Leaks and leakers

When I was in the Navy, I recall with great precision the day I was required to sign a document stating that if I were to reveal certain pieces of classified information that I would be subject to penalties, "up to and including death."

That made a real impression on me, and of course, I understood that this was reasonable and fair because I was not in the position to determine what--if any--part of the information I had knowledge of was 'safe' to release.

I also understood that often, more important than the information itself, was the implication of 'sources and methods,' meaning that the exact information the United States posessed via certain intelligence-gathering processes was not necessarily as important as the sources and methods necessary to have the material.

I often ask people when discussing intelligence operations, "Which is more highly classified, the state of readiness of the Russian Ballistic Missile forces or what Vladimir Putin had for breakfast this morning?" Most people sense that it is a trick question, but dont' know why Pooty-Poot's breakfast is more highly classified.  [the answer is that while there are hundreds of people and multiple ways we could know about missile readiness, there are probably only about 5 people who know that Putin loves Lucky Charms with chocolate milk and pineapple juice, and therefore the mere knowledge of his menu implies that we got the information from one of those five people.]

Who the #ELL do Snowden and Manning think they are? What gives them the self-appointed right to leak information that has been classified by people way smarter and more experienced than them? I sincerly doubt where these two twenty-somethings had the experince or judgement to determine on their own that it was "right" in the grand scheme of Morality for them to leak this information without authorization.

Anyone with any time in the military understands that often information is over-classified, if for no other reason that the sheer volume of it precludes a more precise classification.

I also certainly understand that there are things that are Morally Wrong which are 'covered up' with differing degrees of malice in the classification system.  I'm not going to go into who has the right or obligation to reveal this information--especially given the fact that to do so may have other unintended conseqences that are Morally worse.

However, neither of these facts give any degree of authorization to these self-appointed leakers to release this information.

It's no surprise that I am generally in favor of most any information--that is true--that causes damage to a certain CinC's political reputation. However, I certainly would not condone, say, a member of the Secret Service detail leaking information about blind spots or weaknesses in his security plan--however true they may be with whatever intent they may be released. That is clearly across the line.

 

Snowden, Manning and their ilk should be put under the prison and left as an example to others.

An article and a comment

A friend of mine sent me this story and asked for my thoughts.  Thoughts are below.  http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-house-non-prayer-sparks-christian-213521848.html

Recall that the concern about the intersection of church and state to the framers of the constitution was to keep the state out of the church and not to keep the church out of state.  It always bears repeating—since American seems to keep forgetting—that the phrase, "separation of church and state," is NOT in the constitution, and even in the context in which it was first articulated was about keeping the state out of church matters.  Certainly this issue has enough challenges, but I think there are still other complications when the concept is expanded from "church" (which I see—in its original construct as a specific denomination of Christianity) to "religion" (which is a far broader concept of whatever deity someone might claim adherence to), which of course, is an entire discussion in its own right.

Even casual observers know that Arizona lawmakers (and law enforcers) are not afraid to take unusual and provocative positions on various topics.  I applaud this and think the conversations they spark (like this one) are valuable.

In this particular case, I will get rather technical with my answer.  If the agenda states the time is for "prayer" then I think it should be used for a reverent invocation of the deity to which the rotating speaker reveres.  Perhaps the real issue is that the time should be scheduled as an "invocation" (or some better word), thus allowing for either a prayer, or a secular charge/introduction to the working day.  I think it is somewhat cynical for a self-described (I assume) atheist to use prayer time to make a personal homily.  The article only cites one sentence of what he said, so I can only extrapolate from that that his comments were probably positivist humanist sentiments which were not offensive to anyone.

 

I must say also that the article itself is poorly written and takes a couple tangents without even focusing on the details of the event that sparked the incident being reported.  It's got to be one of the worst-written articles I have read in a while.

