Category Archives: Security

Security

Scooter Airbag

Leave a comment

Things like this airbag-equipped scooter in the Taipei Times make me think I should create a humor category. I mean, even if you wanted to prevent yourself from being hurt while riding a scooter, is an airbag exploding in your crotch really a good idea? Seems like a belt would achieve the same thing much more simply, and could be set to break above a certain load if that were a concern. I’m all for kevlar suits with armor, helmets, gloves and boots but I’ll pass on this concept. Maybe if the airbag were about ten times larger and covered the entire scooter, like a giant wrap-around pillow that would pop out so you could land in it no matter what direction you were impacted…and the force of your landing would cause it to dial the emergency services…

Ok, but seriously, would you want this thing to blow up between your legs?

scooter airbag

History, Security

Rumsfeld’s folly

Leave a comment

Rumsfeld's folly I’ve been reading the furor over Rumsfeld’s odd comparison of Iraq today to Germany at the end of WWII. Many people say he is calling his detractors pro-Nazi, but I think that obscures the more interesting fact that Rumsfeld continues to show his analysis is removed from reality. Could such a man ever really be expected to achieve success in foreign policy or military objectives, whether they be in Vietnam or Iraq? CNN does a nice job and provides several notable areas for review.

First, Rumsfeld said:

Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis.

Sad, really. Many experts were quick to come forward and counter such a baseless quip with a jolt back to reality:

Henry Kissinger, who served with U.S. forces in Germany at the end of World War II and who served as secretary of state under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the situations are not analogous.

“In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement,” the German-born diplomat told CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under President Carter, a Democrat, was less charitable.

“That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history,” he said. “There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn’t know history or he’s simply demagoguing.”

Ok, so Rumsfeld is again wrong about the past, appears to misunderstand the basics of conflict and warfare, and we know that he ruthlessly attacks anyone who disagrees with him. In addition to all that Brzezinski is probably right that Rumsfeld wants to appeal to the emotions and prejudices of the public rather than use rational argument. But what about his plan? What about the state of US intervention in Iraq?

“He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq,” said Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.

I think this will be the legacy of the Bush administration, similar to the sort of legacy left by the leadership of Enron. Things might be going badly, and more and more people are falling out of favor, but the executives will keep parading the emperor’s new clothes down main street until there is nothing left but shame:

“If President Bush ever wants to visit with me privately about my counsel on his Cabinet, I am sure he will ask me, but it appears to me it would not be helpful for me to make a comment,” the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said.

You know things are bad when the chairman of foreign relations refuses to express his opinion because he hasn’t been asked by the President to comment on the situation. Isn’t that his job, on behalf of the people, to express his opinion and fight for the best outcome? A fine example of loyalty misplaced.

I suspect that someday we may look back and agree that a group in office were not true Republicans, but instead an extremist right-wing faction mollycoddling Bush so that they could attempt some sort of strange and unrealistic experiment at the expense of the welfare and safety of America.

Food, Security

UK pays farmers to destroy cider orchards

1 Comment

More news on cider. I haven’t had time to do the research to find out the outcome of the subsidies, but this report from 2004 makes some interesting points:

the UK government has issued a proposal that will financially reward farmers for ripping up their ancient cider apple and perry orchards to make them qualify for subsidies. The reason for this is that from January next year orchards will not be classified as farmland. Some farmers are already destroying their orchards so the land will be ready in time for the subsidies. If the orchards are not turned into farmland by January 2005 the farmers will not be able to claim the subsidy, even if they do later chop down their orchards. It’s a do it now or forever lose out scheme. Naturally those cider makers who are already struggling financially because they don’t have the means to bottle their product and get it into shops are being pressured into cutting down their ancient, and in some cases rare or unique, orchards. Many fine ciders and perries will be lost forever.

Edited to add (9/3/06): Still haven’t found much info on the outcome of this strange regulation, but here are more of the particulars:

Under Commission rules any orchard with more than 50 trees per hectare is considered woodland and therefore not eligible for the single farm payment.

Woodland? That seems rather odd as many farms have trees denser than 50 per hectare. More research needed. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) also has some old information on the subject, including a line drawn between “permanent” crops and “single” payments:

Publicity about the potential impact on orchards of CAP reform and the new Single Payment (some of it misinformed) generated a good deal of concern over recent months. This stems from the fact that land used for permanent crops, including orchards, cannot generally be used to support a claim for the Single Payment.

To be honest, I’m having a hard time making heads or tails of this. On the one hand the BBC suggests that DEFRA was trying to modernize UK agriculture:

to allow farmers more flexibility to grow according to consumer demand, rather than follow the long-established line of subsidised crops. A spokesperson for Defra says, “It is designed to give extra protection to the environment, soil, wildlife habitats and landscape.” Commendable, surely, so can everyone apply? Not exactly. “Land used for permanent crops, including orchards, cannot be used to support a claim.”

And that makes no sense at all. Flexible and responsive to consumer demand yet protective of long-standing habitats? Tear out the habitat in order to get subsidies to protect the habitat? I could see a need for flexibility to a point, but from where does this legislated/subsidised need for flexibility come from? And how does flexibility help after the 100-yr old trees are gone but you want them back?

I think the bottom line is drink more cider now before its gone and people say, “what’s with all the wheat subsidies in the UK?” From the BBC again, some advice:

There are some things, albeit small ones, that we, as consumers, can do to help. Be vocal about encouraging supermarkets to sell home-grown apples when in season – and not just a paltry few. Better still, head down to your local farmers’ market and seek out those unusual ones that may only be sold once. If the names put a smile on your face, take the apples home with you. And if you want to get more involved, there are ‘apple days’ all across the country that take place mostly in September and October. Apple tastings, cider-making and watching a spot of Morris dancing are just a few of the activities on offer.

History, Security

China’s Growing Influence

2 Comments

I have noticed for some time that China has been doing quite a lot of business with developing countries. I remember the Nepalese saying that the quality of Chinese engineering projects in the 1980s was far superior to the other aid they received from elsewhere. Any surprise, then, about a rise of “Maoist” revolutionaries starting in the early 1990s?

In fact, I suspect that if the US really wanted to stem the nuclear reactor development in Iran and North Korea they would need to have stronger diplomatic relations with China. That probably feels like eating crow to President Bush who undoubtedly thought he could just swagger his way through international politics in the same way he took over the US presidency. Alas, even Hizbullah actions that destabilize the Mid-East, at the end of the day, seem to be related to a form of Chinese foreign policy as China supplies Iran and Syria. Do they also call some shots, or keep plausable deniability? Hopefully the US Whitehouse is starting to realize that their brash and confrontational style of diplomacy, coupled with overextending the military into conflicts they can not win, is undermining their own country’s security.

Getting the French to stop selling arms and sit at the table for stabilizing the region is one thing, but hardly impressive for the US. The only reason it could seem impressive today is because of the rediculous antics by US leaders who tried to make France look like an enemy for the past few years. The fact is China and Russia are the real powers who the US needs to come to terms with. If the US continues to let itself be bogged down by the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and trying to figure out how to align itself with it allies, then China will be (intentionally or otherwise) surpassing its biggest competitor by quietly but quickly expanding its economic and military influence over developing markets.

Here is a typical example from 2000 of how people regard Chinese assistance:

China is considered by African countries as a good example in the development of national economy and has good experience and technology that are practical and useful for African countries, said Angolan Industrial Minister Albina Assis at the ceremony.