The Federal Communications Commission has proposed that airline passengers be permitted to make calls on their mobile telephones while in flight. Given that most people have a tiresome habit of speaking very loudly - often all but shouting - while on the telephone, your correspondent, who likes to sleep on airplanes, considers that the noise pollution will be close to intolerable.
If this airborne abomination comes to pass, your correspondent plans to travel with a roll of duct tape. Those within earshot who commit the annoyance of speaking loudly at their telephones, will shortly find a five inch piece of duct tape slapped over their mouths.
Duct tape, being cheap, will be distributed to all who would like to silence their neighbors too!
To be serious, your correspondent suspects that he will be one of many who becomes a former customer of any airline that is foolish enough to go along with this stupidity.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Misadventure in Syria
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of doubt that Bashar Assad is a monster who is guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people. Both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have both provided decent evidence that this is so.
Regardless of Assad's action, an attack by the United States raises serious issues. The first is the purpose of any such attack. Clausewitz, writing in 'On War' stated that war is the continuance of policy by other means. Both President Obama and Secretary Kerry have said that the purpose of any attack is not regime change.
No senior member of the United States government has provided a strategic objective that might be achieved by an attack and it is hard to see how the United States might be in imminent danger of an attack by Syria. This leaves your corespondent to think that the only reason for launching cruise missiles and bombers (troops on the ground are ruled out) is to prevent President Obama, who recklessly drew a red line in the sand concerning chemical weapons, from looking weak.
Perhaps, if an attack does take place, it might appropriately be named the Third War of Middle East Aggression (Iraq, Libya and perhaps Syria).
Then there are the legal and constitutional issues. Although the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power 'To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...' and the War Powers Act of 1973 restricts the President's authority to send troops into combat without Congressional approval. If, as spoken by Abraham Lincoln, 'Government of the People, By the People and for the People' is still a reality, then the People's Representatives in the Senate and House of Representatives must be permitted to express their views with a formal vote to approve or disapprove any Syrian adventure.
Or is our situation akin to the last days of the Roman Empire - a dysfunctional Senate and a Executive that has seized almost all power?
The British House of Commons seems to have reached the right decision although, perhaps, for the wrong reasons. More significantly, Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed to abide by the decision even though the vote was non-binding. Before President Obama proceeds further he might want to ponder the words of John Quincy Adams: " Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." Then he should listen to the people!
Let the Syrian opposition destroy the Assad regime if they have the will and ability. Since none of the rebels are friends of ours, the United States will gain little, if anything, from another Middle East war and has all too much to lose in terms of lives and treasure.
Mind your own business is not a bad policy!
Regardless of Assad's action, an attack by the United States raises serious issues. The first is the purpose of any such attack. Clausewitz, writing in 'On War' stated that war is the continuance of policy by other means. Both President Obama and Secretary Kerry have said that the purpose of any attack is not regime change.
No senior member of the United States government has provided a strategic objective that might be achieved by an attack and it is hard to see how the United States might be in imminent danger of an attack by Syria. This leaves your corespondent to think that the only reason for launching cruise missiles and bombers (troops on the ground are ruled out) is to prevent President Obama, who recklessly drew a red line in the sand concerning chemical weapons, from looking weak.
Perhaps, if an attack does take place, it might appropriately be named the Third War of Middle East Aggression (Iraq, Libya and perhaps Syria).
Then there are the legal and constitutional issues. Although the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power 'To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...' and the War Powers Act of 1973 restricts the President's authority to send troops into combat without Congressional approval. If, as spoken by Abraham Lincoln, 'Government of the People, By the People and for the People' is still a reality, then the People's Representatives in the Senate and House of Representatives must be permitted to express their views with a formal vote to approve or disapprove any Syrian adventure.
Or is our situation akin to the last days of the Roman Empire - a dysfunctional Senate and a Executive that has seized almost all power?
The British House of Commons seems to have reached the right decision although, perhaps, for the wrong reasons. More significantly, Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed to abide by the decision even though the vote was non-binding. Before President Obama proceeds further he might want to ponder the words of John Quincy Adams: " Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." Then he should listen to the people!
Let the Syrian opposition destroy the Assad regime if they have the will and ability. Since none of the rebels are friends of ours, the United States will gain little, if anything, from another Middle East war and has all too much to lose in terms of lives and treasure.
Mind your own business is not a bad policy!
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Concealed Carry
The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin raises the question of the value of being armed in public and, specially, of carrying a concealed weapon.
