A few months ago, Business Insider rated Charleston as the saddest place to live. It displaced last year's "winner" of Huntington, which is now number 2.
Charleston and Huntington topping this list likely indicates some kind of cultural skewing. Objective judgments of "happiness" are nearly impossible because of the variation in culture from place to place. People making up these tests can't understand the places they study. They cannot account for variables. Using criteria made up hundreds or thousands of miles away proves nothing.
So let's talk about what makes Charleston one of the most awesome cities.
Park Land: How many cities can boast of having two massive parks within easy driving distance? Coonskin Park to the north and Kanawha State Forest to the south provide residents with easy access to wilderness style leisure.
Architecture: The State Capitol building is an architectural masterpiece. Soaring marble chambers, the tallest capitol dome in the United States, brightly colored legislative chambers, and complete access to any office.
Getting Around: Four major highways converge in Charleston, giving it excellent access by road to other parts of the state and metropolitan areas in other states. Within the city, parallel four lane roads along the river speed traffic around and through town. Kanawha Boulevard, a WPA project from the 1930s, runs past some of the more beautiful old neighborhoods in town. The trees lining the thoroughfare accentuate the beauty of the river. It's a beautiful urban drive
The River: The Kanawha River flows serenely through town, narrow enough to allow bridges of a beautiful structure, broad enough for recreation. It has carved out a valley of aesthetically pleasing proportions, particularly on the east side of town.
Education: Charleston's metro area is home to West Virginia State University (a historically black college), University of Charleston, and West Virginia University Institute of Technology, as well as Marshall University Graduate College. West Virginia University has also established a branch of their medical school in town.
Charleston is striving to transition from an industrial to a digital economy while retaining the Southern charm that it has carried since its 1790s birth. It has attracted a handful of Hollywood types because of its pace of life and dearth of celebrity seeking media.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Is the NSA America's Stasi?
A protester "defaced" the U. S. Embassy in Berlin last night with a debate provoking message.
The protester/artist/rabblerouser Kit Dotcom used a projector to put an image of his face on the side of the building under the words "United Stasi of America."
Invoking the word "Stasi" brings almost as sharp of a response from Germans as "Nazi." Some may mistakenly assume that the East German secret police force was simply a continuation of the Gestapo under a new regime. Far from it.
The Gestapo was the political police unit within the Reich Security Main Office, or RSHA in short. It had a relatively small number of thugs compared to the later Communist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Gestapo's reach remained limited due to this shortage (likely brought on by the needs of the war more than Nazi scruples) although those in its grasp felt the full measure of cruel tortures.
The Stasi, on the other hand, built an enormous agency of counterintelligence and surveillance. Likely no East German family escaped the reach of the Stasi. Those who did not inform were often informed upon. East Germany preached that good citizens turned in their suspicious neighbors for any number of offenses. Each report warranted an investigation carefully filed in enormous warehouses. After the fall of the East German government and the opening of the files, it became a point of pride to have been investigated, of shame to have informed. British historian and journalist Timothy Garton Ash wrote a book investigating the informants who helped to amass the file created on himself.
Has the NSA reached Stasi levels of interference and snooping? Certainly their technological power to gather and hold information outstrips the clumsy files filled with cards used by the East Germans. That being said, East Germans had no avenue to protest the widespread collection of personal information, no functional constitution protecting their rights, no legal or democratic alternative to the dictators in control.
Critics of the NSA point to the potential abuse of power. If officials in general did not have track records going back to Nixon, Franklin Roosevelt, and beyond, of misusing such information, Americans might have trust in it. Officials have misused information, wrongfully harming innocent individuals as a result.
Around the world, many now realize that the NSA snoops on them as well. Few can argue that this surveillance has foiled terrorists in many nations, but it still raises questions of sovereign rights and power.
Like other agencies who have gradually crept more into citizens' private lives, the problems remain in the potential more than the actual. What happens if a less scrupulous administration comes to power? What if they do use the full range of information possibilities for political purposes instead of national defense. The Internal Revenue Service back to FDR has been used politically, why not also information gathered by the NSA?
Constitutional safeguards exist because the Founders did not trust future governments to respect rights. It would be wise to restrain all government agencies in their search for more information and weigh carefully what is done in the name of national security.
The protester/artist/rabblerouser Kit Dotcom used a projector to put an image of his face on the side of the building under the words "United Stasi of America."
Invoking the word "Stasi" brings almost as sharp of a response from Germans as "Nazi." Some may mistakenly assume that the East German secret police force was simply a continuation of the Gestapo under a new regime. Far from it.
The Gestapo was the political police unit within the Reich Security Main Office, or RSHA in short. It had a relatively small number of thugs compared to the later Communist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Gestapo's reach remained limited due to this shortage (likely brought on by the needs of the war more than Nazi scruples) although those in its grasp felt the full measure of cruel tortures.
The Stasi, on the other hand, built an enormous agency of counterintelligence and surveillance. Likely no East German family escaped the reach of the Stasi. Those who did not inform were often informed upon. East Germany preached that good citizens turned in their suspicious neighbors for any number of offenses. Each report warranted an investigation carefully filed in enormous warehouses. After the fall of the East German government and the opening of the files, it became a point of pride to have been investigated, of shame to have informed. British historian and journalist Timothy Garton Ash wrote a book investigating the informants who helped to amass the file created on himself.
Has the NSA reached Stasi levels of interference and snooping? Certainly their technological power to gather and hold information outstrips the clumsy files filled with cards used by the East Germans. That being said, East Germans had no avenue to protest the widespread collection of personal information, no functional constitution protecting their rights, no legal or democratic alternative to the dictators in control.
Critics of the NSA point to the potential abuse of power. If officials in general did not have track records going back to Nixon, Franklin Roosevelt, and beyond, of misusing such information, Americans might have trust in it. Officials have misused information, wrongfully harming innocent individuals as a result.
Around the world, many now realize that the NSA snoops on them as well. Few can argue that this surveillance has foiled terrorists in many nations, but it still raises questions of sovereign rights and power.
Like other agencies who have gradually crept more into citizens' private lives, the problems remain in the potential more than the actual. What happens if a less scrupulous administration comes to power? What if they do use the full range of information possibilities for political purposes instead of national defense. The Internal Revenue Service back to FDR has been used politically, why not also information gathered by the NSA?
Constitutional safeguards exist because the Founders did not trust future governments to respect rights. It would be wise to restrain all government agencies in their search for more information and weigh carefully what is done in the name of national security.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Gangs Are Associations of Weakness
Initial reports of the arrest of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez included hints of a dark shadow life. Certain tattoos on his body may or may not advertise gang affiliations. The 23 year old Hernandez denies them. Gang unit investigators have yet to confirm it one way or the other.
If true, it brings a new angle to the disturbing world of gangs. They are supposed to be creatures of poverty. Those who do make money in them do so as criminals, making it hard to jump to a legitimate lifestyle. Even rappers feel the need to maintain some connection "to the streets" to keep up their "street cred", whatever that is worth to those gunned down as a consequence.
Hernandez, again, if he does have affiliations, would be a young man, educated in a highly respected university, who made his money completely free of the gang life. Yet he still may have found living in that style preferable to finding new friends, new hangouts, and a responsible path forward.
Gang violence increased over a recent ten year period, but decreased slightly between 2008 and 2010, according to the FBI.
Cultural perceptions of gangs, from Italian organized crime "families" to the street variety, range from portraying them as scum of the earth to representatives of tarnished virtue. Almost nowhere, however, does one see the people involved as inherently weak.
It's hard to blame some kids for getting involved. Living in dangerous neighborhoods, some kids might seek out a gang to make them feel secure. If it cannot protect them at all times, it can at least avenge any insult or assault. But joining for that reason is a decision borne of weakness, even if one cannot blame the kid for being vulnerable in the first place.
Most gang violence occurs when a large group from gang A finds a smaller group or an individual of a rival gang and attacks. Sneak, or surprise attacks are common. The tactic is to stack the odds to reduce the possibility of harm to the attackers. These reflect modes of fighting common in guerrilla warfare, especially when the number of proven and capable fighters is limited. Stonewall Jackson, with his usually smaller army, preferred to bring his entire force to bear on an isolated extension of his opponents' lines.
But these tactics are a reflection of weakness, regardless of the violent results.
Criminal enterprises also confess a lack of strength. Gangs gain revenues by combining entrepreneurial skill with enough force to create a limited geographical monopoly.
Again, this is weakness. They fear the risk and reward process of the truly competitive free market. Being a criminal, rather than a businessman, enables one to bring force to bear. Being a better businessman is hard. Killing your competition or threatening their families is relatively easier.
But it is still, from a business standpoint, a tactic of weakness, a confession that the individual could not "hack it" in the "real world."
