Why I think the UN is dreadfully broken

Time for a Churchill quote:

"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool's paradise."

- Winston Churchill, quoted in this review (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.meacham.html) of Ripples of Battle by Victor Davis Hanson


This strikes at the heart of my unhappiness with the UN, and my impatience with its apologists -- we keep getting asked to trust the UN do perform this or that task, and it reliably fails at the task, often with tremendously tragic consequences.

My correspondent Marty's example is perfect:  The UN makes a promise to refugees by
setting up a "safe area" -- and then fails to uphold the promise. Repeatedly.

If the UN or the individuals or nations setting up the "safe area" would just be honest, and say "we're setting up a collection point for refugees, but we won't defend you -- we're just making it easier for your attackers to find you" then I'd be much less upset.

The inability to defend may not be the UN's fault.  But the lying about it is very much the UN's fault.  The subsequent bloodbath is at least partly the UN's fault, as enablers.

The corruption of the UN's Oil for Food program is the UN's fault.

The unwillingness of the UN's apologists to be honest about the UN's flaws makes reforming the UN harder or impossible, so the persistence of these flaws is at least partly the apologists' fault, as enablers.

The UN's stated goals are in many cases my own goals or desires as well.   But if the UN as it *actually* exists is getting in the way of those goals or making things worse, then defending the UN's dysfunction is *impeding* those goals.

Honesty on this point is crucial.  No fix can occur before one admits a  thing is broken.

Secret, Top Secret, and SCI

From my expert source:

You may find this useful:

http://www.dss.mil/search-dir/training/csg/security/Contents.htm#Shortcut

As you drill down into it (all you'll need is the Overview section, I think), you'll notice that the kind of info that is classified that we were talking about is SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information).  That's sources and methods.  And that is not just SECRET or TOP SECRET, that's TOP SECRET/SCI (the black world).

Basically, once you get a TS, you can get read into an SCI level clearance -- but eventually you'll have to take (and pass) a polygraph to make it permanent.

It's not just knowing that Enemy State has an X -- that could be classified but not SCI.  It's knowing that they have it, and knowing because we have a Y (source or method) that detected it, and we also have a Special Forces SMU (Special Mission Unit) that can go and take it out because they are trained to be able to do Z (US capability).

:: Paul ::

Credit Card Fraud and Bad Databases

It's not that credit card workers are stupid. It's that their database systems are.
Had a call at the house from CitiBank, our credit card issuer. They had seen some "suspicious" transactions and wanted to know if we'd performed them or if someone else had.

One of the two was a gasoline purchase (a common ruse by thieves to find out if a card has been deactivated is to make a small purchase at a gas pump, swiping the card at the pump and avoiding the cameras in the store). The gas was purchased at "8:31 p.m." they said.

I was at home watching TV with my wife at 8:31 p.m. Yikes. Was it fraud?

Turns out the credit card employee was reporting it as 8:31 p.m. Central Time. We live in Oregon. At 6:31 p.m. PST (local) I was at the gas station buying gas.

I don't blame the credit card company's employee for reading the number on her screen. I blame a dumb database application that doesn't account for differences in time zones and doesn't report local times as such. It's a recipe for misunderstanding at the very least.

Is it any wonder we have a fraud epidemic, with rocket scientists like this designing the database applications?

B!x has Details, Lacks Big Picture

The coverage by B!x of the Portland JTTF flap continues to be excellent. That's now where I go first for background and details.

It's just a shame the author seems reflexively negative regarding the FBI, and why I have to question his grip on the idea of combatting terrorism. He seems to have a typically leftist myopia regarding anything that might look like profiling.

In this post he (reasonably) questions the credentials and expertise of apparently self-annointed "terrorism expert" Gary Perlstein, and goes on to give us this passage:

Take a deep breath for a moment, then come back and re-read the first part of that quote. ""The fact that a person was under suspicion because he was a Muslim, used a computer, transferred large sums of money, that's fine," Perlstein says in that article. "I want people to investigate that."

Abuse of innocent people via arrest and prosecution is something Perlstein apparently rejects. But abuse of innocent people by investigating them for spurious and illegitimate reasons, that's okay with him.

Sorry for the nested quotes, but here is my understanding of Perlstein, and then of B!x.

Perlstein thinks it's okay for law enforcement to go looking for people who might be terrorists, and thinks that looking for some combination of factors, including in this case (a) being Muslim, (b) using a computer, and (c) transferring large sums of money.

