Union

While I live just outside Washington DC, I did not venture across the Potomac for any of the Inaugural festivities.  Not for lack of interest - I think it was a great and important day for a number of reasons.  But you tell me there's going to be a crowd of 2 million people, my only question is which direction leads away from them.  Far too much hassle, as I'm sure everyone has heard from the news, and not enough return on the effort.  Most people on the Mall watched the ceremony on a screen, so why shouldn't I as well, in my office on my lunch break?  Plus I don't lose the day, which I desperately need in order to get projects delivered on time.

However, watching and reading about all that has happened today, a peculiar sense of familiarity came to me.  It was actually described best by a kindegartener to an old friend of mine: "It's like the country is having a wedding to get married to Obama."  This rang particularly true while I briefly tuned in to one of the Inaugural Balls, and the President had a first dance with the First Lady while the old Etta James standard "At Last" was sung.  You could write a paper unpacking all the symbolism there between history and race and politics.  But on the surface, it was a first dance, with a man in a tuxedo and his wife in a formal gown.  And they are the only ones dancing, and everyone is watching.  It was very much like a wedding.

The thing of it is, there is a long history of Heads of State "marrying" their nations, though usually in the case of royalty.  I'm especially reminded of the Doge of Venice, who each year would renew the marriage of the Venetian Empire and the Sea by tossing a ring into the Adriatic.  The parallel is not perfect, but it illustrates the essential idea of a union between leader and state, with accompanying pomp and pageantry.

Like many other in the country, I'm excited about this administration.  I look forward to governance based on facts and reason, if nothing else.  I'm glad America has found a nice boy to settle down with.

War Machine

Lots of coverage in the papers about the nasty little war in the Caucasus. It sounds like Russia is absolutely steamrolling Georgia. Reports have them conducting bombing and heavy armor operations in South Ossetia and landing troops at ports in Abkhazia. It's actually a pretty good demonstration of the first part of what was known in the U.S. as the Powell Doctrine: if you're going to fight, go in fast and with overwhelming force.

This region has been officially "troubled" for some time now - Chechnya is right around the corner, after all. And it has been slowly heating up for months - there was this fascinating footage from about 6 months ago of a Russian jet shooting down a Georgian UAV:


I'm pretty ignorant of the details of the situation - Georgia was trying to put down separatist rebels, Russia came in as a peacekeeper, now it looks like Russia may try to annex both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I was wondering what the appeal was for these regions - they're only about 50 miles square each. Then I took at at this map they had up at the Information Dissemination blog. Notice the many, many oil and gas symbols south of the mountains. Mostly in Azerbaijan. But the pipeline that carries that crude out to the West is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, running right through Georgia. This is an awful little war, and I don't see it ending well.

Commentary

I use Google Reader a lot. I scan the NY Times and the Washington Post sites each morning, but mostly I subscribe to various RSS feeds, then filter them for what interests me. For a while, Reader has allowed you to email items of interest. Recently, the added the Share feature, which allows other RSS subscribers to sign up for items you flag. Now, they've added a feature where you can add notes to the items you share. My shared items are up on the right, or you can go here and see items I share plus any notes. I haven't made any good notations yet - not much value added. But I think it is extremely slick, and a great way to archive news, posts, and articles.

Faster. Better. Cheaper. Choose Two.

There is an excellent article this morning in the NY Times about the troubles on the LCS program. I've been working on and off with the LCS program since I was an intern at NAVSEA in 2001. Back then it was still called Streetfighter. Then it was the Small Fast Surface Combatant, followed by the Focused Mission Ship, until it finally became the Littoral Combat Ship.

Most of the industry has been involved with the program at one point or another. There were many teams competing with original design proposals a few years back. Now, the two winning teams are extremely busy, and many others (such as my company) are working on the government side consulting and reviewing. It is a huge effort, and is almost universally decried as a mess.

The two designs are fairly solid; the trouble has been the execution. This article does a good job of explaining how it has happened, and why. It's not $500 wrenches that make the defense budget so high - it's half a billion dollar frigates that are the problem.

Toe-to-Toe with the Russkies

Pretty amazing footage of a Georgian UAV being shot down by a Mig-29, taken from the UAV.



Very sinister, the way the Fulcrum just smoothly slides into the frame before firing.