The Merchant and the Monk - A Book Review

 

The Legend of the Monk and the MerchantTwelve Keys to Successful Living

By Terry Felber 
Published by Thomas Nelson

Disclosure:  I received a free copy of this book (in e-book format) from the publisher with the expectation that I would provide an honest review of the book.

I am usually a little skeptical about parable-type books, where the author tells a simple story to illustrate bigger ideas since I often find them to be too simple and obvious.  The legend of the Monk and the Merchant was very different and was a very pleasant surprise.  The story itself is good, but the study and discussion guide is the real gem in this book. 
In The Legend of the Monk and the Merchant, Terry Felber tells the story of a wealthy merchant in Venice telling his grandson about the keys to his business success.  The merchant had collected his experiences and insights in a journal over the years with his mentor and uses it to encourage his grandson who is deciding what he wants to do with his life.  Along the course of the story, they discuss God’s view of money, wealth and work, principles of success in business and life, and man’s obligation God and his fellow man.
Also, and this may be because we (my Wife and I) have young adolescents at home who—before we know it—will be making their own decisions about careers, we were really impressed with the challenging questions in the discussion guide about choosing their vocations based on God's call.
Students of Christian approaches to finances and stewardship (including Dave Ramsey, whose foreword presents a very persuasive endorsement of the book also) may find at last some of the principles familiar.  However, the way in which they are presented and the practical reflections of them in the story are very real and compelling.
Felber goes beyond just another book on Christian business principles by examining the artificial distinction between clergy and laity.  Without harping on it, he effectively makes the point that all work is sanctioned by God and that the merchant is no less ‘godly’ than the Monk.  He uses the setting, in Renaissance Venice to underscore the observable differences in the two callings at the time and thus make his point that fundamentally they are not really different at all if one truly understands God’s call to work.
The story that Felber uses to make these points moves quickly and is deceptively simple.  A good reader could easily read it in a single sitting.  The Study guide is where this book transforms from potentially run-of-the-mill to outstanding. 
The study guide contains twelve sessions that delve deep into the ideas and concepts with challenging, soul-searching questions.  This isn’t a simple personal or small-group study that you can just answer with shallow quick off-the-cuff answers.  Felber asks the Hard Questions that really make you think and examine what you think, what you believe and how you act.  This book can be greatly valuable to people who are looking to learn about a Christian perspective on finances, but it also has a lot to say about those considering their careers—either where to start them, or thinking about a work change.  As my Wife and I observed, it is also an excellent book for young teens to read and then review with their parents as they start looking at possible careers and what it means to be an adult.
We highly recommend this book and encourage  readers to invest the time to go through the questions and let themselves be challenged—and potentially inspired—by wrestling with the questions it asks.

Travel book review: Let's Take the Kids to London (4th ed)

Disclosure:  I received a free copy of this book with the expectation that I would provide an honest review.
Having traveled to Europe several times (including to London) with our own children (aged 8 and 10 at the time), we have a pretty good idea of how to see London with kids.  We can enthusiastically recommend this book as not just a great guide for taking kids to London as well as a valuable resource for planning any trip with children.  It will certainly help the travelling family get the best experience for their money.
The book is laid out in typical guidebook fashion, with sites grouped by theme (parks, museums, history, etc.) with each site briefly described with good comments on its value (some are described as tacky, which is certainly true) as well as a summary of hours, cost, transport, and other details.  This book has few pictures and is printed in black, white and pink.  It reminds us of the format used by Fodor’s.
The author suggests a couple walking tours which are well-designed.
A couple things that the author left out which we think are helpful:  At Westminster Abbey, they have a kid’s scavenger hunt that really keeps the kids occupied while helping the adults (who are helping the kids) really see the detail of this magnificent building.
Our criticism would be that in an effort to avoid publishing actual prices (which admittedly can change quickly) for various attractions, he has only provided a qualitative statement (e.g. Moderate, Expensive) without providing a range of what these costs might be.  However, these comments are enough to give you a general idea of cost, especially in relation to others.  Since he has provided web addresses for most locations, the prudent traveler can check prices ahead of time at home.
It’s certainly worth spending some time to get the kids of the couch for a few weeks before your trip to exercise so they can keep up with the walking. It would be useful to discuss culture and history before you go in order to appreciate and put things in context.

