Thanks to Real Clear History, I found this fascinating story about how the United States used spy satellites to map Soviet Russia’s territory during the Cold War. It is from The Atlantic magazine and features an informative video that explains the 1950′s program in a very straightforward way for us political, not hard, science nerds. I highly recommend going to read the article, but here’s the 10 minute video right here:

I have for years thought that a study should be done on how spy satellites have impacted international relations. It seems to me that if one country can keep a close eye on an other’s strategic capabilities and movement and that side knows it is being watched, it would curtail warfare. Like the idea that if you put cameras in a 7-11 it will stop or at least deter robberies. That being said, I’m pretty sure 7-11′s still get robbed once in a while. Anyways, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal highlights this idea in of his 5 things that stick out about this particular spy satellite program:

2. Some historians, at least, believe that spy satellites helped keep the Cold War cool. By providing planners with some information about what was going on behind the iron curtain, they kept the fever dreams of our decisionmakers in check. “At the height of the Cold War, our ability to receive this kind of technical intelligence was incredible,” space historian Dwayne Day told the AP. “We needed to know what they were doing and where they were doing it, and in particular if they were preparing to invade Western Europe. Hexagon created a tremendous amount of stability because it meant American decision makers were not operating in the dark.”

Well, what did you think of the video? The spy satellite program itself? Or the theory that a watched enemy is a quite one?

When I was a young, liberal college student, I held great respect for Christopher Hitchens. Presently, I am older (surprise, surprise) and rather conservative, but what has not changed is my respect for Christopher Hitchens. It is hard not to respect a person who so defends the principles they believe in with such non-violent gusto. Though I disagreed with many of Hitchens’ beliefs, he was always worth listening to and his arguments were always worthy of thoughtful analysis. He also earned a special place in my heart by refusing to suffer fools. Here’s a short video of Hitchens discussing Islamist violence and ideology:

A better friend to the liberal world order, you will not find. Rest in Peace.

If you are one of the few to hold a high place in the Chinese Communist Party life has to be good. You are running one of the world’s greatest powers and you don’t have to worry about elections next Fall, or the next Fall, or the…However, there is one major hangup to being part of the leadership of a Communist country: living a publicly austere and modest life. And not just you, but also your family and heirs. This last part is bubbling up some problems according to Jeremy Page recent piece on China’s ‘Princelings’:

One evening early this year, a red Ferrari pulled up at the U.S.
ambassador’s residence in Beijing, and the son of one of China’s top
leaders stepped out, dressed in a tuxedo. Bo Guagua, 23, was expected.
He had a dinner appointment with a daughter of the then-ambassador,
Jon Huntsman.

The car, though, was a surprise. The driver’s father, Bo Xilai, was in
the midst of a controversial campaign to revive the spirit of Mao
Zedong through mass renditions of old revolutionary anthems, known as
“red singing.” He had ordered students and officials to work stints on
farms to reconnect with the countryside. His son, meanwhile, was
driving a car worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and as red as the
Chinese flag, in a country where the average household income last
year was about $3,300.

The episode, related by several people familiar with it, is
symptomatic of a challenge facing the Chinese Communist Party as it
tries to maintain its legitimacy in an increasingly diverse,
well-informed and demanding society. The offspring of party leaders,
often called “princelings,” are becoming more conspicuous, through
both their expanding business interests and their evident appetite for
luxury, at a time when public anger is rising over reports of official
corruption and abuse of power.

These are high stakes for CCP. The CCP has largely traded their governing legitimacy from creating an egalitarian, communal society to one of promoting growth, growth, growth, but this does not mean that they have completely abandon the former. Having silver spoon fed young adults running around flaunting their connections and the financial and societal benefits it has brought them can create a backlash. The fact that the incoming CCP leadership will have only tangential ties to Mao’s revolutionaries of the recent past puts even more spotlight on these new leaders. Page details how the current CCP leaders are aware of the dangers these Princelings’ behavior may bring:

State-controlled media portray China’s leaders as living by the
austere Communist values they publicly espouse. But as scions of the
political aristocracy carve out lucrative roles in business and
embrace the trappings of wealth, their increasingly high profile is
raising uncomfortable questions for a party that justifies its
monopoly on power by pointing to its origins as a movement of workers
and peasants.

Definitely a story worth following…

A friend of mine brought this old video to my attention last week and boy is it a good one. I love my country and I love the sport of baseball and somehow the scene from this video captures both exquisitely. Here is the video and a short description of what you are watching:

On April 25, 1976 at Dodger Stadium, Rick Monday of the Chicago Cubs, grabbed and secured the American flag from two individuals as they were attempting to burn our flag in the middle of the playing field. It was an outstanding display of American Patriotism.

