View 765 Saturday, March 09, 2013

I have a lot of mail but no time, and my day has been devoured by locusts, but I thought this mail might be amusing:

The government builds a chicken plant 

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

A useful cautionary tale which, I think illustrates both our inability to "help" other countries and the weakness of our own when it comes to building ANY private enterprise.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/03/09/the_biggest_blunder_america_ever_made_100603.html

"

In my act of the play, the U.S. spent some $2.2 million dollars to build a huge facility in the boondocks. Ignoring the stark reality that Iraqis had raised and sold chickens locally for some 2,000 years, the U.S. decided to finance the construction of a central processing facility, have the Iraqis running the plant purchase local chickens, pluck them and slice them up with complex machinery brought in from Chicago, package the breasts and wings in plastic wrap, and then truck it all to local grocery stores. Perhaps it was the desert heat, but this made sense at the time, and the plan was supported by the Army, the State Department, and the White House.

Elegant in conception, at least to us, it failed to account for a few simple things, like a lack of regular electricity, or logistics systems to bring the chickens to and from the plant, or working capital, or… um… grocery stores. As a result, the gleaming $2.2 million plant processed no chickens. To use a few of the catchwords of that moment, it transformed nothing, empowered no one, stabilized and economically uplifted not a single Iraqi. It just sat there empty, dark, and unused in the middle of the desert. Like the chickens, we were plucked.

In keeping with the madness of the times, however, the simple fact that the plant failed to meet any of its real-world goals did not mean the project wasn’t a success. In fact, the factory was a hit with the U.S. media. After all, for every propaganda-driven visit to the plant, my group stocked the place with hastily purchased chickens, geared up the machinery, and put on a dog-and-pony, er, chicken-and-rooster, show.

In the dark humor of that moment, we christened the place the Potemkin Chicken Factory. In between media and VIP visits, it sat in the dark, only to rise with the rooster’s cry each morning some camera crew came out for a visit. Our factory was thus considered a great success. Robert Ford, then at the Baghdad Embassy and now America’s rugged shadow ambassador to Syria <http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/syria/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink> , said his visit was the best day out he enjoyed in Iraq. General Ray Odierno, then commanding all U.S. forces in Iraq, sent bloggers and camp followers to view the victory project. Some of the propaganda, which proclaimed that "teaching Iraqis methods to flourish on their own gives them the ability to provide their own stability without needing to rely on Americans," is still online (including this charming image of American-Iraqi mentorship, a particular favorite of mine)."

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Hardly surprising of course; but we have all seen that chicken plant on the 6 o’clock news, more than once. This is called bringing democracy to the middle east. A policy of incompetent empire in action.

A follow up question.

A great part of the reason for the fiasco chronicled below in Iraq and also in the book "Little America " ( http://www.amazon.com/Little-America-War-Within-Afghanistan/dp/0307957144) is because we assumed that we could rebuild those countries as we did Germany and Japan after WWII.

Those events should be in your living memory. So question: Why did we succeed back then and so abjectly fail now? What’s the difference? Iraq and Afghanistan were every bit as prostrate as Germany and Japan were.

Respectfully ,

Brian P .

To begin with, we began training specialists in military government as early as 1943. We had also defeated Germany and Japan. The German economic miracle helped a lot, as did the Japanese customs of obedience and respect for law. Mostly, though, we sent competent proconsuls. Lucius Clay and Douglas MacArthur had their faults, but they understood the mission, they had the power to fulfill it, and competent advisors. We had Bremer.

That is the short answer. It would take a while to go through the details.

[B adds:

and we did not have an organization of left over Nazi’s and Japanese Imperialists sent by other countries to cause as much trouble as possible once the Axis were defeated.

which was certainly a factor.  In Japan the emperor ordered cooperation.  In Germany everyone was ready to denounce the Nazi’s. But in both cases we had proconsuls who knew what they were doing. Roland adds

How quickly we forget.

The date of this essay may be of interest, as well:

<http://www.hegemonist.com/hegemony/2003/07/how_quickly_we_.html>

How quickly we forget.

One of the most puzzling things about our adventure in Iraq has been the seeming near-total ignorance of anyone in government – including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who’s old enough to remember the events in question – of the methods we used to restore order in the last two countries which we occupied for any length of time.

I speak, of course, of Germany and Japan after their defeat in the Second World War.

Of the two, postwar Germany seems the closer analogy; a secular uni-party totalitarian state, a tyrant who met his self-inflicted end out of the public eye (to this day, there are those who claim that Hitler escaped to South America, or Antarctica, or what-have-you), a fearsome secret police apparatus, legions of petty bureaucrats who made their livelihood by serving the regime in one form or another, and a wrecked public infrastructure. The situation was complicated by legions of displaced persons (‘DPs’) comprised variously of unhoused civilians, freed POWs, and of course the survivors of the concentration camps.