Malfeasance!

It's been some time now, since I was in the Coast Guard, but I still look back fondly and have somewhat possessive feelings about the service. I'm an interested party, and a proud veteran.

Which is why the ongoing tragic saga of Deepwater saddens me so. The latest is that the Coast Guard is suing the contractors, since some of the modified boats had to be decommissioned due to structural and system problems. This is on top of the many other Deepwater issues - cost overruns, structural and system problems rumored with the new National Security Cutter, Congressional inquiries. Just read this and the related articles at the Times and you'll get the picture.

It is particularly distressing for me to watch this happen, since I enlisted in the Coast Guard in the early, halcyon days of Deepwater. As a budding naval architect, we were told that was our future in the fleet. "Yeah, our ships are old now, but we're revolutionizing the industry. It's a system of systems, and you are going to be on the front lines." We were all so interested in how it would turn out - it was terribly exciting, in a nerdy engineering way.

And watch as the steel finally gets bent, and the cutters slide down the ways, and it is so clearly a flawed creation. The task was too large, too ambitious, perhaps. But it was large and ambitious out of necessity. The current Queen of the Fleet, wearing the gold numbers of the oldest cutter in commission, is Acushnet, commissioned into the Coast Guard in 1946, after two years of Navy service. The fleet is old, and must be replaced almost wholesale.

And now the Coast Guard has announced they have the situation in hand; they've stood up and entire new Acquisitions Directorate, and they will manage Deepwater, and we are on course. I have my doubts... acquisitions is a challenge on normal defense programs. For a unique program like Deepwater, run by a service with little institutional expertise in acquisitions (since they haven't bought much in decades), it could be catastrophic.

The Coast Guard has proven its value to the nation again and again. It is a critical service, in war and peace. And to carry out its core missions for the next generation, it must recapitalize. News like what we've heard over the past few months creates in me grave concerns about the future of my beloved service.

L is for Leader

In the news today, lots of coverage of the President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, stepping down as leader of the military. The common wisdom is that this is an important step towards fully democratizing Pakistan, but a dangerous one since the army is one of the few effective national institutions.

Before going on, it is important to remember that Musharraf was a dictator who seized power in a military coup. He has, at the very least, been unreceptive to allowing dissent and opposition parties. And even if he did appear thoughtful and well-spoken on The Daily Show a few months back, he is not exactly in the mold of the ideal democratic leader.

Keeping those caveats in mind, his resignation from the military reminds me of Washington stepping down as General of the Continental Army. That army was also the only effective national institution. And Washington declined to use his position, and his personal popularity, to shape the early United States as he saw fit. He stepped aside. I've often thought that, despite his "origin" as the leader of a coup d'etat, Musharraf had similar potential in Pakistan. He has not delivered on that potential yet, but this move seems a step in the right direction.

Junta

I find myself very intrigued by the recent protests in Myanmar (FKA Burma), where Buddhist monks are leading what may be the beginnings of a revolution against the ruling military oligarchy. This is interesting on a number of levels. First, because of the secretive nature of the regime in Myanmar, in recent years there hasn't been much news out of the country, period. Second, my friend Vanessa worked for a few years for the non-profit EarthRights International, which sued Unocal regarding their Myanmar pipeline using the Alien Tort Act of 1789. The case was settled out of court, but Vanessa spent some time in Myanmar, and worked very closely with some of the people who I think would be involved with these protests. And lastly, revolutions and how they play out is inherently interesting.

Historically, revolutions are unique in the high degree of social dynamism. New ideas and systems, good and bad, come out of revolutions. We cannot disregard the often high human cost of these conflicts, but without them, we would not have modern representative democracy. Though all too often, the lofty ideals are corrupted, at least for a time. Rid yourself of a corrupt aristocracy - damn, you're dealing with Robespierre and the Terror. Do it again - oops, now you're living in early Soviet Russia. Revolutions, no matter what their origin or how justified they are, can be a roll of the dice.

On the face of it, the protests in Myanmar could be the seed of a reformed and open society. They current government is a corrupt oligarchy of military leaders, who have proven themselves only too willing to sell out their country and citizens for a few measly bucks. Almost anything would be an improvement. It suggests the question, if we are dedicated to spreading democracy and deposing authoritarian governments, what can we do to help promote that in Myanmar, given current events?

