Obama Administration Gives Appeasement A Try With China

This is out of our normal range of activity, but I thought it important. You might not initially find it so, but what follows is yet more evidence that the End of History is not quite yet.

China aircraft carrierThe Obama administration has bowed to Chinese pressure and has broken a promise to our bound-by-Congressional-act ally Taiwan. The USA has decided, after hearing discouraging noises from Bejing—that land of opportunity and the promise of easy money—not to sell Taiwan the 66 F-16 C/D fighter aircraft it promised to sell them.

Our government will instead allow Taiwan to be sold a “retrofit package” to upgrade, slightly, its aging wing of F-16 A/B aircraft. The Taipei Times reports, “‘The switch is meant to soften the blow of denying new planes to Taipei,’ a source at Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-16, told Defense News.”

China has its greedy eye on Taiwan, and will have it. China needs living space, among other things, and likes the idea of pushing its territorial waters further into the Pacific. Its bluster and bullying have convinced our Nobel Peace Prize Commander in Chief to let Taiwan wither, while China, not practicing what it preaches, bulks itself up.

China has just completed its first sea trial of its spanking new-old aircraft carrier. It is new in the sense that many of its parts are right out of the box. But it is old, too, because the shiny new bits have been added to a used carcass, what was once the Soviet carrier Varyag.

According to Xinhua, the official government Voice of the People (whose voice is determined by the committed communist party Politburo of twenty-four fine folks), says the warship is necessary and “reasonable for China’s peaceful development.” It comes in peace!

The BBC says, “The PLA has invested heavily in submarines. It is believed to be close to deploying the world’s first ‘carrier-killer’ ballistic missile, designed to sink aircraft carriers while they are manoeuvring at sea up to 1,500km (930 miles) offshore, and it is building its own stealth fighter aircraft along with advanced carrier-based aircraft built from Russian designs. ”

Close on the Christening—or is it communising?—of the ex-Varyag, is the unveiling of the T-50 fighter aircraft, which will be put through its paces for a Moscow airshow audience, beginning tomorrow. China will, word has it, buy some of these new weapons.

The T-50 fighters, if bought, will augment China’s wing of not-yet-perfected J-20 stealth aircraft (the J-20 is supposedly a reversed engineered job from a crashed American jet).

Taiwan, in celebration of the Varyag’s launching, decided to parade its latest anti-ship missile to defense reporters. According to the Taipei Times:

In a blunt departure from tradition, the military yesterday displayed a model Hsiung Feng (“Brave Wind”) III (HF-3) anti-ship missile with, as a backdrop, a large picture of a burning aircraft carrier that bore a striking resemblance to China’s retrofitted Varyag, which embarked on its maiden voyage earlier in the day…

Next to the burning carrier were the Chinese characters for “carrier killer,” also the first time the HF-3 had been described as such.

Word from down Pentagon way is that “China’s aircraft carrier ambitions should not threaten regional security and stability.” In a further non-statement, as reported by the China Times (a Taiwanese newspaper), the Pentagon said, “China’s development of an aircraft carrier is not a surprise, and these operations are in line with our expectations.”

Miss Hong KongIt was so “in line” with expectations that the same week the Varyag became wetted, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan sailed easily into Honk Kong harbor. There, among its various duties, it provided a tour to the 2011 Miss Hong Kong Rebecca Zhu and her court.

The Ronald Reagan fights in the heavyweight division, while the slimmer Varyag is only a welterweight. Bookies therefore have set the odds decisively in the American’s favor. Which may be why China began recently, what many consider to be, a rumor campaign announcing their own super-secret “carrier killer” missile.

Meanwhile, the appeasement strategy worked: China ceased giving the stink eye to Mr Obama. And to people anxious that other countries “like” us, this is terrific news. But it does give a teenage, Facebook-like feel to diplomacy.

The Defense News puts it in perspective:

There are fears that losing Taiwan could spell the end of U.S. power projection in the region. Losing Taiwan would “change everything from the operational arch perspective to the posture of Japan and the U.S.” in the region, said Raytheon’s Asia president, Walter Doran, a retired admiral who once commanded the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Admiral Doran understates the case. A militarily strong, and increasingly nationalistic China, a country sure to feel the sting of its bursting real estate and other financial bubbles shortly, is clearly something to worry about.

Update Comfortably employed, and far removed from the Pacific and its inhabitants, professor Charles Glaser discovered that if he moved his theoretical game pieces a certain way, China could be made happy and the risk of nuclear war between them and the USA would be lowered. Glaser wants, to use the vulgar phrase, to throw Taiwan under the bus. Writing in Foreign Affairs, he argues that the independent Island nation should be given to China as a gift. Which is awfully generous of him, especially since he doesn’t own it.

Glaser admits that critics of his pillage-for-free plan counter that “Beijing would not be satisfied by such appeasement; instead, it would find its appetite whetted and make even greater demands afterward—spurred by Washington’s lost credibility as a defender of its allies.” He then goes on to “prove” that critics are wrong by arguing, “The critics are wrong.”

And such is academia.