Purveyors of popular culture could strike a blow against violence by making sure that movies about gangs and their lifestyle teach that those involved are essentially weak individuals. Martin Scorcese's Good Fellas portrayed gangsters as anything but good, which gives it a positive message. How many other films (or for that matter, Bio channel documentaries) about the Mafia or street gangs even include that element?
If guilty of his crimes, Aaron Hernandez was a thoroughly weak individual regardless of whether or not he was in a gang. What insult to his soul was worth one or more lives? What good did it do him to commit one of the most stupidly executed murders in some time? Despite his physical strength and his football field prowess, Aaron Hernandez was likely a very weak man.
Just the kind of person perfect for a gang.
If true, it brings a new angle to the disturbing world of gangs. They are supposed to be creatures of poverty. Those who do make money in them do so as criminals, making it hard to jump to a legitimate lifestyle. Even rappers feel the need to maintain some connection "to the streets" to keep up their "street cred", whatever that is worth to those gunned down as a consequence.
Hernandez, again, if he does have affiliations, would be a young man, educated in a highly respected university, who made his money completely free of the gang life. Yet he still may have found living in that style preferable to finding new friends, new hangouts, and a responsible path forward.
Gang violence increased over a recent ten year period, but decreased slightly between 2008 and 2010, according to the FBI.
Cultural perceptions of gangs, from Italian organized crime "families" to the street variety, range from portraying them as scum of the earth to representatives of tarnished virtue. Almost nowhere, however, does one see the people involved as inherently weak.
It's hard to blame some kids for getting involved. Living in dangerous neighborhoods, some kids might seek out a gang to make them feel secure. If it cannot protect them at all times, it can at least avenge any insult or assault. But joining for that reason is a decision borne of weakness, even if one cannot blame the kid for being vulnerable in the first place.
Most gang violence occurs when a large group from gang A finds a smaller group or an individual of a rival gang and attacks. Sneak, or surprise attacks are common. The tactic is to stack the odds to reduce the possibility of harm to the attackers. These reflect modes of fighting common in guerrilla warfare, especially when the number of proven and capable fighters is limited. Stonewall Jackson, with his usually smaller army, preferred to bring his entire force to bear on an isolated extension of his opponents' lines.
But these tactics are a reflection of weakness, regardless of the violent results.
Criminal enterprises also confess a lack of strength. Gangs gain revenues by combining entrepreneurial skill with enough force to create a limited geographical monopoly.
Again, this is weakness. They fear the risk and reward process of the truly competitive free market. Being a criminal, rather than a businessman, enables one to bring force to bear. Being a better businessman is hard. Killing your competition or threatening their families is relatively easier.
But it is still, from a business standpoint, a tactic of weakness, a confession that the individual could not "hack it" in the "real world."
Purveyors of popular culture could strike a blow against violence by making sure that movies about gangs and their lifestyle teach that those involved are essentially weak individuals. Martin Scorcese's Good Fellas portrayed gangsters as anything but good, which gives it a positive message. How many other films (or for that matter, Bio channel documentaries) about the Mafia or street gangs even include that element?
If guilty of his crimes, Aaron Hernandez was a thoroughly weak individual regardless of whether or not he was in a gang. What insult to his soul was worth one or more lives? What good did it do him to commit one of the most stupidly executed murders in some time? Despite his physical strength and his football field prowess, Aaron Hernandez was likely a very weak man.
Just the kind of person perfect for a gang.
Monday, July 8, 2013
West Virginia University Expanding Its Scope
Last week, West Virginia University looked to expand its footprint in widely different ways.
On July 2, Metro News reported that WVU hospitals planned to purchase Potomac Valley Hospital in Keyser from its owner Hal McBee. It would join several other regional hospitals that recently joined the WVU Hospital system, including facilities in Martinsburg and Charles Town. Since patients with serious conditions often get referrals from Keyser to Morgantown, this is expected to streamline the process.
It may also cut the number of patient referrals from Keyser to facilities in Cumberland.
West Virginia University also expressed an interest in buying a minority share of the Green Bank Observatory, according to a July 1 press release by Representative Nick Rahall.
The National Science Foundation communicated its possible termination of support over the next five years from the state of the art radio telescope. While no final decision has been made, the university expressed interest in supporting its operations.
Green Bank's telescope monitors radio wave sources from across the universe. It can discern valuable information about stars, galaxies, and other energy sources. Should a transmission from another civilization reach earth, Green Bank, or a similar facility could receive and analyze it.
State institutions taking the place of federal in scientific research and technological advances is a welcome development. More exciting course and work study opportunities help to make the school even more attractive to possible candidates for study. It also improves the academic reputation without shutting the doors on many state students.
As the university expands into new fields, however, it must remain mindful to improve its standing as a steward of taxpayer money. Administrative spending cuts must become the primary option when the university needs more revenue. At some point the student loan bubble will explode and this will stop serving as academia's cash cow.
All the same, WVU's potential involvement in the Green Bank Observatory is exciting news. And expanding into rural health should help communities and aspiring medical students alike.
On July 2, Metro News reported that WVU hospitals planned to purchase Potomac Valley Hospital in Keyser from its owner Hal McBee. It would join several other regional hospitals that recently joined the WVU Hospital system, including facilities in Martinsburg and Charles Town. Since patients with serious conditions often get referrals from Keyser to Morgantown, this is expected to streamline the process.
It may also cut the number of patient referrals from Keyser to facilities in Cumberland.
West Virginia University also expressed an interest in buying a minority share of the Green Bank Observatory, according to a July 1 press release by Representative Nick Rahall.
The National Science Foundation communicated its possible termination of support over the next five years from the state of the art radio telescope. While no final decision has been made, the university expressed interest in supporting its operations.
Green Bank's telescope monitors radio wave sources from across the universe. It can discern valuable information about stars, galaxies, and other energy sources. Should a transmission from another civilization reach earth, Green Bank, or a similar facility could receive and analyze it.
State institutions taking the place of federal in scientific research and technological advances is a welcome development. More exciting course and work study opportunities help to make the school even more attractive to possible candidates for study. It also improves the academic reputation without shutting the doors on many state students.
As the university expands into new fields, however, it must remain mindful to improve its standing as a steward of taxpayer money. Administrative spending cuts must become the primary option when the university needs more revenue. At some point the student loan bubble will explode and this will stop serving as academia's cash cow.
All the same, WVU's potential involvement in the Green Bank Observatory is exciting news. And expanding into rural health should help communities and aspiring medical students alike.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Why Zimmerman and Not Egypt?
On one hand, a guy either defended himself from attack or murdered someone in a Florida town. On the other, the military of a strategically significant country overthrew an elected leader to the delight of the people.
Why did the world shaking news of the Egypt coup rate a minor blip on the American cable news scene?
Part of it comes down to the nature of criminal trials. What role do they play in culture? The adversarial nature of a criminal trial combined with the subjectiveness of a jury judging the success or failure of a prosecution's case gives it a baser significance. Trials, always more so than sports, represent social release. The Roman emperors used to hold gladiatorial games to distract the people and channel their passions. They "played" for stakes of life and death. At times, the head of state got to weigh in on whether a combatant lived or died.
For better or worse, jury trials for centuries have fulfilled that role in America.
Go back to the 1700s. The capital murder trials of the Boston Massacre soldiers, defended brilliantly by the patriot John Adams. No trial has ever matched that one for high drama. An opponent of British rule convinces a blood bent Massachusetts jury to acquit the soldiers who killed several in the Boston Massacre. The drama and the bigger issues made it a landmark of justice. Like many equally famed trials later, the jury required a strong standard of proof to convict despite the social pressure to do so.
The Zimmerman trial, however, does not reflect current issues as much as it resuscitates the ghosts of conflicts of ages past. Hispanic on black racism? Class judgment? Just a guy trying to be the neighborhood tough guy going one step too far? Or was it a man watching out for his neighborhood?
Racism is as much of a modern issue as anti Catholicism. It will always lurk in the background, but it no longer looms as large as it once did. Times change, but memories remain. Those running the news outlets today grew up in those times and lived in that context. It is hard for them to understand that America has moved on. The old paradigm is gone forever. Nevertheless, it is good politics in some quarters to keep the fading issue alive.
News outlets believed that the Zimmerman trial formed a confluence of trial drama and race debate. They spent a lot of time and money preparing to cover it as intensely as possible. Egypt's military rudely launched a coup, disrupting the American media's preferred order. It had no experts on scene, no reporters breathlessly standing in parking lots outside the coup, packed with meaningless or old information.
Americans proved to be more interested in the coup. They packed social media, following reporters on the scene. Online, they turned to BBC, Reuters, and other international outlets. History was in the making. A man that the people had elected had tried to transform himself into a tyrant. They got the military's help in declaring independence from him.