Science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein once wrote that an armed society is a polite society. That statement, however, rests on the twin assumptions that the vast majority of people are actually armed while out in public and that they are emotionally stable.
There are also a number of other issues to consider.
First, there is no deterrent value to a concealed weapon. Second, handguns are almost as hard to use as, for example, are violins: training and frequent practice are necessities. Too many of those who carry weapons in the public space have less training than they should and practice only infrequently.
Even worse, a significant fraction of armed citizens are emotionally unstable, if not actually mentally ill, and some of them are just plain nasty, bullies or criminals. Some, too, are drunk - which brings to mind the fact that saloons in the old West required customers to check their guns at the door.
The Supreme Court has ruled that being armed in public is subject to State law and most, if not all, States permit such behavior. From your correspondent's perspective, it is desirable to know when another person is armed. When armed citizens begin to behave in strange ways, including showing signs of aggression, that knowledge provides a cue to vanish into the woodwork at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Given that being armed in public is generally legal, open carry is just about tolerable to your correspondent. Concealed carry, however, is an abomination.
For those armed citizens who think that it is clever to carry a weapon without a safety or with the safety not engaged, I hope that you trip and fall, and, as you hit the ground, that your weapon discharges and you shoot yourself in your most personal parts. That way, at least, you will have the rest of your life, as a non-participant in the gene pool, to contemplate your stupidity while looking ruefully at your Darwin Award.
Science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein once wrote that an armed society is a polite society. That statement, however, rests on the twin assumptions that the vast majority of people are actually armed while out in public and that they are emotionally stable.
There are also a number of other issues to consider.
First, there is no deterrent value to a concealed weapon. Second, handguns are almost as hard to use as, for example, are violins: training and frequent practice are necessities. Too many of those who carry weapons in the public space have less training than they should and practice only infrequently.
Even worse, a significant fraction of armed citizens are emotionally unstable, if not actually mentally ill, and some of them are just plain nasty, bullies or criminals. Some, too, are drunk - which brings to mind the fact that saloons in the old West required customers to check their guns at the door.
The Supreme Court has ruled that being armed in public is subject to State law and most, if not all, States permit such behavior. From your correspondent's perspective, it is desirable to know when another person is armed. When armed citizens begin to behave in strange ways, including showing signs of aggression, that knowledge provides a cue to vanish into the woodwork at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Given that being armed in public is generally legal, open carry is just about tolerable to your correspondent. Concealed carry, however, is an abomination.
For those armed citizens who think that it is clever to carry a weapon without a safety or with the safety not engaged, I hope that you trip and fall, and, as you hit the ground, that your weapon discharges and you shoot yourself in your most personal parts. That way, at least, you will have the rest of your life, as a non-participant in the gene pool, to contemplate your stupidity while looking ruefully at your Darwin Award.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Zipper Failure
As Henry Kissinger famously said: "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."
Among those for whom power and inappropriate sex are mixed, we can include politicians (President Clinton, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina), businessmen (Mark Hurd formerly Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett Packard and Harry Stonecipher formerly Chief Executive Officer of Boeing) and high ranking members of the military (including former Director of Central Intelligence General David Petraeus)
That powerful people have been exposed with their zippers down - when they should be up - is nothing new. That all too many of them, after a brief period of seclusion, can attempt to return - sometimes successfully - to public life is an indictment of us as citizens.
Governor, now Representative, Sanford is a prime example. Less than four years after word leaked out of his adulterous affair with an Argentine woman (including the use of State funds for personal expenditures), the citizens of the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina overwhelming voted to return him to Washington DC.
Meanwhile, in New York City, two notorious zipper artists are running for office: Eliot Spitzer (Client-9 of a notorious high end prostitution ring) wants to be New York City Comptroller and Anthony Weiner (texter of pictures of his crotch to single women) wants to be Mayor.
In her column this week (click to read), Peggy Noonan discusses the life of former British Minister of War John Profumo who resigned from the House of Commons in 1963 following a sex scandal about which he lied to Parliament. Rather than attempting a political comeback by sleazily claiming personal redemption as a result of his travails, he simply spent the next forty years quietly doing his best to make the world a slightly better place. Most importantly, he sought no publicity and until 2003 never spoke publicly of his disgrace.
What a contrast to current American practice!
Were the voters of New York City and the nation to refuse to accept that the return to office of disgraced politicians, your correspondent might be less inclined to refer to New York City and Washington DC, respectively, as Sodom On The Hudson and Gomorrah On The Potomac.