Rick Monday was a baseball name I’ve heard of, but he played just before I came of age. Now, he’s one of my favorite players. As a huge San Francisco Giants fan, this next sentence was hard to right. Tommy Lasorda, who was also racing to save the American flag, deserves great praise.

So Rick Monday and Tommy Lasorda, great Americans, that’s for sure, but of course their efforts on that April day in 1976 pale in comparison to the sacrifices being made by our troops overseas. This other patriotic story from the Weekly Standard shows another way we Americans ‘back home’ can help honor our country and the soldiers fighting for our rights and freedoms abroad:

A care package drive for deployed U.S. troops is receiving national notice after a professor at Suffolk University Law School criticized the operation.

Professor Michael Avery emailed his colleagues just before Veterans’ Day in response to a school-wide email soliciting donations. “I think it is shameful,” he wrote, “that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings.”

Avery’s email inadvertently contributed to the drive’s success, however, because its publication drew an outpouring of support for U.S. service members.

Samantha Caplan, a law student at Suffolk University, organized the drive after her boyfriend in the Marine Corps was deployed to Afghanistan. Since the publication of Avery’s email, the response from Suffolk students, faculty and administrators has been very positive, she said, not to mention the “incredible” support from people across the country.

“The majority of the student body has recognized that people are free to have whatever opinions they like,” she said, “and we’re certainly free to disagree with them.” She said that the donation bin for the drive has been “overflowing,” so much so that she has had to empty it every day since the drive started. “That speaks louder than anything anyone could say.”

So thank you Rick Monday, Tommy Lasorda, Samantah Caplan, the generous students at Suffolk U, and most of all, all of those representing the US by serving their country here and overseas. We have a great country and you are all representing it very well!

I recently came across two worthwhile pieces on Persian Gulf states punching above their weight. The first is a New York Times analysis of Qatar, the lil’ oil rich country that could:

Qatar is smaller than Connecticut, and its native population, at 225,000, wouldn’t fill Cairo’s bigger neighborhoods. But for a country that inspires equal parts irritation and admiration, here is its résumé, so far, in the Arab revolts: It has proved decisive in isolating Syria’s leader, helped topple Libya’s, offered itself as a mediator in Yemen and counts Tunisia’s most powerful figure as a friend.

This thumb-shaped spit of sand on the Persian Gulf has emerged as the most dynamic Arab country in the tumult realigning the region. Its intentions remain murky to its neighbors and even allies — some say Qatar has a Napoleon complex, others say it has an Islamist agenda. But its clout is a lesson in what can be gained with some of the world’s largest gas reserves, the region’s most influential news network in Al Jazeera, an array of contacts (many with an Islamist bent), and policy-making in an absolute monarchy vested in the hands of one man, its emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani.

Qatar has become a vital counterpoint in an Arab world where traditional powers are roiled by revolution, ossified by aging leaderships, or still reeling from civil war, and where the United States is increasingly viewed as a power in decline.

The next one is about the big boy of the Gulf, Saudia Arabia, and it comes from the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who sees the House of Saud filling a power gap left by a ‘declining’ United States:

The more-assertive Saudi role has been clear in its open support for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is Iran’s crucial Arab ally. The Saudis were decisive backers of last weekend’s Arab League decision to suspend Syria‘s membership (though they also supported the organization’s waffling decision on Wednesday to send another mediation team to Damascus).

Money is always the Saudis’ biggest resource, and they are planning to spend it more aggressively as a regional power broker — roughly double their armed forces over the next 10 years and spend at least $15 billion annually to support countries weakened economically by this year’s turmoil.

Saudi sources provided an unofficial summary of the defense buildup. The army will add 125,000 to its estimated current force of 150,000; the national guard will grow by 125,000 from an estimated 100,000; the navy will spend more than $30 billion buying new ships and sea-skimming missiles; the air force will add 450 to 500 planes; and the Ministry of Interior is boosting its police and special forces by about 60,000. The Saudis are also developing their own version of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command.

There’s a lot of talk about an American pivot to the Pacific and East Asia, and rightly so, but the Middle East has a way of drawing you back in. In the recent actions and strategic maneuvers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar we can see why.

We are back with our second installment of FMFP responding to my inquiries about the ongoing Republican Party presidential nomination process. It’s non-stop titillating action and debate!

