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.......)

Something to think about this election year

A friend of mine sent me this great article on the sad state of political discourse in our country in election years.  It is sad that our political conversations have been whittled down to sound bites and caricatures with no room for subtlety or truly creative tension.
I can't do any justice by the article by trying to summarize or pull out highlights--since really either would be the exact sin the author (rightly) decries.

This should be required reading for the US electorate before the 18-month election season begins.

The Easy tax of lotteries.

Saw this article today.

One of my huge complaints with modern American state governement is the near-universal reliance on lotteries to fund some niche of state operatoins. In some states state lottery profits are used to fund (ironically) senior citizen services, in others, (ironically again) education. Legislators love this because it is reliably profitable and 'painless' since people opt into it. What they fail to remember is the increase in crime and indirect costs by bankruptcies caused by broader gambling. The biggest problem is the official state endorsement of destructive behavior. Several years ago when I lived in Nebraska, the state's most conservative and the state's most liberal senators joined forces to oppose a bill which would have created a state lottery in Nebraska, stating that whatever one might think about gambling in general, the state should never be "the house," recognizing that the lottery disporportoinately 'taxes' those who can least afford it. (Sadly, since this stand a decade ago, Nebraska has succumbed to the siren song of a state lottery.)



Highlight from the article: "In California, a study found that 40 percent of those who played the lottery were unemployed; in Maryland the poorest one-third of its population buys 60 percent of all lottery tickets; and in Michigan, people without a high school diploma spent five times more on the lottery than those with a college education. Finally, in numerous states, when the lottery was introduced, the number of adults who gambled increased 40 percent."

In Econ plus back to Home!

On to HNL!

Moved to Willis Tower

Yesterday was the first day at the Willis Tower.  Thankfully, I have already been tracking the train for a couple years for meetings downtown, so I didn't have any worries on that part.  The day went quickly, with training sessions on how to use the phone and printers as well as general building orientation.  My desk is much more public and all the cubes are rather open--it's going to take some getting used to.

I felt strangely more tired when I got home, even though it wasn't really that busy of a day.

Don't Get Me Started: Oppose Illinois SB136!

A state Senator in Illinois has introduced a bill to register homeschoolers in Illinois.  This is a bad bill for so many reasons, my summary is below.

My letter to each undecided member of the Education Committee (with a CC to Sen. Maloney, the sponsor of this bill).
I am writing to you to express my grave opposition to SB136 and to urge you to use common sense and to vote against further consideration of this bill.


I am deeply concerned about the recently submitted bill, SB0136 which states as its synopsis, “Requires the parents or legal guardians of children attending non-public schools, a defined term, or private or parochial schools to annually register their children with the State Board of Education, in conformance with procedures prescribed by the State Board of Education.” Senator Maloney, the introducer of this bill, later clarified that his specific intent is to register homeschoolers.

As a tax-paying, home-educating parent I cannot see any purpose to this bill except to be the first step in a process of the state government to attempt to first register and ultimately to regulate home schooling in the State of Illinois.

While I am sure Sen. Maloney is well-intentioned and genuinely desires the best for every Illinoisan, he clearly fails to understand that home-educated students routinely outperform state-educated students in virtually every academic area. I share his concern for the advancement of all Illinoisans to their highest potential—and that is exactly why I home-educate the children for which I am personally responsible. While there are certainly some irresponsible parents who claim to homeschool, but fail to do an adequate job, these cases are certainly in the slimmest of minorities.

What would cause a parent claim to home-educate a child and then do an inadequate job of it? I cannot understand why a parent or family would make the sacrifice of a second income (since home-educating requires the equivalent of a full-time job, even if done poorly) and then NOT make the adequate effort to actually educate their children. If the goal of the bill is to identify those families which may be at risk, why does Sen. Maloney expect that these ‘at-risk’ parents would actually register? Would not those families with the most to hide, do just that and avoid registration altogether? The only ones who would register are precisely those who are NOT ‘at-risk.”

There is an overwhelming body of research (which has not been challenged in specific or in general by Sen. Maloney) that demonstrates that Home Educated students perform at or above the level of their public school peers in any area. Does he genuinely believe that Home Educated children are receiving a sub-standard education or that somehow their parents are not more interested in the well-being and success of their children than a public school teacher with an overwhelming number of pupils?