Parallelegy

I noticed what I thought was an interesting parallel in the news the other day. However, I hesitate to write about it, since it doing so may be a violation of Godwin's Law. It touches lightly on Nazi's, and that is extreme and inflammatory. But the I think this particular news item contains valid echoes of historical events.

I'm speaking here of President Bush's recent remarks at the VFW Convention, where he seemed to say that the U.S. should not have left Vietnam. In fact, the speech seems to say the only reason the U.S. withdrew it's forces was domestic pressure.

The point here is not the legitimacy or accuracy of the President's analogies. Whether there are particular parallels between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam is not the question that interested me. It was the argument that Vietnam was lost at home. This is not a new position, obviously, but seems to have gained renewed credibility recently, at least with the President. I find it troubling because it parallels the "stabbed in the back" theory of World War I.

After the surrender of Germany and the punitive Treaty of Versailles, many Germans resented the loss of national prestige, the poverty only amplified by the Depression, and the decline of a once great state. A theory that won great credence was that the Great War was not lost on the battlefield, but at home. That a lack of domestic will and strength stabbed the German Army in the back. Most historians agree that this theory doesn't hold water, just as most dismiss the notion that Vietnam was a winnable war for the United States.

Historically, this argument is used to give cover to jingoism, arms buildups, power grabs, and authoritarianism. I'm not enough of a radical to suggest that the present case is so extreme. However, given the administration's track record of pushing for increased Executive power, the parallel is interesting. But parallels are useful only so far as they can be used for extrapolation. It isn't "Bush is a fascist" or anything so extreme. Perhaps it is only that when great powers face defeat (or merely lack of victory), blame is inevitably cast on a faceless opposition at home.

Insulation

I'm a big fan of the Slate editor Dahlia Lithwick; I find all of her articles to be edifying and well-written. I particularly enjoyed yesterday's, partly because it includes a quote from The Simpsons.

The substance of the article was also highlighted for me, as I am still reading the excellent Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Ms. Lithwick points to the absurdity and danger of isolating the governors from the governed, excluding dissenting views. Removing dissenters from the room doesn't eliminate dissent. In fact it may increase it. This is a remarkable contrast to Dr. Goodwin's depiction of Abraham Lincoln. She presents him as a leader confident enough to bring dissent into his closest circle of advisers. Additionally, she repeatedly makes the point that the proper role of a national leader is not to follow public opinion, or ignore it, but to help shape it through well-reasoned ideas. If the president feels a policy is correct, let him stand forward and make his case. Perhaps reading this article and this book at the same time made the difference particularly notable to me.

In the book I am well into the Civil War. Please, no spoilers in the comments - I want to see how it ends for myself.

In news of more immediate but no less significant note, a happy birthday to Sarah yesterday. There was homemade ice cream cake from sister-in-law OtherSarah, and it was awesome.

Futurama

Two excellent and interesting articles for your consideration today.

First, from the New York Times: Jury trials come to Japan. I, for one, didn't know that Japan had tribunal-style trials. I found the whole thing fascinating, especially the national campaign to educate citizens (well, technically subjects, I think). The article makes it sound like it is not so much a program to teach the students how to be jurors, but how to express their own opinions.

Chris has written in the past about crime in Japan - the 99.8% conviction rate, for instance, boggles the mind. "If they were innocent, why would they be on trial?" Sounds like a scary place to be falsely accused, and the intimation of forced confessions conflicts with my image of modern Japan as a restrained, peaceful nation. But an amazing social experiment is about to take place, on a national scale, and I hope to hear more about it, both in the news and from my friends overseas.

Next, some hard science via the New York Review of Books. One of the great futurists of the age, Freeman Dyson, writes on biotechnology. Dyson has a history of predicting some off-the-wall things (e.g. Dyson Trees), but the man is indisputably a genius. He was one of the great proponents of Project Orion - flying to Mars by riding the explosive blasts of hundreds of atomic bombs. But the article posits a "domestication" of biotechnology. Just as the computer went from the province of governments and huge corporations to individuals, so could genome design move from the lab to the home. It is an interesting parallel, and it raises some great questions that Dyson discusses. Foremost in my thinking is that if there are malicious hackers that create computer viruses, there will be biotech equivalents. Learning from our history, we should prioritize creating open source anti-virus organizations, like the Nortons or Anti-Virs that help contain digital mayhem.