Judging from the reaction of Obama and some other nations, not many understood the fact that an election confers a trust to follow the law, not a mandate to impose one's will. The people and armed forces of Egypt acted on that very ideal.
And that should have been the big debate of the day. The role of elections and the responsibility of the elected. News outlets should have recognized the drama, understood the significance, and devoted analysis to the possibilities good and bad that could arise.
But they didn't. And that is why we do not trust our media.
Why did the world shaking news of the Egypt coup rate a minor blip on the American cable news scene?
Part of it comes down to the nature of criminal trials. What role do they play in culture? The adversarial nature of a criminal trial combined with the subjectiveness of a jury judging the success or failure of a prosecution's case gives it a baser significance. Trials, always more so than sports, represent social release. The Roman emperors used to hold gladiatorial games to distract the people and channel their passions. They "played" for stakes of life and death. At times, the head of state got to weigh in on whether a combatant lived or died.
For better or worse, jury trials for centuries have fulfilled that role in America.
Go back to the 1700s. The capital murder trials of the Boston Massacre soldiers, defended brilliantly by the patriot John Adams. No trial has ever matched that one for high drama. An opponent of British rule convinces a blood bent Massachusetts jury to acquit the soldiers who killed several in the Boston Massacre. The drama and the bigger issues made it a landmark of justice. Like many equally famed trials later, the jury required a strong standard of proof to convict despite the social pressure to do so.
The Zimmerman trial, however, does not reflect current issues as much as it resuscitates the ghosts of conflicts of ages past. Hispanic on black racism? Class judgment? Just a guy trying to be the neighborhood tough guy going one step too far? Or was it a man watching out for his neighborhood?
Racism is as much of a modern issue as anti Catholicism. It will always lurk in the background, but it no longer looms as large as it once did. Times change, but memories remain. Those running the news outlets today grew up in those times and lived in that context. It is hard for them to understand that America has moved on. The old paradigm is gone forever. Nevertheless, it is good politics in some quarters to keep the fading issue alive.
News outlets believed that the Zimmerman trial formed a confluence of trial drama and race debate. They spent a lot of time and money preparing to cover it as intensely as possible. Egypt's military rudely launched a coup, disrupting the American media's preferred order. It had no experts on scene, no reporters breathlessly standing in parking lots outside the coup, packed with meaningless or old information.
Americans proved to be more interested in the coup. They packed social media, following reporters on the scene. Online, they turned to BBC, Reuters, and other international outlets. History was in the making. A man that the people had elected had tried to transform himself into a tyrant. They got the military's help in declaring independence from him.
Judging from the reaction of Obama and some other nations, not many understood the fact that an election confers a trust to follow the law, not a mandate to impose one's will. The people and armed forces of Egypt acted on that very ideal.
And that should have been the big debate of the day. The role of elections and the responsibility of the elected. News outlets should have recognized the drama, understood the significance, and devoted analysis to the possibilities good and bad that could arise.
But they didn't. And that is why we do not trust our media.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Egypt's Least Bad Option: Military Coup
As of right now, the Egyptian military has launched a coup to remove the Muslim Brotherhood party and President Mohammed Morsi from power.
Military leader General Al Sisi held meetings with national leaders, including the Coptic Christian pope, to secure support for removing the radicals from power. Meanwhile, BBC reports portray a rabidly angry Muslim Brotherhood equally willing to take to the streets "with martyrdom on their minds."
Tanks have taken to the streets of Cairo and, according to Reuters, hundreds of soldiers are ostentatiously marching on parade near the Presidential Palace. Some have claimed that the president now lives under house arrest. Armored vehicles defend national broadcasting outlets. The opposing sides even took to Facebook to launch rhetorical attacks.
Since Morsi ascended to office, the international community has watched his regime with concern. Relations with Israel and the United States cooled. Unprovoked and unpunished attacks on women and Christians rose. Morsi also unconstitutionally centralized power into the executive branch and attacked the independent judiciary. These almost always preface the evolution of a quasi democracy into a dictatorship.
Their goal was the implementation of Islamic religious Sharia Law. This is the code that mandates punishments for raped women, for educating girls, and oppresses millions across the Eastern Hemisphere. Egyptians have rallied against the imposition of religious totalitarianism, to their credit.
A coup would be the least bad option for Egypt. Its strategic location means that any increasingly radical state could play a very destabilizing role in the next few years. Military seizure of the government is the best chance of returning moderation to the country's foreign affairs.
It would also restore order, although in the short term any upending of a constitution disrupts rule of law.
Rarely is the case that a nation should go to such extremes to ensure order, even over law. But some cases beg for this step. Wouldn't history have taken a better course if the German Army's aristocratic officers overturned the elected Hitler government that they despised? Waiting would only entrench Morsi more securely. We can't wait for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood to grow confident enough to attack Israel or even U. S. interests in the area.
Fortunately the Egyptian Army obviously feels the same. Thus the reason for launching the least bad option.
Military leader General Al Sisi held meetings with national leaders, including the Coptic Christian pope, to secure support for removing the radicals from power. Meanwhile, BBC reports portray a rabidly angry Muslim Brotherhood equally willing to take to the streets "with martyrdom on their minds."
Tanks have taken to the streets of Cairo and, according to Reuters, hundreds of soldiers are ostentatiously marching on parade near the Presidential Palace. Some have claimed that the president now lives under house arrest. Armored vehicles defend national broadcasting outlets. The opposing sides even took to Facebook to launch rhetorical attacks.
Since Morsi ascended to office, the international community has watched his regime with concern. Relations with Israel and the United States cooled. Unprovoked and unpunished attacks on women and Christians rose. Morsi also unconstitutionally centralized power into the executive branch and attacked the independent judiciary. These almost always preface the evolution of a quasi democracy into a dictatorship.
Their goal was the implementation of Islamic religious Sharia Law. This is the code that mandates punishments for raped women, for educating girls, and oppresses millions across the Eastern Hemisphere. Egyptians have rallied against the imposition of religious totalitarianism, to their credit.
A coup would be the least bad option for Egypt. Its strategic location means that any increasingly radical state could play a very destabilizing role in the next few years. Military seizure of the government is the best chance of returning moderation to the country's foreign affairs.
It would also restore order, although in the short term any upending of a constitution disrupts rule of law.
Rarely is the case that a nation should go to such extremes to ensure order, even over law. But some cases beg for this step. Wouldn't history have taken a better course if the German Army's aristocratic officers overturned the elected Hitler government that they despised? Waiting would only entrench Morsi more securely. We can't wait for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood to grow confident enough to attack Israel or even U. S. interests in the area.
Fortunately the Egyptian Army obviously feels the same. Thus the reason for launching the least bad option.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Other Thoughts
A century and a half ago, the bloodiest battle on American soil erupted. Over the course of three days, more American soldiers died than in ten years of fighting the Vietnam War. Lessons and meanings from this battle both shaped the next century of warfare and were also ignored. Following are a few in no certain order of importance:
Gettysburg set the tone for many 20th Century battles Every officer educated in warfare in the first half of the 1800s learned Napoleonic ideas of the war of movement. Robert E. Lee generally followed those precepts. Military thinkers going back to classical Europe and ancient China warned against attacking a superior enemy on his own ground. Lee, understanding the accelerating degeneration of the Confederate home front, sought to attack a stronger enemy well entrenched on the high ground. Had Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson had lived and been there, he certainly would have counseled Lee to wait until a portion of George Meade's Union force became isolated, then throw the whole weight of his army on it, annihilate it, then move on quickly.
Instead, Lee on the final day attacked the center of the Union line across open ground. Confederate troops marched in formation against artillery and infantry positioned behind a stone wall. Lee lost the core of his army that day.
World War I is full of "Gettysburg" type battles. Troops bashing themselves against unmovable obstacles of enemy formations for four years. Amazingly, few in Europe learned about modern warfare from this. The dash of the Prussian Army against France's unprepared forces in 1871 seduced Europe.
Gettysburg may have prevented a Northern revolution We remember the sanguinary days early in July 1863 in Pennsylvania, but forget the horrific events in New York City at about the same time. New York had suffered economically from the elimination of Southern trade. Almost as much as Baltimore, New York City sympathized with the Rebellion. Economic problems combined with the grind of a seemingly (at that point) unwinnable war, the draft, and a substantial black population created a catalyst for social explosion.
These were some of New York City's darkest days. Rioters attacked draft offices, then turned their attention to the black population. Victims hung from street lamps. Not even an orphanage for black children was spared. Republican editors handed out guns to defend their lives and newspaper property. Overwhelmed, the New York City police had to be reinforced by regiments from nearby Gettysburg. If those units had been much farther away, the riot could have bloomed into something much worse.