1. Here comes Michelle Bachmann…(poof), here comes Rick Perry….(poof), here comes Herman Cain…(poof), here comes Newt Gingrich….How would you explain this pattern of GOP presidential hopefuls who seem to one after another rise and fall so quickly? And will Newt’s candidacy follow this pattern and peter out?

FMFP: I think this is a healthy thing generally for the GOP and the country. The Republican nominee should be vetted carefully and it will only help to get all the stuff out now before the general election begins. The conventional wisdom is that the contenders you mentioned had their day because they were seen as possible alternatives to Mitt Romney. Each has shown they don’t have what it takes or don’t deserve a chance for various other reasons. Newt is an interesting one. He has weathered the first storm back in May/June and we already see the second one coming with reports about his consulting company’s ties to Freddie Mac, the health care industry and the ethanol lobby. He has a tough road ahead for sure. No one doubts his intellect but his character has always been the issue. Whether a perceived deficiency in character is more viable than a perceived deficiency in conservatism (i.e., Romney), we’ll find out. I am skeptical though.

2. Which of the present GOP candidates do you consider to be the best match up to defeat President Obama? In other words, who is the best general election candidate and why?

FMFP: Very difficult question. First, because I think the President is vulnerable to a few of the candidates running for the GOP right now. Second, because it’s not clear that a “moderate” candidate – in his ideology – would necessarily drive the high turnout on the right and among the tea partiers that is needed for a GOP nominee to win. Romney is said to be the choice that would attract the middle while the right grudgingly pulls the lever for him out of opposition to President Obama. I’m not so sure. I think Newt could very well be a contender but might prove too polarizing for many in the middle who have been trained by the media to view him as a right wing nut for many years. Cain could be a good candidate if he can survive the current sexual harassment/unqualified criticisms (the latter of which should be more disconcerting). So after all that, I’m going to default to…grudgingly….Mitt Romney.

3. We both know that there are numerous smart, engaging, and skilled Americans who happen to be Republicans. Why than do most people agree that this current field is lackluster? Most would agree that President Obama is in a weakened position and that the 2012 election is up for grabs, so how do you explain the lack of GOP thoroughbreds entering the race?

FMFP: Honestly, it’s perplexing. At a time when the stakes are so high and strong leadership is needed more than ever, many Republicans, including myself, see the need for a genuine defender of the free market to come forward. This country hasn’t had one for nearly 23 years since Ronald Reagan left office in 1989. That said, we should recognize that whoever the GOP nominee is will no doubt lodge a very strong campaign to unseat Barack Obama. Republicans will rally around the nominee and for the sole fact that that individual has been chosen, he (sorry Bachmann, it ain’t gonna happen this time) will sound more presidential than he does now.

4. What is at stake in this 2012 election?

FMFP:

* The future balance of the Supreme Court (Ginsburg is nearly 80 and Scalia and Kennedy will be by 2016),
* The future of health care (whether the government will be the one in control or whether we move toward a more patient-centered system),
* The size of government (in terms of spending, taxes and role in your everyday life)
* Serious tax reform (likely to take place one way or the other in 2013)
* Energy exploration and development (whether we decide to move away from Middle East dependence by drilling and using domestic resources or whether we try to shove green energy projects down the consumers throat by raising price of oil/gas and subsidizing more crony capitalist ventures like Solyndra).
* Telecom regulation (whether the gov’t seizes on the opportunity to regulate and tax the internet, making it less free and innovative)
* Foreign policy (whether we play the role of world leader like we can and should be or whether we slowly recede into “leading from behind”)
And I could go on but you get the point. 2012′s a big deal.
What isn’t at stake is a better question.

If these reports keep coming out, the thesaurus will have to add Solyndra to there synonyms for ‘debacle’, ‘embarrassment’, and ‘crony’. The Washington Post reports on the latest outrage; How the Obama administration told Solyndra executives to delay announcing their layoffs and bankruptcy until after the 2010 midterm elections:

The Obama administration urged officers of the struggling solar company Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections, newly released e-mails show.

Solyndra’s chief executive warned the Energy Department on Oct. 25, 2010, that he intended to announce worker layoffs Oct. 28. He said he was spurred by numerous calls from reporters and potential investors about rumors the firm was in financial trouble and was planning to lay off workers and close one of its two plants.

But in an Oct. 30, 2010, e-mail, advisers to Solyndra’s primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that the Energy Department had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3. The midterm elections were held Nov. 2, and led to Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“DOE continues to be cooperative and have indicated that they will fund the November draw on our loan (app. $40 million) but have not committed to December yet,” a Solyndra investor adviser wrote Oct. 30. “They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd – oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.”

Good, transparent governance this is not.