Journal Editor Still Inserting Politics Into Science: Trevors and Saier Strike Back

The story thus far: Jack Trevors, bigwig at the learned journal Water Air Soil Pollution, and occasionally along with his pal Milton Saier, has been in the habit of abusing his position as editor to insert into the journal poorly argued essays on morality.

Which, being essays on morality, have no bearing on water or soil or air measurements. And therefore should not be inflicted upon innocent scientists interested in those measurements.

Trevors wrote many odd editorials, but one of the strangest was A Vaccine Against Ignorance? I thought it absurd. An excerpt:

[T]he capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this rule…The current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth.

This is an argument on par with those heard at college campuses by naive (and uninformed) freshman caught up in the fresh possibility of “changing the world.”

It was phrases like this that prompted me, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Bob Carter to write our own essay A Vaccine Against Arrogance, which Trevors, being a gentleman, published.

In Arrogance, we chastised Trevors for putting into his essays non-pollution-related things like an odd Old Testament exegesis (yes, truly), and for statements like this, “Most past and present dictators, elected political officials, military officials and terrorists have been or are males…Rarely have females been responsible for comparable degrees of destruction.”

Most importantly, we wished to impart this truth:

Science can tell us how much of a pollutant is present in a precisely defined area. It can tell us with reasonable certainty the sources of this pollution. It can even tell us effects of this pollution. But science cannot tell us the importance of these effects.

Scientists acting in the name of science must remain mute on morality. They must remain agnostic, and should not preach.

Trevors and Saier responded to our rebuttal with a re-rebuttal (read here). The pair dispute our philosophical truth and say, “Science does tell us the importance of [pollution\'s] effects.” Thus, their retort is a long form of “Is too!”

But science, if it is a thing at all, can only tell us what is or what might be so. It cannot tell us what should be so. There are no morals in empirical observations. There is no right or wrong in a prediction. To insert moral judgments, well considered or ill, into science journals is to politicize science.

Readers, especially non-scientists, who take up a journal which includes political essays naturally assume that the readers of this journal share the same political and moral foundations as the editorial writers. This is obviously false.

And harmful. It raises the definite suspicion that the scientists who publish in this journal are willing, if not directly alter, then to shade their results in the direction most amenable to their political ideology. A glance at what has happened in climatology confirms this warning.

To claim, in a journal devoted to pollution, that there is a deficit of females among historical monsters is not helpful in understanding pollution. To say, not apropos of soil contaminants, that “Religion is the most anomalous and perplexing of the forces that shape civilization” is to say nothing at all. To trumpet that “The Bush and Blair administrations justified the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation in violation of international law and the dictates of the U.N. Their actions resulted in the slaughter of innocent Iraqis” it to broadcast a maniacal eccentricity which adds nothing to our understanding of the science of pollution.

This behavior is even stranger when we consider the same author wrote these words—words with which we are in hearty agreement:

[W]hy do scientists submit and even publish articles that use the following descriptions in their research? It is assumed, in our opinion, we believe, I believe, I am speculating, we are speculating that. Science is not a belief system…

It is disturbing to see the use of beliefs, speculations, and opinions without supporting experimentation and data used in science journals.

That this dichotomy of thought appears in the same mind proves the deleterious effects of politicizing science.

In their re-rebuttal, the pair say if that their readers don’t like them, they can choose to ignore their strange essays. But this is silly. And it does not bespeak well of the editorial process where the policy is to tell readers, “Ignore the rot.” Keep politics out of science.

The Well Dressed PI — Guest Post By Thomas H. Humphreys, Private Investigator

Meet Thomas H. Humphreys, the best-dressed PI since Nick Charles. Humphreys, like Charles, knows what that hole in the lapel is for—and what ingredients make the best Montgomery Fizz. Humphreys is one of the primaries at [FIND] Investigations out of Nashville. After you’re finished here, head over to his blog for more adventures.

The Well Dressed PI

I think we’ve lost our way. Casual Fridays, corporate logos, and “authentic” hipsterism have shoved proper style to the back of the closet.

There was a time when men dressed like men. Search for 1920s men’s style and you’ll see. Watch an episode of MadMen and you’ll see. Hell, even stream an episode of Rockford on NetFlix, you’ll see. Men used to dress like men. They had style.

Sam Spade The old-school gumshoes, the creations of Dashiell Hammett and his contemporaries, dressed like gentlemen—though, it seems that everyone in that era dressed to impress. Let’s be clear, the clothes do not make a man a gentleman. We’ll just accept as a given that being a gentleman is the foundation upon which we’ll build our wardrobe.

I spend a lot of time with federal agents, detectives, and other private investigators. The feds understand: they apparently have a dress code. Police detectives sometimes get it (see this story about best dressed detectives). PIs are, quite possibly, the worst.

Still, in my cadre of private dicks, there’s a sense of professionalism that seems to demand a higher standard.