Yet there were Civil Affairs units moving forward with the various armies as they advanced, setting up registration centers, issuing officially-recognized ID cards and scrip, and generally keeping order while the front lines advanced. And once Admiral Doenitz, Hitler’s successor, signed the instrument of surrender . . .

 

Roland Dobbins

The entire essay is worth your time.

Our Republic is founded on the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Competent Empires have a different formula based on local leadership. Incompetent empires have no principle other than force.]

Dr Pournelle

SpaceX is gonna build your DCX.

SpaceX’s Grasshopper flies again

Grasshopper, the reusable launch vehicle (RLV) technology demonstrator developed by SpaceX, made its fourth flight on Thursday, according to government records. The list of flights performed under experimental permits issued by the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_license/permitted_launches/historical_launch/> now includes a flight on Thursday, March 7, by Grasshopper from SpaceX’s test site near McGregor, Texas. The entry offers no technical details about the flight other than it was a vertical takeoff and landing flight.

SpaceX developed Grasshopper to test technologies it plans to incorporate into a future reusable version of the Falcon 9. The vehicle is a Falcon 9 first stage with a single Merlin engine and fitted with landing legs. The vehicle last flew in December <http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/12/24/grasshopper-hops-ever-higher/> , flying to an altitude of 40 meters and staying airborne for 29 seconds. SpaceX previously flew Grasshopper in September and November.

A SpaceX spokesperson did not respond to a request for information about the flight on Friday afternoon. In December, the company waited nearly a week after the successful test flight before releasing videos of the flight and other information.

–New Space Journal <http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/03/08/spacexs-grasshopper-flies-again/>

Live long and prosper

h lynn keith

The specifications for SSX of which DCX was a scale model put savability up at the top of the requirements. Savable and reusable. Savable means multiple engines, with the capability to land safely with one engine out. (In practice that might mean two out, one shut down to balance the engine that went out.) I had a brief conversation with Musk on single stage to orbit vs. having a reusable first stage or perhaps a zero stage to gain altitude but not necessarily velocity. He, along with many in the modern rocket community, liked multiple recoverable stages. That adds operations complexity. Both concepts need some X projects.

View 765 Thursday, March 07, 2013

I have considerable mail discussing Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster on use of drones against United States citizens on American soil. Here is a typical email:

Rand Paul and drones

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

It appears Rand Paul has catapulted himself to national prominence by asking the very kinds of questions I’ve been asking here. He’s also gained some fans both among liberals and among conservative Republicans for doing so .

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster/

I salute him. I don’t agree with everything he or his father believe, but sometimes a thing is done well.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Not everyone approved. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page today had

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn’t explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.

Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed.

Of course this is all wrong. The saboteurs who came ashore on Long Island included two United States citizens who had convinced the Germans they had changed sides. One of them defected almost immediately and turned himself in to the FBI. All eight were arrested and tried before a military tirbunal, and sentenced to death. The six German nationals were executed in August 1942 (having come ashore in June of 1942). The two Americans were sentenced to what amounted to life imprisonment, later commuted to time served and deportation to the American Zone in occupied Germany. No one was executed without trial.

The WSJ was taken to task by the Huffington Post and other similar publications for “slamming” Senator Paul, but oddly enough, his concerns were taken seriously by many in the general press. Senator Paul’s action got the response he wanted:

Attorney General Eric Holder responds to Sen. Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster with one word: no

‘"Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no,’ Holder wrote.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/paul-13-hour-filibuster-word-reply-article-1.1282182#ixzz2MuD1myCQ

And this from the Washington Post:

 

Eugene Robinson

Opinion Writer

Rand Paul makes the right call with filibuster

By Eugene Robinson, Thursday, March 7, 1:39 PM

Rand Paul was right. There, I said it.

The Republican senator from Kentucky, whom I’ve ridiculed as an archconservative kook — because that’s basically what he is — was right to call attention to the growing use of drone aircraft in “targeted killings” by staging a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile the White House has suspended White House tours because of the sequester, but the Easter Egg Roll will go on as planned. No bunny inspectors have been furloughed. God reigns, and the government at Washington still lives. Carry on.

Dear Jerry Pournelle:

My Swiss Army knife is one of my most intermittently useful items. I don’t use it often, but when I need it I am glad that I carry it in my backpack at all times. It has screwdrivers (straight and Phillips), two bottle openers, a corkscrew, tweezers, a small scissors, a magnifying glass… and two blades; one razor sharp, 1+9/16 inches long; and a duller blade, 2+6/16 inches long.