Rose Colored Glasses Half Full

An optimist looks at a half glass of water and says "the glass is half full." The pessimist looks at it and says "the glass is half empty." And an engineer looks at it and says "The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."

I read two interesting articles recently that I think inform one another. The first was in The Armed Forces Journal. You may have heard about this piece, by LTCOL Paul Yingling, USA. He tears into the senior Army leadership for moral failures and dereliction of duty. The general consensus is this is what soldiers have been saying in the messroom for a few years now, but this is the first time any active-duty officers have published anything quite like it. Slate published a very thoughtful review of it, pointing out how well-reasoned it is. LTCOL Yingling is clearly quite sharp, he makes an excellent argument.

The second article I read, also in Slate, extends the indictment. Yingling indicts generals and other leaders of wishful thinking. John Gravois writes that our culture, in general, is suffering from the same affliction. He specifically discusses a book called The Secret. Would you like to know the secret? The authors (i.e. a group of crackpots, charlatans, and kooks) say positive thoughts attract positive things, and the universe will respond to your thoughts if you just think right. Oprah promoted it, then one of her viewers decided to follow her advice... and stop chemotherapy and wish away cancer. Ms. Winfrey had the good sense to talk her out of it. I'm as big a fan of positive thinking as anyone, but as a way to deal with whatever comes along. This just seems childish.

Taken together, I think these two articles paint pictures, one specific and one general, about the dangers of optimism. I'm sure everyone likes to think of themselves as pragmatic; I'm sure I do. But now I'd be interested to read Never Saw It Coming to see how my outlook compares to most folks', viz-a-viz optimism and pessimism. And that raises the question: can you choose to be a pragmatist, an optimist? Can you train yourself into a new fundamental outlook on the world?

The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true. - James Branch Cabell

Consonance

I am not telling you anything new; you have heard of The Onion and appreciate its excellence. Recently, The Washington Post announced it was partnering with The Onion to present a local DC edition.

I was very happy to hear this, and not just for the humor. The AV Club section online and in print does an excellent job on movie, book, and music reviews. They have a good crossword each week. But best of all, I've always heard that the local print editions do a good job of covering local events. Theater, museums, all kinds of music shows, etc. And the print edition is free! To Hell with the express and The Examiner. Too bad it only comes out once a week.

The only problem was tracking down my copy. The DC edition launched the first week in April. Word on the street was it would be available near other free paper boxes. But I saw none at my metro stations on either of the past two Thursdays, when it comes out. I was understandably disappointed and looking for answers. I even wrote in to the WP online chat about the new offering, asking "Where is it?" Nothing doing, last I checked.

Imagine my surprise and happiness, when I found a stack of copies at The Dairy Godmother. I love her frozen custard - and now she has my Paper of Choice on hand for free. And it makes complete sense, since she is from Wisconsin and The Onion started in Madison. All good things are in harmony.

AEF

This morning, I read about the passing of one of the last 6 American veterans of the Great War at age 109. A long, hearty life. It is an interesting time, as the last firsthand witnesses to a great historical event leave us, and we are left only with artifacts and records. This is a loss, but may also herald a new era of scholarship on the subject. I, for one, welcome that. In all of my formal education, I was never taught about World War I. I was told that it happened, the approximate dates. Of course, my history classes covered World War II, and World War I would be mentioned as part of the prologue. Name-checked, with the Treaty of Versailles occasionally cited as a cause of the second great conflict.

In my own reading, I've come to recognize this as a terrible oversight. The world was changed so profoundly by World War I. It sounded the death knell of the Victorian Age, sped the decline of the British Empire, gave rise to the Soviet Union. So many changes that shaped the century to come. I've ranted before about how each historical event is informed by those that came before, so there's little point in ranking them or prioritizing them. And I maintain that arguing about the ranking of events is foolish and pointless. That is not to say that some historical eras and events aren't particularly important and demand study. The Great War is one that, in my education at least, fell through the cracks. Perhaps it's passage from Living History to only recorded history will promote study and education.