Among those for whom power and inappropriate sex are mixed, we can include politicians (President Clinton, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina), businessmen (Mark Hurd formerly Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett Packard and Harry Stonecipher formerly Chief Executive Officer of Boeing) and high ranking members of the military (including former Director of Central Intelligence General David Petraeus)
That powerful people have been exposed with their zippers down - when they should be up - is nothing new. That all too many of them, after a brief period of seclusion, can attempt to return - sometimes successfully - to public life is an indictment of us as citizens.
Governor, now Representative, Sanford is a prime example. Less than four years after word leaked out of his adulterous affair with an Argentine woman (including the use of State funds for personal expenditures), the citizens of the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina overwhelming voted to return him to Washington DC.
Meanwhile, in New York City, two notorious zipper artists are running for office: Eliot Spitzer (Client-9 of a notorious high end prostitution ring) wants to be New York City Comptroller and Anthony Weiner (texter of pictures of his crotch to single women) wants to be Mayor.
In her column this week (click to read), Peggy Noonan discusses the life of former British Minister of War John Profumo who resigned from the House of Commons in 1963 following a sex scandal about which he lied to Parliament. Rather than attempting a political comeback by sleazily claiming personal redemption as a result of his travails, he simply spent the next forty years quietly doing his best to make the world a slightly better place. Most importantly, he sought no publicity and until 2003 never spoke publicly of his disgrace.
What a contrast to current American practice!
Were the voters of New York City and the nation to refuse to accept that the return to office of disgraced politicians, your correspondent might be less inclined to refer to New York City and Washington DC, respectively, as Sodom On The Hudson and Gomorrah On The Potomac.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Carbon Emissions and President Obama
President Obama's recent speech, on the subject of global warming and carbon dioxide emissions, shows that he generally understands the climate change issue. Unfortunately, he demonstrates that he understands neither the solution nor the democratic process.
He's mostly right on the idea of reducing carbon emissions but the idea of restricting emissions from existing generating plants does not make sense - at least not now. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not yet technically feasible, mostly because the storage problem has not yet been solved, and it will not be economically feasible for some time. To shut down coal fired plants - even gas fired plants - that still have significant remaining life has an economic cost that is not necessarily justified by the scale of the problem. Certainly, the citizens of the USA (and the world) have not yet accepted the need for measures as radical, and costs as great, as implied by the President.
So, start with a modest carbon tax, increase it every year by a respectable amount for the next ten years or so. After that, increase it by a very large amount. The market, given a reasonable amount of time, will then solve the problem by encouraging conservation and the use of renewable electricity generation. Tax what is clearly bad (i.e. CO2 emissions) rather than subsidize what the government thinks might be good. Taxpayer funded research and development is good: a government that pretends to have the skills of a venture capitalist is an expensive bad joke.
The worst thing, however, is that we have a President who seems to have decided that the democratic process in the USA is broken, which is true, and irrelevant which it is not. His solution seems, therefore, to be to govern by decree like the tinpot dictator of a banana republic. That is the really scary part and, to old fashioned conservatives like your correspondent who also have green streaks, it is a matter for deep concern as well as bringing to mind the words spoken by Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, Madam. if you can keep it."
Mr. Obama would be better served by considering one of President Eisenhower's thoughts: "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."
He's mostly right on the idea of reducing carbon emissions but the idea of restricting emissions from existing generating plants does not make sense - at least not now. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not yet technically feasible, mostly because the storage problem has not yet been solved, and it will not be economically feasible for some time. To shut down coal fired plants - even gas fired plants - that still have significant remaining life has an economic cost that is not necessarily justified by the scale of the problem. Certainly, the citizens of the USA (and the world) have not yet accepted the need for measures as radical, and costs as great, as implied by the President.
So, start with a modest carbon tax, increase it every year by a respectable amount for the next ten years or so. After that, increase it by a very large amount. The market, given a reasonable amount of time, will then solve the problem by encouraging conservation and the use of renewable electricity generation. Tax what is clearly bad (i.e. CO2 emissions) rather than subsidize what the government thinks might be good. Taxpayer funded research and development is good: a government that pretends to have the skills of a venture capitalist is an expensive bad joke.
The worst thing, however, is that we have a President who seems to have decided that the democratic process in the USA is broken, which is true, and irrelevant which it is not. His solution seems, therefore, to be to govern by decree like the tinpot dictator of a banana republic. That is the really scary part and, to old fashioned conservatives like your correspondent who also have green streaks, it is a matter for deep concern as well as bringing to mind the words spoken by Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, Madam. if you can keep it."
Mr. Obama would be better served by considering one of President Eisenhower's thoughts: "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
