacturers.  What caught my eye, though, is this little piece at the very bottom:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Experts agreed that moving production out of China would not necessarily make consumer goods safer given other issues in global production.<br />
<br />
“<b>Where would you go</b> right now? If you go to Thailand, they just don’t have the capacity and the knowledge base,” Dean said. “I’m not sure they’d be any more reliable. . . . <b>The reliance on China is paramount.</b>”</i>[emp. added]</blockquote><br />
<br />
As I pointed out in <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/bj_bjornson/blog/moa208282220.html">an earlier post</a> about the Chinese threat to dump US dollars to devalue the currency, the relentless push for cheaper and cheaper products has put much of the world's manufacturing capacity in China.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>. . . regardless how bad the US dollar gets, they are still going to need to buy plenty of manufactured goods, and<i> all of the factories are still in China</i>.  . . .  Money valuation can change rapidly, factories don't move nearly as fast.</i></blockquote><br />
<br />
You don't want to buy things made in China because you believe them to be unsafe?  Good for you, but good luck finding an alternative.  You don't have any factories anymore, and even if you could build them, you'll have to pay the workers in North America a hell of a lot more than the Chinese pay theirs, so how are you going to compete?<br />
<br />
Oh well, the odd poisonous product is a small price to pay for the ability to continue buying cheap goods
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:18:54 -0400</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>