I don't want to come off as overly didactic, stuffy, or preachy. I've always felt at ease tackling historical topics, absorbing facts and forming opinions, sometimes even learning the historical lessons. And that is not the case for everyone, and you can get along fine without being familiar with the causes of the War of 1812. I know there are topics I want to learn about, but still struggle with. Probably the foremost was also brought home to me today: philosophy. Slate ran a piece on Sartre, so in the spirit of exploration, I decided to tackle existentialism... on my coffee break. It was like clawing at meringue - I simply could not get any purchase on it. Which was frustrating, since I have no difficulty with the closely related moral and ethical theories. It just seemed so pointless, so much ivory tower-building and foam.

But I'm going to stick at it. I was talking with Sarah this morning, with regards to her rowing crew again. It sounds like she is doing quite well, though she said "my muscles doth protesteth." I replied "if it was easy, everyone would do it." The difficulty is what makes it worthwhile. I'm going to follow my own prescription, then - my mind doth protesteth, but I'll keep trying. If it were easy, everyone would do it.

Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead

In the newspaper today I read about the US Navy's exercises in the Persian Gulf. Military exercises like that, in a areas where tensions are already high, is historically dangerous. Students of the Cold War will recall ABLE ARCHER 83, when the Soviet Union mistook a particularly large NATO exercise for the prelude to a nuclear first strike. Playing war games in troubled regions is playing with fire.

Of course, the exercises seem to be a response to the recent arrest/kidnapping of British sailors by Iranian forces. This incident recalls two historical parallels: the Perdicaris Incident and the Japanese kidnappings by North Korea. Neither are perfect parallels - Perdicaris was kidnapped by a Moroccan rebel in an attempt to blackmail concessions from the Sultan. And while the North Korean kidnappings were state-sponsored, they did not involve members of the military. But there are enough similarities that some lessons can be learned.

It appears that the UK is applying a solution along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt's. Some saber rattling, some increasingly tough talk. But behind the scenes, the senior partners in the alliance (Britain and France then, the US now) applies pressure for a more diplomatic solution. At least, I hope that parallel is valid. It is popular for many wags and pundits to speculate that the Bush Administration is spoiling for war with Iran, and this is a gift-wrapped excuse. I sincerely hope that is just that, speculation. One of the few ways to worsen the state of affairs, with one war stalled and another rapidly spiraling downwards, would be to add a third. Though I guess it would geographically unify our trouble spots - turn 3 medium wars into one big war! It's always smart to buy wholesale instead of retail.

To be honest, I am somewhat surprised by the restrained response to the abductions. In days past, capturing sailors of the Royal Navy during peacetime would have met with swift, direct reprisal. Remember the cover of Newsweek in 1982, as the Falklands War was beginning. Granted, that was an invasion, not a merely abductions, but the pugnacity of it, the real feeling in Britain that "this will not stand, and we will fight." I don't get that sense, possibly because most everyone understands the precariousness of the situation. Another Iranian hostage crisis, but now Iran is nearly nuclear; with wars to the East and West. It's just a hot bottle of trouble. Perhaps the Blair government can do what the Carter Administration did during the last hostage crisis. "Do a diplomatic deal with us while you can, because the guy taking over in a few weeks is crazy, and will bomb you into the stone age without hesitation. It's Morning in America!"

A more (darkly) humorous take on the incident here.

Dirty Trick Bomb

The above "ad" has been making the virtual rounds via YouTube and the like recently. Leaving aside the merits of the ad itself, I'd like to take a look at the response. Specifically, the quote at the end of this article.

"It's not perfect," Sifry said. "It would be better if the person who made this was open about who they are so we can judge fully whether it is genuinely a piece of voter-generated content or a dirty trick."

I find that distinction very interesting. Why is the ad more important if it is "voter-generated" vice a dirty trick? The ad, in its fashion, articulates an argument. Where the argument originates doesn't affect the validity of the argument. This is a classic case of confusing the message with the medium. Like refusing to buy Volkswagens because the original was a product of Nazi engineers. The cars have value, regardless of their designers.