I carry my Swiss Army knife in my backpack at all times, except when I fly, when I must leave it at home. (And of course it is while travelling that I find myself needing a portable multi-tool! As usual, Murphy’s Law applies.) I was hoping to be spared the Theatrical Security Authority’s jihad against portable multi-tools; but alas, 2+6/16 = 2.375, which is 0.015 inches too long even for the TSA’s new rules. That’s 0.015 inches of terrorism; just as bottled water is now officially an explosive.

I understand your reader’s piling on to the TSA; it certainly deserves criticism, or even abolition; but please lay off when they uncharacteristically show the slightest trace of common sense.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel Hellerstein

I hadn’t realized that my readers were piling on the TSA. I have long been on record as saying that much of what TSA does is Kabuki Theatre Security, intended to inconvenience passengers while giving them an impression of added security, and their new rules don’t bother me. I long carried a pocket knife and now I’ll get my old Swiss Army knife out and carry it again, and I will feel neither safer nor more endangered when aboard an airplane. I am concerned that they didn’t strengthen the cabin doors enough, but I am also certain that passengers, now that they are no longer afraid of arrest and imprisonment by their own government for interfering with hijackers, can handle terrorists armed with knives. I’d prefer that the airline issue framing hammers to passengers willing to carry them, but a camera on a shoulder strap makes a pretty good weapon against a small knife. As do many other things we routinely carry.

I heard on the radio that now terrorists will threaten a baby with a pocket knife and everyone will cave in, with the cabin attendants pleading with the flight crew to open the cockpit door. I can’t think that threatening a baby with a Swiss Army Knife is more horrifying than threatening a child’s eyes with a ball point pen. Stand up, stab out one eye to demonstrate you mean business and go on from there. I am sure readers can write their own scenarios.

For that matter, I am sure that most readers can think of ways to bring down an airplane providing that you don’t mind the certainty of being killed in the process. Perfect safety on an airplane is an illusion, and we all know it.

As for me, now where did I put that old Swiss Army knife? And a grindstone. I need a good power grindstone and a lot of water.

View 765 Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Sometimes I remember the strangest things. More than fifty years ago there was a Western radio drama, Gunsmoke, starring William Conrad as Matt Dillon and Parley Bear as Chester. In one of the episodes young would-be gunfighter came to town. He announced that he was going to kill Matt Dillon in a fair fight so as to gain his reputation and make a lot of money hiring out in a range war. Dillon didn’t take him seriously, but the kid kept insisting, and finally as Dillon was coming out of the Longbranch he shouted some threat. There was gunfire. Dillon said “Sorry kid, this time I believed you.”

Norks threaten to repudiate Korean War ceasefire on 11 Mar 2013, shut down hotline at Panmunjom.

<http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130305/DA4QTUEG2.html>

Roland Dobbins

North Korea is a major threat because of the massed artillery along the border. The location of most of the guns is well known and plotted by both US and South Korean gunners and pilots.

Carpenter Avenue School, the local public school in Studio City, is well known as an exceptionally good school, and was even before it became a charter school. Given the general level of competence of schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District, Carpenter certainly is exceptional, although we didn’t think it sufficiently so for our kids even though it’s only two blocks away. We sent our boys to St. Francis, but that’s another story.

The big story is that parents are gaming the system to get their children into Carpenter, falsifying their addresses so as to appear to be in the school’s district, and thus flooding the system so that people who do live in Studio City can’t get their kids in the school. The local talk radio hosts are making much of this and debating whether the parents doing this should be ashamed of themselves.

Given that the entire LA Unified School District is a fraud, taking between $7 and $8 thousand dollars per student and achieving a dropout rate greater than 40% and an illiteracy rate approaching 50%; that LAUSD permitted a teacher caught on video feeding his pupils cookies frosted with his own semen to retire rather than be fired and continues to pay his pension as he awaits trial in jail, that in ten years LAUSD has fired fewer than 50 teachers for incompetence, and is generally awful, one could make the case that the school system is a fraud, a giant con game, and questioning the ethics of those who chose to con the con men is a joke.

Of course Los Angeles isn’t alone here. The 1983 National Commission on Education concluded that “If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightly deem it an act of war.” The national school system hasn’t improved since that time. Most state budgets spend more on education than on anything else, and with a few exceptions it’s all pretty well fraudulent. If someone offered you $750,000 a year to educate 100 students, do you think you could manage to do that? Most of us certainly could, providing each student with a fully loaded iPad in the bargain. But of course that’s idle speculation. We aren’t going to reform the school system. The only chance your kids have is for you to game the system, or avoid it altogether.