The WaPo article finishes by detailing yet again how the American tax payer was taken for a ride by the Obama administration’s Department of Energy and Solyndra investors:

On Nov. 3, 2010, Solyndra announced it would lay off 40 workers and 150 contractors and shut down its Fab 1 factory. The department agreed to continue giving Solyndra installments of its federal loan despite the company’s failure to meet key terms of the loan, and in February restructured its loan to give investors a chance to recover $75 million in new money they put into the company before taxpayers would be repaid.

Lame.

Governments are inherently run inefficiently without much regard for cost effectiveness. The US government is no different and this includes the Defense department. It is accurate that America will have to include defense cuts in order for us to get out of this fiscal disaster that is fast approaching as our debt continues to spiral. However, I believe the automatic $600 billion dollars that would be cut from our defense spending if the Super Committee cannot come to another agreement, is going too far. The main duty for any government is to provide for the safety and defense of its citizens and interests and these proposed cuts, which of course go on top of the hundreds of billions already cut by Secretary Gates and the Obama administration, are too drastic and are the wrong target for budget savings. Robert Samuelson brings some much needed perspective on this issue:

People who see military cuts as an easy way to reduce budget deficits forget that this has already occurred. From the late 1980s to 2010, America’s armed forces dropped from 2.1 million men and women to about 1.4 million. The downsizing — the “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War — was not undone by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1990, the Army had 172 combat battalions, the Navy 546 ships and the Air Force 4,355 fighters; today, those numbers are 100 battalions, 288 ships and 1,990 fighters.

True, Iraq and Afghanistan raised defense budgets. As these wars conclude, lower spending will shrink overall deficits. But the savings will be smaller than many expect because the costs — though considerable — were smaller than they thought. From fiscal 2001 to 2011, these wars cost $1.3 trillion, says the Congressional Budget Office. That’s 4.4 percent of the $29.7 trillion of federal spending over those years. In 2011, the cost was about $159 billion, 12 percent of the deficit ($1.3 trillion) and 4 percent of total spending ($3.6 trillion).

Then Samuelson takes on a few myths about defense spending, including:

We can’t afford today’s military. Not so. How much we spend is a political decision. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the country was much poorer, 40 percent to 50 percent of the federal budget routinely went to defense, representing 8 percent to 10 percent of our national income. By 2010, a wealthier America devoted only 20 percent of federal spending and 4.8 percent of national income to the military. Social spending replaced military spending; but that shift has gone too far….

The Washington Post came out against the Super Committee defense cuts as well and highlighted some of the testimony of America’s military leaders:

Since the congressional supercommittee is reportedly at an impasse, let’s hope its members have used some of their idle time to catch up with the testimony of the nation’s military chiefs at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. The chiefs were asked to assess what would be the consequences if $600 billion in across-the-board cuts were imposed on the defense budget — a sequestration currently required by law in the event the supercommittee fails to agree on a debt reduction plan or Congress fails to pass it.

Their answers were blunt: “Cuts of this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military,” testified Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, a former Iraq commander. “My assessment is that the nation would incur an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk.”

“A severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” said Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, chief of naval operations.

“A Marine Corps below the end strength that’s necessary to support even one major contingency,” said Marine Commandant James Amos.

“Even the most thoroughly deliberated strategy may not be able to overcome dire consequences,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz.

There is much waste and superfluous defense programs that should be found and uprooted. I have personally seen defense sector waste and am very sympathetic to the American tax payer who may feel that he is being taken for a ride far too often by its profligacy, but the current proposed cuts on the table would start digging into real and necessary defense programs, personnel, and technology. America’s budget deficits and debt are major threats to our future, but believing we can solve them by mostly cutting our defense spending is numerically and philosophically wrong. Numerically speaking, our financial position is in dire straits because of runaway entitlement spending, not a bloated defense sector. Philosophically speaking, well, I’ll let Robert Samuelson have the last word:

Defense spending is unlike other spending, because protecting the nation is government’s first job. It’s in the Constitution, as highways, school lunches and Social Security are not.

I got to wake up this morning and spend the whole day with my daughter as today is Veteran’s Day. It is because of the sacrifices of millions American soldiers, those serving presently and throughout our nation’s history, that I’ve been able to enjoy such a gilded life here in California, and even more importantly, my baby daughter will have the same opportunity. So thank you to all who have served, especially my Dad, my two Grandfathers, my Stepfather-in-law, and his Dad. There is no doubt that America is the best place in the world and it is thanks to these men and women that we still get to enjoy today and tomorrow.

Happy Veteran’s Day.