It is conventional wisdom that partisan dirty tricks are undesirable. Now, depending on your definition of dirty tricks, you may agree or disagree with that position. But every idea can be evaluated on its own merits. If you inform yourself, most dirty tricks are quite transparent. Nevertheless, what if a "trick" contains a valid point? Is it invalidated simply because it was articulated by a partisan source? I submit that it would not.

A²+B²=C²

Is just as valid whether it was first posited by the enlightened Pythagoras or one history's worst villains. The Illiad and The Odyssey are great works, whether they were truly written by a blind man named Homer or are actually the accumulated work of generations of poets. And this little film can have a argument with merit, regardless of who made it. We should give all ideas the same benefit.

By the same token, we must take care not to conflate people we like with their bad ideas. That is to say, hold everyone accountable for their ideas, but don't give the idea credence just because you have a positive impression of the person. Ideas, especially debated ideas, need to be evaluated dispassionately. If an argument is sound, it will hold up to scrutiny, no matter who makes it.

Vision

(from The New York Times, Brian May 14 March 2007)

(from The New York Times, Brian May 14 March 2007)

I think these two images may be two of the most extraordinary I've ever seen. They are home-made "Magic Eye" shots. Relax and stare through them, and you will see the Sun in 3D. The frequency is ultraviolet. The second image is the more remarkable. Recently, there was a lunar eclipse. On the surface of the earth, the Sun and Moon appear almost exactly the same size (an amazing coincidence). However, the two pictures necessary to make these 3D images were taken by STEREO, a new NASA satellite. The two STEREO satellites are in the same orbit as Earth around the sun, one just ahead, one just behind. So the Moon appears much smaller than the sun from those positions. The black circle is the Moon transiting the disk of the Sun. In Thrilling Three Dimensions.

A quick aside: the 3D images were made by Brian May. Brian May was the lead guitarist for Queen. He wrote "We Will Rock You" for pete's sake. Now he is getting his doctorate in Astrophysics. It's like he's Buckaroo Banzai or something.

Every now and then, science transcends figures and formulas, and our researches produce something objectively beautiful. Now, I would submit that all good science has beauty, but that is a subjective opinion. But these images are art. Ok, maybe you think the 3D is gimmicky. Take a look at this. Or these.

I have always loved little tidbits like this that good science shakes free every now and again. I love sharing them with others, especially those who aren't as scientifically literate as myself. This is not to say I'm at all well versed - I'm an accomplished amateur, at best. It's only that studies have shown again and again the the vast majority of laypeople are unfamiliar with science (and history, and geography, and...). So I share these arresting moments that we've found in nature. My hope is always that it will become a gateway drug. What are those swirling shapes on the surface of the Sun? Why do they move the way they do? How are they created? How do they dissipate? And the next thing you know, someone decides to become an astrophysicist.

The reason this is important to me is because it happened to me once. In 4th grade, my friend Pete went with me to the middle school book sale. He loaned me a nickel to buy Seven Miles Down. It was about the submarine that dove to the deepest point in the ocean, in 1960. It changed my life. It inspired a love of the ocean and everything in it, that has never abated. Because of that, I joined the Coast Guard, and became a Naval Architect. Those two facts have determined many of the details of my life - who I know, where I live, the places I've seen. All because of one book. Reading it was a revelation. The world was suddenly fascinating - if this was interesting, it followed that if I looked carefully, everything was interesting, and I could see it all.

I never paid Peter his nickel back.

I hope you can see this because I'm doing it as hard as I can

I'm sure most readers will have heard about the recent panic in Boston caused by ads for Aqua Teen Hunger Force, one of the cartoon shows on the Adult Swim block on the Cartoon Network. The ads, which were LED images, similar to a Lite Brite, were of Ignignokt, one of two Mooninites (see image, left).

It is very tempting to draw some very broad conclusions from this incident. On the one hand, you can take it as an indictment of how paranoid and frightened people have become in this country, where an ad (not a hoax - there was no intent to make these things look like bombs) can provoke such a response. On the other, you could conclude that it shows that many people are still naive about how the world really is now: they could have been bombs, the threats are real, etc., and the advertiser should know better. I think both conclusions are faintly ridiculous, and the whole thing overblown. I don't think any reasonably intelligent person would have thought these things were a threat. Meanwhile, making grand pronouncements about how this demonstrates the effect of fearmongering is similarly unfounded. People were dumb, and that's not news.