Don't forget the other battle that officially ended the same day July 4th marked the last day of Gettysburg. George Meade won the field; Lee stumbled away dazed. In Mississippi, Ulysses S. Grant won a victory no less significant. The Siege of Vicksburg had actually ended a few days prior, but Grant insisted that the Confederates officially surrender on July 4th. From then, Union forces dominated the length of the Mississippi River.
Grant's victories meant that Lincoln could follow his instinct and move the fighting general into command, despite the many naysayers. Meade's inability to crush Lee's army after Gettysburg also made this decision an easy one.
Intelligence For the first time in American history, an official and permanent military intelligence bureau played a key role in a battle. Stonewall Jackson had been a pioneer in his insistence upon accurate maps, but these came from local help. Meade had the services of the Bureau of Military Intelligence. They employed spies, mapmakers, and analysts to track and predict the movement of Lee. Lee relied on traditional intelligence gathering, the cavalry. Unfortunately, Lee's cavalry was gallivanting across the rich countryside.
No one would ever give Meade credit for being a superior general to Lee. But his information gave his teh advantage over Lee's relative blindness.
Military thought Lee, McClellan, and other generals on both sides thought in Napoleonic ways. Points on a map represented strategic objectives. Capture an important city and win the war. Why anyone thought the capture of Richmond in 1862 (when Union forces approached within ten miles of it) would halt the war remains unclear. Frederick the Great never quit when Russians seized Berlin. George Washington gave up New York and Philadelphia. So long as his army remained intact, he fought.
Lincoln came to understand that the strategic objectives of the Union Army had to be the military might and resources of the Confederacy itself. William Tecumseh Sherman attacked the farmland and infrastructure of Georgia. Phil Sheridan systematically annihilated the Shenandoah Valley's farmland. Grant only pushed against Richmond because Lee's Army of Northern Virginia insisted on defending it.
World War II saw a similar dynamic in three dimensions. Strategic bombing aimed to eliminate industrial resources and infrastructure. Hitler's armies and Japan's navy needed to disappear before the Allies could move against their respective homelands.
In the 1940s the Allies attacked the enemy population themselves. Royal Air Force bombers launched attacks against German neighborhoods. The Red Army pillaged, massacred, and raped German civilians in Prussia (to be fair, Germans acted the same while in Russia.) Just like when Sherman fired civilian homes in Georgia, this did little to eliminate the will to fight. It merely inflamed the hatred.
Just a few thoughts as we pause to remember Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and their meanings in war.
Gettysburg set the tone for many 20th Century battles Every officer educated in warfare in the first half of the 1800s learned Napoleonic ideas of the war of movement. Robert E. Lee generally followed those precepts. Military thinkers going back to classical Europe and ancient China warned against attacking a superior enemy on his own ground. Lee, understanding the accelerating degeneration of the Confederate home front, sought to attack a stronger enemy well entrenched on the high ground. Had Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson had lived and been there, he certainly would have counseled Lee to wait until a portion of George Meade's Union force became isolated, then throw the whole weight of his army on it, annihilate it, then move on quickly.
Instead, Lee on the final day attacked the center of the Union line across open ground. Confederate troops marched in formation against artillery and infantry positioned behind a stone wall. Lee lost the core of his army that day.
World War I is full of "Gettysburg" type battles. Troops bashing themselves against unmovable obstacles of enemy formations for four years. Amazingly, few in Europe learned about modern warfare from this. The dash of the Prussian Army against France's unprepared forces in 1871 seduced Europe.
Gettysburg may have prevented a Northern revolution We remember the sanguinary days early in July 1863 in Pennsylvania, but forget the horrific events in New York City at about the same time. New York had suffered economically from the elimination of Southern trade. Almost as much as Baltimore, New York City sympathized with the Rebellion. Economic problems combined with the grind of a seemingly (at that point) unwinnable war, the draft, and a substantial black population created a catalyst for social explosion.
These were some of New York City's darkest days. Rioters attacked draft offices, then turned their attention to the black population. Victims hung from street lamps. Not even an orphanage for black children was spared. Republican editors handed out guns to defend their lives and newspaper property. Overwhelmed, the New York City police had to be reinforced by regiments from nearby Gettysburg. If those units had been much farther away, the riot could have bloomed into something much worse.
Don't forget the other battle that officially ended the same day July 4th marked the last day of Gettysburg. George Meade won the field; Lee stumbled away dazed. In Mississippi, Ulysses S. Grant won a victory no less significant. The Siege of Vicksburg had actually ended a few days prior, but Grant insisted that the Confederates officially surrender on July 4th. From then, Union forces dominated the length of the Mississippi River.
Grant's victories meant that Lincoln could follow his instinct and move the fighting general into command, despite the many naysayers. Meade's inability to crush Lee's army after Gettysburg also made this decision an easy one.
Intelligence For the first time in American history, an official and permanent military intelligence bureau played a key role in a battle. Stonewall Jackson had been a pioneer in his insistence upon accurate maps, but these came from local help. Meade had the services of the Bureau of Military Intelligence. They employed spies, mapmakers, and analysts to track and predict the movement of Lee. Lee relied on traditional intelligence gathering, the cavalry. Unfortunately, Lee's cavalry was gallivanting across the rich countryside.
No one would ever give Meade credit for being a superior general to Lee. But his information gave his teh advantage over Lee's relative blindness.
Military thought Lee, McClellan, and other generals on both sides thought in Napoleonic ways. Points on a map represented strategic objectives. Capture an important city and win the war. Why anyone thought the capture of Richmond in 1862 (when Union forces approached within ten miles of it) would halt the war remains unclear. Frederick the Great never quit when Russians seized Berlin. George Washington gave up New York and Philadelphia. So long as his army remained intact, he fought.
Lincoln came to understand that the strategic objectives of the Union Army had to be the military might and resources of the Confederacy itself. William Tecumseh Sherman attacked the farmland and infrastructure of Georgia. Phil Sheridan systematically annihilated the Shenandoah Valley's farmland. Grant only pushed against Richmond because Lee's Army of Northern Virginia insisted on defending it.
World War II saw a similar dynamic in three dimensions. Strategic bombing aimed to eliminate industrial resources and infrastructure. Hitler's armies and Japan's navy needed to disappear before the Allies could move against their respective homelands.
In the 1940s the Allies attacked the enemy population themselves. Royal Air Force bombers launched attacks against German neighborhoods. The Red Army pillaged, massacred, and raped German civilians in Prussia (to be fair, Germans acted the same while in Russia.) Just like when Sherman fired civilian homes in Georgia, this did little to eliminate the will to fight. It merely inflamed the hatred.
Just a few thoughts as we pause to remember Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and their meanings in war.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Dangers of Meddling in Syria
Last month, experts testified to a House committee that inaction in Syria emboldened Iran. Not long after that, Senator John McCain predicted that "the entire Middle East is up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning." He urged Obama to lead.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
By the Way, Regardless of the Blizzard of Ads Dominating the Internet the Past Few Days...
No one here "stands" with President Obama as he tries to throw American miners and power plant employees out of their jobs.
His face all over the net is reminiscent of Communist portraits of Stalin, Mao, etc. that covered ten story buildings.
His face all over the net is reminiscent of Communist portraits of Stalin, Mao, etc. that covered ten story buildings.
Witness For the Prosecution and Congresswoman Capito's Outrage
George Zimmerman may or may not be found guilty. But the prosecution in his trial in retrospect took a huge chance when they billed Rachel Jeantel as a star witness.
She proved a problematic witness on many counts. Her voice and style of speech flustered the court reporter, jury, and television audiences. At one point she could not read a letter that she had supposedly written.
The Daily Mail posted a long story detailing the problems undermining the credibility of Jeantel.
Defense lawyers grilled her on her own inconsistent testimony as well as racial slurs used by the victim Trayon Martin to describe Zimmerman.
In other news, now former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was arrested on charges of murder this morning.
********************************************
Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito released a statement yesterday expressing the outrage that she shares with other members of the congressional delegation, as well as many West Virginians. Obama's proposal to circumvent Congress to impose unconstitutional environmental regulations was called by Capito a "tyrannical . . . job killing plan."
Representative David McKinley and Senator Joe Manchin have released similarly strong statements.
She proved a problematic witness on many counts. Her voice and style of speech flustered the court reporter, jury, and television audiences. At one point she could not read a letter that she had supposedly written.
The Daily Mail posted a long story detailing the problems undermining the credibility of Jeantel.
Defense lawyers grilled her on her own inconsistent testimony as well as racial slurs used by the victim Trayon Martin to describe Zimmerman.
In other news, now former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was arrested on charges of murder this morning.
********************************************
Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito released a statement yesterday expressing the outrage that she shares with other members of the congressional delegation, as well as many West Virginians. Obama's proposal to circumvent Congress to impose unconstitutional environmental regulations was called by Capito a "tyrannical . . . job killing plan."