Secondly, with the state’s current budget woes,--described by some as the most dire of any state in the nation, including the well-publicized challenges in California—why would a prudent legislator introduce a bill that requires the expenditure of scarce public resources for the purposes of registering these students? I have already established that this bill does not even clarify its value, and yet it will have a definite cost. Who will receive these registrations? Who will ensure they are complete? Who will follow-up on the unknown and unknowable number of non-registered families? Who will expend what resources to track down and ensure compliance of any violators? None of these activities, even if completed perfectly, does one bit to advance the goal of ensuring students are not truant.

Thirdly, when you think about it, home-educating families should be one of the most valued constituencies in the state of Illinois since they pay their full share of taxes (less a nominal tax credit taken by some, but certainly not all home-educating families) and do not ask for any education resources to be spent on them—even though they have children who are entitled to pull on the full resources of their school district. Why should this group be singled out by Sen. Maloney, who says, "We're not going for the private school students, we're going to change that [in the proposal]. What we want to know is where the homeschoolers are. It's as simple as that"?

Fourthly, this bill clearly begs the question about what is the ultimate goal of this registration. Clearly, any intelligent person can see that registration alone does nothing to further the stated goal of the state to develop “all persons to the limits of their capacities.” Either registration is a pretext for a subsequent intrusion by the state (to ‘certify’ or otherwise monitor/regulate home educators) or it is an empty gesture which will only cost the state money and yield nothing in return. Senator Maloney’s bill is its own enemy—either it is useless, or it is a clear attempt to get the nose of the camel under the tent for future interference and/or regulation. The lack of transparency of the ultimate purpose of this bill is reason alone to vote against it.

So here we have a bill that:

a) Offers no benefit or even a link to a benefit to the taxpayers of the state. Nor is it even in response to an actual problem demonstrated by data or evidence;

b) Costs our cash-strapped state money it does not have to execute the mandate;

c) Puts an additional bureaucratic burden specifically on the very taxpayers that the state should be most grateful for (those who pay far more in taxes than they cost) to complete an annual state registration process;

d) Is fatally vague in its intent and is either impotent or disingenuous in its purpose. As written, the bill will either do nothing to address the perceived (emphasis on the word ‘perceived’) problem or downplays its true purpose as the first step towards an ultimate goal of regulation (which would simply exacerbate the first three points of attempting to ‘solve’ a ‘problem’ which doesn’t exist, waste precious tax dollars, and further alienate a key constituency.)



It defies all logic to introduce, support, or pass such a bill—now or ever.

The issue of the continued freedom to home educate my children without meddling on the part of a state legislature is of paramount importance to me as a parent. I urge you on behalf of all taxpayers and all intelligent people in the Great State of Illinois to vote against this bill and send a clear message that it is not needed nor wanted. I will be watching your vote very carefully.

Sincerely,



Gordon Paisley

God is Good

We're all on in business as planned to ORD!
Had a great dinner in the same German place as last year. Sorry Mom couldn't go to market with us. It was very busy even though it was snowy.
More later,
Love G
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Oh the weather outside is frightful in PRG

But we have boarding passes and sped through priority security on our way to Frankfurt. I had tried to call you yesterday to check on seats for our flight (if you saw the caller Id)but there were 30 seats open so we got seats right at lobby check-in. God is good. Prague was nice but we really had enough time there with a day and an evening. Much more later.

Best reards,
Gordon
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

Prague and Vlata river from castle

Best reards,
Gordon
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

Somewhere along the Elbe river in the Czech Republic

Beautiful ride along the river on the train.

Best reards,
Gordon
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

Our compartment to Prague

First class compartment. Very civilized trip. Had a great time yesterday visiting alliance missionairies and helping with some of their projects-very neat.
More later.

Best reards,
Gordon
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

Going to Germany in Business class!

Thank you God!

Best regards,
Gordon

Sent from my wireless device.

I never thought I'd be doing this...

Those who know me well know that I am one of the last people to defend Halloween.  I have many issues with it, but this article makes an excellent point about parenting, paranoia and how political correctness has caused the decline of society.