B!x seems to think that those three factors are the only factors present, and promptly starts to hyperventilate.

Go back to the original links on B!x's page, and you start to see that there is more afoot. If you think it's just "use a computer" - that could be anyone, and it supports B!x's paranoia. But the case at hand involved a person accused of operating web sites to support terrorism - which is a higher threshold of involvement than the generic "use a computer".

From the Spokesman-Review article:

Al-Hussayen, a UI graduate student in computer science, was the first person charged with providing material support to terrorists by operating Web sites. [William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University and an expert on domestic and international terrorism] said the case seemed to show him as "what most of us would think of as the model for a Web administrator – you're a medium through which materials pass, you're not responsible for the contents, nor do you edit or survey the contents."

So the reality is that even being a web site operator isn't enough involvement under the law to make you culpable (thank goodness) . So, it's good that stupid provisions in the original misbegotten Patriot Act are being struck down.

As for profiling, once you get rid of race as a factor it becomes standard police procedure. Like Perlstein, I too expect the Feds to be looking for Muslim extremists who are doing some combination of things, such as (a) posting or reading extremist anti-American materials that justify terrorism; (b) transfering large amounts of money internationally; (c) attending any group meeting at which terrorism is promoted or encouraged or where potential terrorists are recruited; (d) writing or actively disseminating or helping disseminate pro-terrorist literature; (e) learning to fly large aircraft but not take off or land; (f) attending or seeking to attend terrorist training camps; etc.

Note that "being Middle Eastern" or "being Arab" aren't on the list - because the terrorists are recruiting across race and ethnic barriers.

Potter and Leonard, Junior G-Men

The Potter/Leonard flap over their desire to get themselves Top Secret clearance - and their apparent willingness to back away from the Joint Terrorism Task Force if they don't - is filled with half-truths and misunderstandings. (For a good overview see here and here.)

First, what does it mean for something to be Top Secret vs. Secret? Boiling down the explanation I got from my source, who has Top Secret clearance as part of his job, the difference is generally Sources and Methods.

It is rarely a risk to National Security to let the public know that we know that (say) North Korea has nukes. It is almost always a very grave risk to disclose the Sources and Methods by which we may know it. Have we bugged someone's bedroom where he spills everything to his mistress? Revealing that could reveal who the source is and lead to the discovery of the bug. Is all the information coming from a given source about agriculture? That could point a finger at our mole in the Ministry of Agriculture.

So, one way to take a Top Secret document and render it merely Secret (or even releasable to the public) can be to edit out all the Sources and Methods. Smart intelligence officials may even wait until they have two or three sources before revealing a fact, so the enemy cannot figure out, based on the content, who the source must have been.

(The British famously had broken the Nazi "Enigma" code and were desparate to ensure the Nazis didn't know it, lest they stop using it. During the North Africa campaign the Brits regularly sank German supply ships based on intercepted schedule information - but they always flew a recon aircraft over the ship to be targeted, waited a while, then sank it. The Germans were baffled at how good those British recon flights were. They never suspected Enigma was broken.)

Which brings us to Potter and Leonard. If you want to oversee your people, you don't always need to know all of the details of their day. You do need to know enough to be sure they're doing the right things, and you may want to have their work audited by a third party from time to time.

So, a regular summary of their work could be edited down from Top Secret to Secret, and a trusted person (say anybody working for state government with an existing Top Secret clearance, such as a judge, Department of Justice lawyer, etc.) could periodically examine the Top Secret materials for compliance with departmental policies and ORS 181, the state law that forbids law enforcement from taking part in certain kinds of domestic spying.

Not enough teeth for you? Then consider having the Oregon Dept of Justice issue an opinion on whether FBI agents could be prosecuted in state court for breaking state law or - if they instructed local cops to violate ORS 181 - conspiring to break the law. Wouldn't that be enough of a safeguard?

The Portland City Council seems unable to distinguish between what they want to accomplish (in this case oversight), and a particular way to accomplish it (Top Secret clearances and Sekrit Decoder Rings for Potter and Leonard). This mental rigidity is visible in other ways as well, I believe.

March 25 - Salem, OR - Senate Democrats today announced plans for an ambitious new program to demonstrate that their party has a monopoly on caring and good intentions. SB 666, recently passed out of committee, will establish a "Bonfire of Compassion" - an eternal flame into which lawmakers will feed taxpayer dollars to demonstrate their deep commitment to various causes.