Representative David McKinley and Senator Joe Manchin have released similarly strong statements.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Teachers and Classrooms Scrape For Funds While Educationcrats Reap Hefty Salaries
The average U. S. Department of Education bureaucrat makes twice as much as the higher paid starting teachers.
According to Glassdoor.com statistics the average Education Department employee makes around $85,000 per year. Program specialists can make over six figures while a contracting officer can earn over $163,000.
Meanwhile teacher salaries lag in many states. National Education Association statistics show that as of October 2012, West Virginia starting teachers make just over $32,000 per year. The District of Columbia offers over $51,000 per year, but this pay rate is much higher than many states that rank near them on the list.
Individually, Department of Education hires may be well educated and qualified. As an institution, however, the Department has failed. A Cato Institute study shows that student achievement has remained flat or slightly dipped since the Department of Education was founded.
In 2008, Heritage Foundation released a study that found substantial increases in education spending had not been reflected in student achievement.
With all of the spending increases, how is it that classrooms remain underfunded, sports teams get cut, and teacher salaries lag behind inflation?
The problem is federal mandates. Statutes such as No Child Left Behind have brought burdens to public schools, but have not noticeably boosted achievement. Increasing federal meddling in schools means that a lot of bureaucrats get cushy salaries while teachers must work harder to meet ever increasing federal demands.
And the federal government has done nothing to make schools better. Many argue that public schooling is a dysfunctional and dying system.
The answer lies in eliminating the Department of Education and returning primary control of schools to locally elected boards. Obviously some boards do well and others fail. But at least they can be held accountable by voters. Bureaucrats continually fail, but keep their jobs and make hefty paychecks.
According to Glassdoor.com statistics the average Education Department employee makes around $85,000 per year. Program specialists can make over six figures while a contracting officer can earn over $163,000.
Meanwhile teacher salaries lag in many states. National Education Association statistics show that as of October 2012, West Virginia starting teachers make just over $32,000 per year. The District of Columbia offers over $51,000 per year, but this pay rate is much higher than many states that rank near them on the list.
Individually, Department of Education hires may be well educated and qualified. As an institution, however, the Department has failed. A Cato Institute study shows that student achievement has remained flat or slightly dipped since the Department of Education was founded.
In 2008, Heritage Foundation released a study that found substantial increases in education spending had not been reflected in student achievement.
With all of the spending increases, how is it that classrooms remain underfunded, sports teams get cut, and teacher salaries lag behind inflation?
The problem is federal mandates. Statutes such as No Child Left Behind have brought burdens to public schools, but have not noticeably boosted achievement. Increasing federal meddling in schools means that a lot of bureaucrats get cushy salaries while teachers must work harder to meet ever increasing federal demands.
And the federal government has done nothing to make schools better. Many argue that public schooling is a dysfunctional and dying system.
The answer lies in eliminating the Department of Education and returning primary control of schools to locally elected boards. Obviously some boards do well and others fail. But at least they can be held accountable by voters. Bureaucrats continually fail, but keep their jobs and make hefty paychecks.
Strutting Our Stuff: West Virginia Needs to Show Off More Often
Our West Virginia congressional delegation and their staffs showed Washington DC that they know how to throw a party. Last night, the Hart Senate Office Building hosted "Taste of West Virginia Day" to honor 150 years of state existence.
The celebration was kicked off by brief talks from the state's delegation. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives had scheduled an important vote at the same time, so Representatives Capito, McKinley, and Rahall could not address the assembled crowd as they normally would.
The pride expressed by each speaker was obvious and genuine. Politics and agreement on issues aside, there is no doubt that our delegation loves and takes full pride in their state, native or adopted.
Food and spirits attracted a wide variety of people who quickly packed the room. High ranking military officers in full dress uniform mingled with congressional staffers from all states, representatives of West Virginia businesses, and some local elected officials from nearby counties.
Highlights of West Virginia cuisine included excellent cupcakes from Keyser's own Candlewyck Inn, perfectly prepared angus roast beef from Burlington's Flying W, excellent beer from two Canaan Valley area breweries, and delicious candies from the Greenbrier among many other vendors.
West Virginians have every reason to take pride in our history and accomplishments as a state. And we should take our show on the road more often!
The celebration was kicked off by brief talks from the state's delegation. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives had scheduled an important vote at the same time, so Representatives Capito, McKinley, and Rahall could not address the assembled crowd as they normally would.
The pride expressed by each speaker was obvious and genuine. Politics and agreement on issues aside, there is no doubt that our delegation loves and takes full pride in their state, native or adopted.
Food and spirits attracted a wide variety of people who quickly packed the room. High ranking military officers in full dress uniform mingled with congressional staffers from all states, representatives of West Virginia businesses, and some local elected officials from nearby counties.
Highlights of West Virginia cuisine included excellent cupcakes from Keyser's own Candlewyck Inn, perfectly prepared angus roast beef from Burlington's Flying W, excellent beer from two Canaan Valley area breweries, and delicious candies from the Greenbrier among many other vendors.
West Virginians have every reason to take pride in our history and accomplishments as a state. And we should take our show on the road more often!
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Vladimir Putin's Winning Streak
At this point, 2:34 PM Monday June 24, Russia Today's website is almost entirely devoted to the Edward Snowden debacle.
Fox News's site leads with Snowden, but also lists a variety of other stories. CNN didn't have Snowden covered in any prominent spot.
But Russia Today revels in the twists and turns of Snowden's ability to elude American surveillance.
Putin has been on a winning streak of sorts lately. His ally, Syria, now receives arms and other support that may push the regime to bloody victory. The Russian leader put his thumb directly in the eye of Obama by facilitating Snowden's escape. He managed to split from his wife without much public fuss. Putin even somehow managed to score a Super Bowl ring without ever suiting up. The only mark against him is the viral picture of Steven Seagall giving him bunny ears in a photo.
This presidency has never played the diplomatic game well, but now the world has become the Harlem Globetrotters to Obama's Generals.
From the beginning, Obama wanted to organize the world community. He failed to realize that diplomacy at its core is a relationship of power and interest. Choices made for the office of Secretary of State reflect domestic political priorities rather than wise selections. Former Senator Hillary Clinton turned out to be a non entity (although Obama rarely put his trust in her.) John Kerry will not do much better. Diplomats, military officers, and even academics seem to understand the abstract and the reality of power better than legislators.
Obama also does not seem to understand the limits of power. One never makes threats or demands that can be easily flaunted. The US government warned Western Hemisphere nations to not allow a plane carrying Snowden into their airspace. Fair enough. But what will we do if one does? More bluster? Any tin pot who wants to make the US look bad without consequences can bring this guy to their country, at least in the short term.
The government should have said nothing and just kept quiet tabs, waiting for the pressure to get to him. He would either turn himself in, or make a mistake. Snowden has already brought his own judgment into question. American officials making themselves look like fools will not bring him to account.
Strangely enough, Obama has the ability to embarrass and even harm Putin if he chooses. Should the United States ever remove its export restrictions on natural gas, the price will plummet even further. Gas revenues are most of the foundation of Russia's recent prosperity. The impact of American shale gas on the global marketplace has seriously weakened Russia's economic position. Why not turn on the taps full blast and watch American energy might push Putin (and a few oil states in the Middle East) toward irrelevance? Why not build the pipeline that would bring even more US made energy to market? This would put even more Americans to work in gas and its byproducts.
Putin may be on a winning streak, but it lies within Obama's power to prevail in the game, if he so chooses.
Fox News's site leads with Snowden, but also lists a variety of other stories. CNN didn't have Snowden covered in any prominent spot.
But Russia Today revels in the twists and turns of Snowden's ability to elude American surveillance.
Putin has been on a winning streak of sorts lately. His ally, Syria, now receives arms and other support that may push the regime to bloody victory. The Russian leader put his thumb directly in the eye of Obama by facilitating Snowden's escape. He managed to split from his wife without much public fuss. Putin even somehow managed to score a Super Bowl ring without ever suiting up. The only mark against him is the viral picture of Steven Seagall giving him bunny ears in a photo.
This presidency has never played the diplomatic game well, but now the world has become the Harlem Globetrotters to Obama's Generals.
From the beginning, Obama wanted to organize the world community. He failed to realize that diplomacy at its core is a relationship of power and interest. Choices made for the office of Secretary of State reflect domestic political priorities rather than wise selections. Former Senator Hillary Clinton turned out to be a non entity (although Obama rarely put his trust in her.) John Kerry will not do much better. Diplomats, military officers, and even academics seem to understand the abstract and the reality of power better than legislators.
Obama also does not seem to understand the limits of power. One never makes threats or demands that can be easily flaunted. The US government warned Western Hemisphere nations to not allow a plane carrying Snowden into their airspace. Fair enough. But what will we do if one does? More bluster? Any tin pot who wants to make the US look bad without consequences can bring this guy to their country, at least in the short term.