The more general travel tips at the back of the book provides great suggestions and well-learned tips on how to plan for execute a trip.  Chapters on Money, Internet and phones, British terminology and transport are useful for anyone making their first trip to the UK—with or without kids.

You used to have to do something to get a ship named after yourself

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10374860-new-navy-ship-named-after-gabrielle-giffords

 

This reeks of many things—none of them good.

Origins, Part Deux.

After my previous post about the origin of the Universe, my friend posited:
"I'm not sure that the "beginning" of our universe is necessarily the beginning of "creation" as many cosmologists believe that there may be many equivalents to our "universe" (despite its "uni-" name) and that some of these exist concurrent to our own and some predated it.
This, then, does not necessarily mandate a creator for this particular time-space existence."
 
I have heard similar lines of argumentation before--supposing that there are many universes and so even if there was a divine creator of this universe, that it doesn't explain the origin of other universes.  While this sounds sophisticated, it merely kicks the philosophical question down the road.  Namely:  even if we were to agree that this universe is one of may that exists in a Uber-verse (if I may coin or borrow a term), then it still begs the question, 'where did the uber-verse come from?'  This is not unlike Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA) speculating on the alien origins of DNA on earth.  The obvious question is "where did the aliens come from?"
 
I grow weary of the intellectual position that dismissis a supernatural (i.e. divine) origin of the universe a priori, and then pretend that we're having an honest conversation.  The intellectual tosses down the gauntlet:  "I challenge you to describe the origin of the universe, but you can't attribute it to a diety."  This is the intellectual equivalent of challening a man to a race, but demanding that he must remain seated during the entire race--it is simply not fair, nor is the 'victory' at the end honest.

Origins

My thought-provoking friend sent me this recent seed for thought:

"My latest tweet is a little "highbrow" but deserves a spot in the consciousness of people who wish to think of themselves as intellectuals:

'Universe from Nothing': Big Bang was a bargain

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-02-04/lawrence-krauss-universe/52951768/1"

Here is my response:

Let's be really honest: Which is a more plausible explanation for the origin of the universe (points for concept, not eloquence of words):

Option A: ""Given a big enough emptiness, enough virtual particles can pop into existence, for free, to trigger a Big Bang and start a universe. "Nothing is doing something, and not only that. It has to do something," Krauss says. " Gordon's version: if you put enough 'nothing' in one place, suddenly, it becomes 'everything'.

Option B: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gordon's version: some being beyond the laws of physics caused somethign out of nothing.

Can't we at least be honest enough to admit that Krauss's explanation really is no more 'rational' that Option B? On the one hand, you must pre-suppose a omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature---on the other hand you pre-suppose an omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature.

It's interesting that not that long ago, some philosophers liked to start with the supposition that the universe had always existed.  If there wasn't a beginning, then they didn't need to explain a beginning.  Now, virtually everyone acknowledges that the universe had a beginning, which put us back in the same intellectual boat we were in before, namely, 'if there is a beginning, how did the beginning happen?'

Interestingly, the best they can come up with is this idea that enough of 'nothing' is eventually 'everything.'  And these same people are the ones who would accuse people believing in an omnipotent Diety to be credulous.  Seriously?  It's as if the intellectual elite are sitting high in their ivory tower sneering at the unwashed masses as they declare, "Those silly prebians, still believing that the moon is made of green cheese.  Every intelligent person knows that the moon is clearly made of marshmallow fluff."  They sneer at people who believe in a diety, yet the best counter argument they can offer is some theoretical mumbo-jumbo about nothing becomming something.  (I still do not know how if all this nothingness suddenly produced everything, it doesn't just as quickly jump back to nothingness.......)