"We Democrats care deeply about Oregon, and Republicans don't," said Senate President Peter Courtney. "This bonfire will prove once and for all that we are the party of benevolence and humanity, whereas Republicans are heartless and cruel."

Members of both parties have long implicitly agreed that a lawmaker's level of interest in solving a problem can be measured by how much money they are willing to spend on that problem. This new program makes that relationship explicit, said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown. "By ceremonially burning taxpayer dollars in this bonfire, we will show all Oregonians how much we care. The more we burn, the deeper our passion for nurturing progressive change."

Prior to the bonfire, Democrats had a harder time demonstrating their love for vulnerable people. Previously, expensive and symbolic spending binges were tied to projects and programs, some of which didn't manage to spend all of their money. This sometimes resulted in embarrassing cash balances at the end of the budget cycle, leaving Democrats feeling that their caring had been short-changed.

"When DHS [the Department of Human Services] managed to find over $150 million last year, after swearing they were broke, it really made us feel like we'd failed," said Majority Leader Brown.

Such unexpected non-spending will be a thing of the past with the new Bonfire of Compassion. "We'll burn that money ourselves," vowed Senator Courtney. "No more leftovers. Oregon taxpayers will witness first hand the profound extent of our kindness and generosity."

A Republican amendment to use only Monopoly or "play" money in the bonfire was defeated in a party-line vote. Senator Brown said the failed amendment demonstrated that Republicans are "soft" on social spending. "It's not what you accomplish that matters," said Brown, "it's how much money you burn."

Left-wing Liberal Democrats are creating a new kind of racism in America to replace the racism of the past.

For racism to exist, one must have two or three players: the oppressed minority, and the oppressive majority, and optionally an enlightened individual or group who identifies and condemns the problem. The oppressed minority must be oppressed on the basis of race. (Rarely, one finds an oppressing minority, as in South Africa under apartheid.)

American history is stained with racism, and is adorned with the bravery of those who fought to end it.

Today, it seems that the Liberal Democrats, after opposing and even filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and then redeeming themselves by fighting for equality for many decades, are about to head down a very dangerous path.

Their problem is, having won the war, they want to keep fighting it.

There can be little doubt that the war against anti-black racism is largely won. In entertainment, sports, and every other merit based activity, blacks compete and succeed on a level playing field against whites. Nowhere is there a law that singles out blacks for disadvantageous treatment. Nowhere can a company afford a perception of disparate treatment.

As proof, note that newly arrived black immigrants -- despite the disadvantages of not knowing the language and culture -- succeed economically in America at rates indistinguishable from other races.

Those who seek out evidence of racism must continually lower the bar. Recently, the taunts of the crowd at a Lake Oswego high school basketball game were branded 'racist' -- even though critics admit they don't think the taunts were motivated by race.[1]

How can a racist act not be motivated by race? When the racism exists only in the heads of white liberals. To the colorblind students who taunted, they were merely giving as good as they had gotten; the other side had taunted similarly. To the guilt-ridden white liberal, however, blacks can never be equal -- they must always and forever be lesser, be fragile, be needy and protected by brave white liberals.

That is why the liberal white reverse-racists have invented "unintended" racism -- thought crime without the thought -- in order to maintain their own position as saviors of the oppressed.

This is more dangerous than it appears. It keeps a liberal boot on blacks, institutionalizing them as perpetual victims whose rise to equality (and thus independence) cannot be allowed. And it teaches previously colorblind youth that a double standard exists, and that colorblindness will not be tolerated. Dr. King would be appalled.

---

[1] Lake Oswego Review: LOHS Principal Bruce Plato spoke with a number of students involved in the incident and believes that the students weren't motivated to make the comments because of Leary's race. But Plato condemns the comments just the same. Lakers' fans are on hot seat by Alandra Johnson - 03/10/05 http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/article/6629

The Jargon Lexicon The Jargon Lexicon

StrategyPage.com - Professional Wargames Page 2nd Edition. This is the text of the second edition, published in 1992, out of print in 1997.

Chicago Tribune | A question of ambition Another example: A 1983 U. of C. brain-twister put applicants in the role of a school superintendent forced to defend unavoidable budget cuts before the school board. What should be slashed--extracurricular activities such as music or athletics? Special academic programs for the gifted or handicapped? The number of schools? The number of teachers? Salaries of the district's entire staff?
(this is the question I answered that got me admitted. deja vu)