The government should have said nothing and just kept quiet tabs, waiting for the pressure to get to him. He would either turn himself in, or make a mistake. Snowden has already brought his own judgment into question. American officials making themselves look like fools will not bring him to account.
Strangely enough, Obama has the ability to embarrass and even harm Putin if he chooses. Should the United States ever remove its export restrictions on natural gas, the price will plummet even further. Gas revenues are most of the foundation of Russia's recent prosperity. The impact of American shale gas on the global marketplace has seriously weakened Russia's economic position. Why not turn on the taps full blast and watch American energy might push Putin (and a few oil states in the Middle East) toward irrelevance? Why not build the pipeline that would bring even more US made energy to market? This would put even more Americans to work in gas and its byproducts.
Putin may be on a winning streak, but it lies within Obama's power to prevail in the game, if he so chooses.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Singularity: It's Not Just For Black Holes Anymore
Around a hundred years ago, give or take a decade or two, Albert Einstein imagined the existence of one of physics' most bizarre concepts, the singularity. This happens when a large star collapses on itself, creating a point occupying zero space, but containing infinite mass. Around the singularity point is the black hole, a construct in space with gravity so intense that light itself cannot escape. As in so many other things, Einstein had worked out in his own mind a revolutionary concept.
Now another unthinkable idea claims the name "singularity" the brainchild (or potential abomination) of Dmitry Itskov. According to Reason.com :
The 32 year-old is the driving force behind the 2045 Initiative to create cyborg avatars into which people can upload the contents of their brains, i.e., memories, personality, dreams, etc. Itskov has organized the second annual 2045 Global Future Congress which will take place on June 15 and 16 in New York City. Participants in the conference include Harvard genetics maven George Church, X Prize visionary Peter Diamandis, MIT computer genius Marvin Minsky, and Singularity prophet Ray Kurzweil, among others.
Mankind so far has been able to manufacture almost anything he has ever conceived. Star Wars and Star Trek technology in some cases looks downright archaic compared to microbots that technologists assure humanity lurk right around the corner, for better or worse. But merging technology with the human mind, with all the ramifications involved. How could philosophers, much less politicians, even begin to work out the ethics and legal issues?
No need. The singularity is impossible.
It's impossible because nature places limits on man's ability to impose his designs on the world. A spacecraft cannot breach the speed of light. A human being cannot run forty yards in three seconds. None of us will ever find perfection in ourselves or anything else on this earth.
And human beings cannot transfer a divine spark. For decades biologists and other scientists have worked to recreate the first moment of life, zapping inert amino acids and other muck with simulated lightning. Never have they manufactured life.
And neither will the computer crowd.
The divine essence, the soul, whatever one wants to call it, comes from God or nature. Humanity has no power to create or to transfer it from a living organism into anything non-living. We never will. Even if, somehow, the knowledge can be downloaded, the life itself and the essence of what makes a person a person will be extinguished when the brain dies.
This is not to say that immortality is impossible. Scientists may be able to keep a brain alive (and the first image that will come to many minds are the heads in a jar on Futurama) forever. That is, if the individual can enjoy fulfillment existing as a brain attached to a computer, just sitting in a jar, or tooling around in a synthetic body.
Literature generally represents earthly immortality as a curse. One Twilight Zone episode portrayed a man granted the ability to live forever. He tried to test it by murdering someone. Expecting capital punishment, he received clemency in a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Others have described holders of immortality as being eventually consumed by evil or madness.
A Stephen King character summed it up well "Sometimes dead is better."
It would be wise to pay attention to literature. Those successful in writing have insight into the human condition that many other lack. Whatever form immortality takes, it will have consequences on individuals and society as a whole that cannot be fathomed. The abomination of eternal earthly life will never allow the mind of the individual to travel on and learn the truly big answers waiting.
In any event, we do not in any way need to worry about mind downloading. With all the amazing and ghastly things that the next century will bring, this will always remain beyond humanity's reach.
Now another unthinkable idea claims the name "singularity" the brainchild (or potential abomination) of Dmitry Itskov. According to Reason.com :
The 32 year-old is the driving force behind the 2045 Initiative to create cyborg avatars into which people can upload the contents of their brains, i.e., memories, personality, dreams, etc. Itskov has organized the second annual 2045 Global Future Congress which will take place on June 15 and 16 in New York City. Participants in the conference include Harvard genetics maven George Church, X Prize visionary Peter Diamandis, MIT computer genius Marvin Minsky, and Singularity prophet Ray Kurzweil, among others.
Mankind so far has been able to manufacture almost anything he has ever conceived. Star Wars and Star Trek technology in some cases looks downright archaic compared to microbots that technologists assure humanity lurk right around the corner, for better or worse. But merging technology with the human mind, with all the ramifications involved. How could philosophers, much less politicians, even begin to work out the ethics and legal issues?
No need. The singularity is impossible.
It's impossible because nature places limits on man's ability to impose his designs on the world. A spacecraft cannot breach the speed of light. A human being cannot run forty yards in three seconds. None of us will ever find perfection in ourselves or anything else on this earth.
And human beings cannot transfer a divine spark. For decades biologists and other scientists have worked to recreate the first moment of life, zapping inert amino acids and other muck with simulated lightning. Never have they manufactured life.
And neither will the computer crowd.
The divine essence, the soul, whatever one wants to call it, comes from God or nature. Humanity has no power to create or to transfer it from a living organism into anything non-living. We never will. Even if, somehow, the knowledge can be downloaded, the life itself and the essence of what makes a person a person will be extinguished when the brain dies.
This is not to say that immortality is impossible. Scientists may be able to keep a brain alive (and the first image that will come to many minds are the heads in a jar on Futurama) forever. That is, if the individual can enjoy fulfillment existing as a brain attached to a computer, just sitting in a jar, or tooling around in a synthetic body.
Literature generally represents earthly immortality as a curse. One Twilight Zone episode portrayed a man granted the ability to live forever. He tried to test it by murdering someone. Expecting capital punishment, he received clemency in a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Others have described holders of immortality as being eventually consumed by evil or madness.
A Stephen King character summed it up well "Sometimes dead is better."
It would be wise to pay attention to literature. Those successful in writing have insight into the human condition that many other lack. Whatever form immortality takes, it will have consequences on individuals and society as a whole that cannot be fathomed. The abomination of eternal earthly life will never allow the mind of the individual to travel on and learn the truly big answers waiting.
In any event, we do not in any way need to worry about mind downloading. With all the amazing and ghastly things that the next century will bring, this will always remain beyond humanity's reach.
Friday, June 21, 2013
The Nation Is On a Bridge to Disaster
In 2009, Obama pushed through Congress an $800 billion stimulus bill. Democrats promised that the bill would provide funds for needed infrastructure repairs. The words "shovel ready" entered our vernacular.
But then something horrible happened. "Shovel ready" meant paying back left wing organizations like ACORN, instead of fixing the nation's deteriorating roads, bridges, sewer systems, and the like. Today, as the budget constricts, the bills remain unpaid.
Transportation For America, an infrastructure activist group, produced some scary numbers recently. In their 2013 report entitled "The Fix We're In" it says:
11 percent of all U.S. highway bridges are structurally deficient— bridges requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement. And though there are far fewer today than 20 years ago, our progress on repairing them has slowed to a trickle — nearly three times slower in the last four years than 20 years ago.
If all 66,503 structurally deficient U.S. bridges were placed end to end, you could drive from Washington, DC to Denver, CO entirely on deficient bridges. At 55 mph, you’d be taking your chances for over 28 hours on one, long, bad American bridge.
One of the major problems facing bridges comes from faulty rebar. Bridges use reinforced steel surrounded by concrete. Until a few decades ago, it was not thought necessary to protect that steel from rust. Unfortunately, moisture seeped through the concrete and caused the steel to rust. The bonding of oxygen and metal caused the steel to expand. This cracks and weakens the concrete, dangerously weakening the bridge. This flaw forced the replacement of the US 220 bridge over the Potomac River last year. Many others face the same dire problem. But because of Obama's reckless spending, money is not currently there.
Just imagine if we could go back in time and revisit the stimulus. How easy would it have been to take money away from leftist groups engaged in deconstructing America and spend the money on projects to build the nation and make it safer?
Next time you experience apprehension crossing an unsafe bridge, make sure and thank Obama!
But then something horrible happened. "Shovel ready" meant paying back left wing organizations like ACORN, instead of fixing the nation's deteriorating roads, bridges, sewer systems, and the like. Today, as the budget constricts, the bills remain unpaid.
Transportation For America, an infrastructure activist group, produced some scary numbers recently. In their 2013 report entitled "The Fix We're In" it says:
11 percent of all U.S. highway bridges are structurally deficient— bridges requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement. And though there are far fewer today than 20 years ago, our progress on repairing them has slowed to a trickle — nearly three times slower in the last four years than 20 years ago.