Begin by making sure they can read before the go to school. By read I mean be able to read nonsense words. Any kid who can read can read “’Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe, all mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe.” Not many five or six year olds will have the foggiest notion of what the means unless you have been reading to them from Alice (or they have been reading it themselves: six year old kids can in fact read Alice, but be prepared for a lot of pesky questions about what’s going on). Any kid (of any age) who can’t read that sentence can’t read. They may be “reading at grade level” but that usually does not mean they can read. If you can read English you can read long words you do not understand (or which cannot be understood, such as deamy and precognosis). Those who can’t read those words can’t read English, and you might be astonished at how many twelve year old children can’t read them.

Many studies have shown that if you can’t read by the beginning of fourth grade, you are not likely to have any career in the technical subjects; you’ll just get too far behind before you get into high school. I suppose that is disputable – surely one can find examples for whom it was not true – but it’s true enough, given that the remedy is simple. For generations English upper and middle class children were taught to read at age 4 by nannies or their parents, and most English public schools expected the kids to be able to read when they arrived. I don’t think those kids were particularly better protoplasm than ours. But I’ve said this often enough before. If you want to know more, http://www.jerrypournelle.com/OldReading.html.

Our small discussion of correlation and causation yesterday impelled Mike Flynn, who thinks a lot about this sort of thing – he’s a quality control expert, which means he is very much concerned with advanced studies in statistical inference – to write a short essay. It may tell you more about causation and correlation than you really wanted to know, but those who actually have to deal with such matters ought to know this sort of thing at this level:

The Causes of Correlation

Regarding recent comments on correlation and causation, a few observations:

1. If X causes Y, then X and Y will be correlated IF a wide enough range of X is examined. Otherwise, it is possible for X and Y to appear uncorrelated.

2. If Y causes X, there will likewise be a correlation, if a wide enough range of Y is examined; but researchers may be fooled into supposing that it is X that causes Y.

Example: in the famous case of the Storks of Oldenburg, an excellent correlation obtained between the population of Oldenburg, Germany, during the 1930s and the number of storks observed each year. Do storks bring babies? No, babies bring storks: as the town grew, more houses were built, resulting in more chimneys, and the European stork likes to build its nest in chimneys. So, more nesting places.

3. If Z causes both X and Y, there will be a correlation between X and Y even though there is no causal connection whatsoever.

Example: in a chemical reaction low process yields (Y) was correlated with high pressure in the vessel (X). The suggestion to increase yields by lowering the pressure was met with scorn because: there was an impurity in the raw material (Z) that interfered with the reaction and lowered yields AND also caused frothing in the vessel. The standard operation procedure instructed the operator to combat frothing by increasing the pressure to hold down the foam. So low yields and high pressure were associated, but manipulating one would not change the other. Both were effects, not causes in this context.

4. If X and Y are both on a trend or cycle during the same time period, the respective time series will correlate even if there is no causal connection.

Examples:

* Columbia river salmon runs go up and down in roughly eleven year cycles. So do sunspots on the sun. Do sunspots cause salmon? Do salmon cause sunspots? Is there a lurking Z that makes salmon eager to spawn AND causes the sun to boil?

* An example I used to use in training classes. The % of women participating in the labor force (X) has been increasing smoothly since the 1880s. The % of foreign cars sold domestically (Y) was increasing from 1955 to 1990. The correlation between X and Y was in the high 90% range. Does this mean that we can save Detroit by getting women back in the kitchens? Or only that two trends will always correlate?

* If global temperatures are increasing and atmospheric CO2 is increasing during the same time frame, they will correlate.

5. Coincidence. There was a longstanding correlation between the size of the universe and the size of my suits. Space was expanding, and so was I. But if I lost weight, would the universe begin to contract? Hemlines and stock prices is another classic example.

Example: Science Can Tell If You’re A Racist Just By Looking At You http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7407

6. The Unabomber Effect in Multiple Correlation. When the Unabomber taught math at Berkeley he said that given seven independent variables (X1,…, X7) you can fit any finite set of data (Y). It’s only a matter of finding the right coefficients. (It might not survive new data; but then you simply re-analyze and come up with a new set of coefficients and, presto, you get another fit.) This could become an enormous problem with Big Data and automated data mining and adjustment.

Actually it is already an enormous problem with Big Data and automated data mining. But you know that. Statistical dragnets can find a lot of interesting correlations. Treat them like hypotheses to be tested and you may learn something. And every now and then an unexpected correlation does lead to some real discoveries, which is why keeping careful case histories is so important to medicine.