If all 66,503 structurally deficient U.S. bridges were placed end to end, you could drive from Washington, DC to Denver, CO entirely on deficient bridges. At 55 mph, you’d be taking your chances for over 28 hours on one, long, bad American bridge.
One of the major problems facing bridges comes from faulty rebar. Bridges use reinforced steel surrounded by concrete. Until a few decades ago, it was not thought necessary to protect that steel from rust. Unfortunately, moisture seeped through the concrete and caused the steel to rust. The bonding of oxygen and metal caused the steel to expand. This cracks and weakens the concrete, dangerously weakening the bridge. This flaw forced the replacement of the US 220 bridge over the Potomac River last year. Many others face the same dire problem. But because of Obama's reckless spending, money is not currently there.
Just imagine if we could go back in time and revisit the stimulus. How easy would it have been to take money away from leftist groups engaged in deconstructing America and spend the money on projects to build the nation and make it safer?
Next time you experience apprehension crossing an unsafe bridge, make sure and thank Obama!
Thursday, June 20, 2013
West Virginia Day: A Celebration of Courage and Sacrifice
Today West Virginians mark the 150th anniversary of the creation of the state. Northern state residents will hoist their pepperoni rolls with as much pride as southerners will much on their brown bean soup and cornbread.
But like other holidays, such as Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, etc., how many will stop to reflect on the courage and sacrifice needed for the state to even exist?
When the Old Dominion seceded, Union supporters from the northwestern counties met to form a Union government at Wheeling. One of the first proposals was to form a new state, at first called "Kanawha" and only later "West Virginia."
Most of these men remained sensible to the fact that their actions meant treason to the government in Richmond. And less than two years before, the Commonwealth hanged John Brown for treason against it. Proposing and working towards establishment of a new state only stoked their rage further.
As the day of the new state's birth drew near, Confederate forces tried to disrupt its authority. In one instance, Colonel Imboden seized the Sheriff of Barbour County. In response, two Barbour County Confederates were swiftly executed. Brigadier General Robert Milroy and Imboden then exchanged letters threatening higher numbers of mass reprisals.
This was among the more civil exchanges. West Virginia's civil war was not the conventional movement of armies. It was weary and nervous backwoods garrisons, dangerous patrols, deadly ambushes, and assassination. This state's war resembled America's war in Vietnam and Afghanistan much more than Grant versus Lee. Every official risked capture and imprisonment. The gentlemanly treatment of Generals Kelley and Crook by Confederate raiders was an aberration, not the rule. One of the early leaders of the movement, Reverend Gordon Battelle, died on the battlefield defending his work.
Our state was born in blood and, until late 1864, lived in fear of the consequences of Union defeat or negotiated peace. Each military and civil official understood the risks and persevered for principle.
On this day, 150 years after those horrible times, it is right to remember their courage, ingenuity, and, sometimes, sacrifice. This is not enough space to truly respect and honor the statemakers and military men involved. So take a few minutes and look through the stories collected on www.wvculture.org They are dramatic, interesting, and best of all, true.
But like other holidays, such as Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, etc., how many will stop to reflect on the courage and sacrifice needed for the state to even exist?
When the Old Dominion seceded, Union supporters from the northwestern counties met to form a Union government at Wheeling. One of the first proposals was to form a new state, at first called "Kanawha" and only later "West Virginia."
Most of these men remained sensible to the fact that their actions meant treason to the government in Richmond. And less than two years before, the Commonwealth hanged John Brown for treason against it. Proposing and working towards establishment of a new state only stoked their rage further.
As the day of the new state's birth drew near, Confederate forces tried to disrupt its authority. In one instance, Colonel Imboden seized the Sheriff of Barbour County. In response, two Barbour County Confederates were swiftly executed. Brigadier General Robert Milroy and Imboden then exchanged letters threatening higher numbers of mass reprisals.
This was among the more civil exchanges. West Virginia's civil war was not the conventional movement of armies. It was weary and nervous backwoods garrisons, dangerous patrols, deadly ambushes, and assassination. This state's war resembled America's war in Vietnam and Afghanistan much more than Grant versus Lee. Every official risked capture and imprisonment. The gentlemanly treatment of Generals Kelley and Crook by Confederate raiders was an aberration, not the rule. One of the early leaders of the movement, Reverend Gordon Battelle, died on the battlefield defending his work.
Our state was born in blood and, until late 1864, lived in fear of the consequences of Union defeat or negotiated peace. Each military and civil official understood the risks and persevered for principle.
On this day, 150 years after those horrible times, it is right to remember their courage, ingenuity, and, sometimes, sacrifice. This is not enough space to truly respect and honor the statemakers and military men involved. So take a few minutes and look through the stories collected on www.wvculture.org They are dramatic, interesting, and best of all, true.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
#SNAPchallenge Turns Tables on Liberal New York Pols
In the 1780s, the Queen of France, Marie Antoinette was honestly concerned about the peasantry of her adopted country. She had a replica peasant village constructed on the grounds of Versailles and watched real peasants try to function within it. New York liberal politicians channeled their inner Marie Antoinette and decided to live on the $31.50 per person, per week minimum amount granted for food stamps.
Conservatives, some of whom have actual experience shopping on a budget, satirically blasted the effort. They used the Twitter hashtag #SNAPchallenge originally set up so that the challenge acceptees could show how woebegone they were.
The hilarious results can be seen here.
If you click the link, you can see New Yorkers paying over $1 for a single egg! Another spent who knows how much on prepacked boca burgers. One genius sat at his desk eating half a loaf of white bread, washing it down with tap water.
Here's how to feed a family of four on $31.50 in a week. Remember that in SNAP, each person gets $31.50.
Ham: $13.00
Collard greens: $1.50 for a large bunch
12 jumbo eggs: $2
2 lbs of chicken leg quarters: $5
2 lbs of rice: Maybe $2
Bag of dried split pea soup: $0.50
Bag of dried beans: $1
3 boxes Jiffy corn muffin mix: $2 (Makes 18 corn muffins or a pretty huge batch of cornbread)
Gallon of milk $3.50
This equals $30.50. Remember that a family of four gets at minimum $126 per week. Obviously these are estimated prices. Some areas may be higher or lower, but a person shopping at a discount grocery like Aldi or Shop N Save will likely find prices lower than those listed.
Saving the drippings from the ham and the chicken can flavor the rice and beans and/or provide a fat to cook the collard greens in. The family will want to cut pieces of leftover ham to add to the bean soup and use the bone to flavor the split pea soup. Chicken leg quarters, thighs, and drumsticks are amazingly inexpensive and very good roasted in the oven.
Now this will not give a family the traditional variety of meals. But it can eat meals that offer nutritional balance. Also, it is enough food to fill a stomach, but not to gorge. As far as nutrition is concerned, collard greens and split peas are rich in vitamins. Obviously the meat, beans, and eggs provide protein.
And remember, this is how to keep a family of four fed on the amount provided for a single person.
Most who have known poverty for any length of time understand how to stretch food out. Common foods like meat loaf and meatballs emerged because poor people wanted to make a meager amount of meat feed an entire family.
Liberal politicians shopping at Whole Foods, unaware of how to meet a tight budget, and trying to look as if they understand the problems of the poor tell the rest of us all we need to know about their stewardship of government.
Conservatives, some of whom have actual experience shopping on a budget, satirically blasted the effort. They used the Twitter hashtag #SNAPchallenge originally set up so that the challenge acceptees could show how woebegone they were.
The hilarious results can be seen here.
If you click the link, you can see New Yorkers paying over $1 for a single egg! Another spent who knows how much on prepacked boca burgers. One genius sat at his desk eating half a loaf of white bread, washing it down with tap water.
Here's how to feed a family of four on $31.50 in a week. Remember that in SNAP, each person gets $31.50.
Ham: $13.00
Collard greens: $1.50 for a large bunch
12 jumbo eggs: $2
2 lbs of chicken leg quarters: $5
2 lbs of rice: Maybe $2
Bag of dried split pea soup: $0.50
Bag of dried beans: $1
3 boxes Jiffy corn muffin mix: $2 (Makes 18 corn muffins or a pretty huge batch of cornbread)
Gallon of milk $3.50
This equals $30.50. Remember that a family of four gets at minimum $126 per week. Obviously these are estimated prices. Some areas may be higher or lower, but a person shopping at a discount grocery like Aldi or Shop N Save will likely find prices lower than those listed.
Saving the drippings from the ham and the chicken can flavor the rice and beans and/or provide a fat to cook the collard greens in. The family will want to cut pieces of leftover ham to add to the bean soup and use the bone to flavor the split pea soup. Chicken leg quarters, thighs, and drumsticks are amazingly inexpensive and very good roasted in the oven.
Now this will not give a family the traditional variety of meals. But it can eat meals that offer nutritional balance. Also, it is enough food to fill a stomach, but not to gorge. As far as nutrition is concerned, collard greens and split peas are rich in vitamins. Obviously the meat, beans, and eggs provide protein.
And remember, this is how to keep a family of four fed on the amount provided for a single person.
Most who have known poverty for any length of time understand how to stretch food out. Common foods like meat loaf and meatballs emerged because poor people wanted to make a meager amount of meat feed an entire family.
Liberal politicians shopping at Whole Foods, unaware of how to meet a tight budget, and trying to look as if they understand the problems of the poor tell the rest of us all we need to know about their stewardship of government.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
The Nuclear Option: Tennessee Valley Authority Looks Ahead
Eighty years ago, the Franklin Roosevelt Administration initiated the Tennessee Valley Authority. Roosevelt and many of his supporters saw it as a grand experiment in government steered development of tourist attractions and hydroelectric power. Tens of thousands experienced it as a grand betrayal of property rights and tradition. In its eighth decade, it may be showing the hand of government energy planning over the next century.
According to a fiscal year 2013 budget proposal released by the TVA, expanding nuclear power capacity has been a goal of the agency since 2010:
Does this mean that government's "green energy" proposals are actually a cover for expanding nuclear power use in the United States? Last month, a nuclear waste storage facility in New Britain, Connecticut was approved by the state to store larger amounts of deadly waste material. But the facility remains temporary. Also it lies astride one of the most densely packed population corridors in the world.
This decision to expand capacity came despite objections from state environmental protection and local officials.
Federal officials have pushed for years to expand nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Under voter pressure from that swing state, Obama shut down the proposal. Nevertheless, over 70,000 tons of nuclear waste sits in temporary storage facilities such as the one in Connecticut.
So why does the TVA propose, with government approval, to expand nuclear power at the expense of coal (which has never rendered large areas uninhabitable for generations)? As usual, the problem comes from too much government intervention.
Originally, the TVA was meant to promote hydroelectric power. Against widespread protest, the federal government seized land from farm families who had worked it for generations. They only received a pittance for the farms that sustained them through the hardest years of the Great Depression. Government officials demonized the people as obstructing progress when they demanded that their property rights be respected, creating newsreels to accentuate their differences and minimize national sympathy.
Historian John Alexander Williams remarked that "the TVA made very little help available to them apart from information about land elsewhere" despite extensive study on their plight by social scientists.
And now they seek to expand nuclear power despite the fact that the country has almost no room for the deadly radioactive byproducts.
Ever since the beginning, TVA decisions have been based on the dreams of government bureaucrats and have often ignored real world problems. From the barbaric removal of farmers and their families to the drive to expand nuclear power, the TVA shows big government at its worst.
It's time to privatize the TVA and get government out of the way of safe energy production.
According to a fiscal year 2013 budget proposal released by the TVA, expanding nuclear power capacity has been a goal of the agency since 2010:
While TVA's mission remains essentially unchanged, the business environment in which TVA operates has evolved.
Facing challenging economic conditions, tougher environmental standards, the need to modernize its generating
system and changing customer needs, TVA recognized it must refine its strategic vision.
In August 2010, the TVA Board of Directors adopted a vision that will shape a cleaner and more secure energy future
for the Tennessee Valley, relying more on nuclear power, energy efficiency, and renewable energy, and less on coal-
fired generation.
Does this mean that government's "green energy" proposals are actually a cover for expanding nuclear power use in the United States? Last month, a nuclear waste storage facility in New Britain, Connecticut was approved by the state to store larger amounts of deadly waste material. But the facility remains temporary. Also it lies astride one of the most densely packed population corridors in the world.
This decision to expand capacity came despite objections from state environmental protection and local officials.
Federal officials have pushed for years to expand nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Under voter pressure from that swing state, Obama shut down the proposal. Nevertheless, over 70,000 tons of nuclear waste sits in temporary storage facilities such as the one in Connecticut.
So why does the TVA propose, with government approval, to expand nuclear power at the expense of coal (which has never rendered large areas uninhabitable for generations)? As usual, the problem comes from too much government intervention.
Originally, the TVA was meant to promote hydroelectric power. Against widespread protest, the federal government seized land from farm families who had worked it for generations. They only received a pittance for the farms that sustained them through the hardest years of the Great Depression. Government officials demonized the people as obstructing progress when they demanded that their property rights be respected, creating newsreels to accentuate their differences and minimize national sympathy.
Historian John Alexander Williams remarked that "the TVA made very little help available to them apart from information about land elsewhere" despite extensive study on their plight by social scientists.
And now they seek to expand nuclear power despite the fact that the country has almost no room for the deadly radioactive byproducts.
Ever since the beginning, TVA decisions have been based on the dreams of government bureaucrats and have often ignored real world problems. From the barbaric removal of farmers and their families to the drive to expand nuclear power, the TVA shows big government at its worst.
It's time to privatize the TVA and get government out of the way of safe energy production.
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Egg Bill is Rotten
The radical Humane Society of the United States has teamed up with major egg producers to pass a bill guaranteed to regulate out of existence the small scale farmers who produce and sell eggs.
The measure is currently part of the much larger and controversial Farm Bill which will direct federal agriculture policy in the United States. Strict cage standards for egg laying chickens form the main part of the proposal.
Included in this bill is everything from subsidies to food stamps. With revenue crunches hitting the entire budget, everything in this expensive bill has been up for debate.
So far, most congressmen and agriculture experts see the egg bill as setting dire precedents. According to an agriculture news site the Capital Press, pork, beef, and other livestock producers fear the egg bill as a trojan horse for more extensive federal interfering regulations for livestock. Other animal rights groups against all cages for chickens consider the egg bill to be a sell out to big business.
European farmers saw increasing bureaucratic burdens that resulted in a tripling of the price of eggs, according to the Irish Examiner . Instead of complying with the onerous regulations, small family farms either went completely out of the egg business or entered the "under the table" trade.
This is why Big Agriculture has teamed with radical animist groups on this measure. Big Ag does not want the competition so it uses the power of government to coerce small farmers from the field. It has done so before with EPA and FDA measures. This attempt to impose more costs is only their latest move.
The measure is currently part of the much larger and controversial Farm Bill which will direct federal agriculture policy in the United States. Strict cage standards for egg laying chickens form the main part of the proposal.
Included in this bill is everything from subsidies to food stamps. With revenue crunches hitting the entire budget, everything in this expensive bill has been up for debate.
So far, most congressmen and agriculture experts see the egg bill as setting dire precedents. According to an agriculture news site the Capital Press, pork, beef, and other livestock producers fear the egg bill as a trojan horse for more extensive federal interfering regulations for livestock. Other animal rights groups against all cages for chickens consider the egg bill to be a sell out to big business.
European farmers saw increasing bureaucratic burdens that resulted in a tripling of the price of eggs, according to the Irish Examiner . Instead of complying with the onerous regulations, small family farms either went completely out of the egg business or entered the "under the table" trade.
This is why Big Agriculture has teamed with radical animist groups on this measure. Big Ag does not want the competition so it uses the power of government to coerce small farmers from the field. It has done so before with EPA and FDA measures. This attempt to impose more costs is only their latest move.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
All of the Above, Including Coal, Makes the Most Sense
If
you follow closely the recent rounds of regulations introduced by the EPA, then
Utility MACT is high on your radar to watch.
Recently,
Senator Inhofe (R – OK) introduced a continuing resolution for review of the
EPA Utility MACT in order to stop yet another redundant regulation as the main
reason the EPA says this is necessary is already covered under the existing
mercury rule.
So,
if it is already covered why would they introduce this legislation? That’s a
good question.
As
with many other laws in Congress, there are other items in the Utility MACT
other than Mercury that will affect not only West Virginia but also virtually
every state and its citizens.
Utility
MACT ensures that all new electric generation be limited to natural gas.
Although that might be great for Marcellus Shale and oil and gas exploration,
that is a dangerous proposition to put all of our electric source in one
basket.
As
much as natural gas is inexpensive today, as the dependence on one source
disproportionality goes in one direction, so does its price – up.
Not
only will utility rates go up, but with the limitation on coal, and the
regressive taxes associated with it also will come closure of Coal Power
Plants, such as the John Amos Power Plant in West Virginia.
Closure
of Coal Power Plants mean loss of coal jobs and shutting down of coal mines,
which in turn has tens of thousands of jobs just in WV, not to mention Kentucky, Ohio and
Pennsylvania not only mining the coal but the multiple industries and
businesses that support the coal industry.
The ramifications of the Utility MACT are endless as the snow ball continues to roll down hill and get larger and larger so will the utility prices and job losses if it is not repealed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)