In the office and at leisure — The PI as Professional — Dolling up for clients

FIND InvestigationsOffice — Appearance is key, first impressions paramount. I never go to a client meeting, deposition, or court without dressing for the occasion. My clients expect a certain style from me. I wear denim often and am completely comfortable going to meet a long term client sporting a pair of jeans, mid-tan shoes and belt, pressed oxford cloth shirt, and an odd jacket, maybe even a bow tie.

That’s as casual as I get. For depositions, a pair of gabardine slacks, likely grey, nice sport coat, and definitely a tie. Court demands a suit, sometimes three-piece, but always a suit.

FIND InvestigationsThese are fairly easy ideas to grasp. It’s the minutia that makes a difference. Ties, pocket squares, cuff-links, these small items add color and elegance to any outfit. Ties should be classic and colorful. Ties should never have products or cartoons patterned across them, never. Pocket squares should not match the tie, rather complement it. Again, color and quality are of utmost importance. Cuff-links should be metal, simple, and match your belt buckle and watch.

Leisure — Those of you who read the [FIND] Investigations blog on a regular basis know my fondness for a hand-crafted cocktail and fine wine. I love cocktail hour. Here in Nashville, we usually head to The Patterson House or the Oak Bar for cocktail hour. It amazes me how people show up to a classy bar in shorts and t-shirt.

When we host our Bow Ties and Bourbon events once a month at The Patterson House, everyone is encouraged to dress. The wonderful thing is this: a table full of judges, lawyers, investigators all in their finery somehow makes the whole joint feel classier, like a throwback to yesteryear, gentlemen and ladies behaving as such.

Again, these are the faces we show in our capacity as professionals. The real fun starts when the work begins.

In the field — The PI on surveillance — blending in

Assignment — Surveillance
Location — New Orleans
Weather — Sweltering hot with turgid skies
Time — 9:00 PM — until
Conveyance — Foot mobile

This is where creativity and a sense of style allow the professional investigator to blend in perfectly. I use this example because we just happen to have a picture to go with it.

FIND InvestigationsLast month we traveled to NOLA for a bit of sub-rosa work. Our team costumed to match the surroundings. White linen pants and a seersucker jacket, with a rich red pocket square, allowed us to melt into the background at Galatoires, all the while observing our subject and documenting his activities. We strolled, in a classic front-and-follow maneuver, across Canal Street to the Sazerac Bar in the Roosevelt Hotel over on Baronne, never once drawing unwanted attention. We sidled up to the bar and continued our surveillance (unfortunate mocktails in hand), the subject completely unawares.

It’s not always like this. Sometimes you have to get down and dirty (trash collectors uniform, hard hat, safety-vest), but it’s the urban neighborhood surveillance that allows us to have a bit of fun, look like we care, and blend in at the same time.

This little exercise in styling a PI for a specific job is our introduction to a quarterly column under the Sartorial Sleuth heading. We’re going to call this tri-monthly exercise The Sartorial Sleuth, dressed for success(ful surveillance).

Also see this posteditor.

Letter From Student At Behemoth University

Regular readers will remember my “Conversations with myself” series that I began last fall, as sort of a teaching diary while I was a visiting professor at Behemoth University.

The fictitious name of the school was taken from Russell Kirk’s Academic Freedom, a partial lamentation on what had happened to American “higher” education—written in 1955. Kirk used “Behemoth U” as a label for enormous, assembly-line state schools. Of the kind that issue “degrees” and not educations. Of the kind that has four or more Offices related to “diversity.” Of the kind that has more layers than an onion of Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Associate Deans, etc., etc.

My time there did not go well. Nor did the students who were stuck with me have a jolly time. This was due to my admittedly odd style of teaching, which consisted of me assuming the students would do the work I assigned and my belief that the students were in the class to learn the material. Neither assumption was verified in fact by more than a precious minority.

Yesterday, I received the following email from one of my students at Behemoth. I have changed the student’s name and altered the personal details. I also added the paragraph breaks and capitalized a few “I”s. My response is at the end.

Dear Mr. Briggs,

I was in your statistics class at Behemoth University during the fall 2010-2011 semester. Quite some time has passed since then and I still think about that class and the impact it left on me. While I did struggle to even receive a B- in this course I learned more than statistics, I learned a lot about Behemoth and the student population.

This past academic year was my sophomore year and I can say I had a pretty good understanding of what college classes were like and how to do well in them. Coming off of summer into the fall semester the academic rust was still on my joints and I had a slow start to your class, as did most other students. The first exam passed and to be honest I wasn’t all that surprised with the resulting grade. I wasn’t doing all of the reading and the homework was taking a back seat to my other classes and the Sports team.

After this exam I changed my attitude towards your class, sitting in the front row, doing the reading, homework and trying to involve myself as best as possible. What didn’t surprise me is that my understanding, while not complete, became a lot better. The thing that did surprise me is the lack of effort from my classmates and the persistent complaining about how difficult the class was, even when no one was doing the reading or homework.

While I didn’t take it personally, as you may have, I was very embarrassed and frustrated that a group of 25 to 40 college students just didn’t care enough to try. Admittedly this compounded some of my frustrations I have had with the overall attitude of Behemoth’s student population, where Thursday is the start of the weekend and drinking is more commonplace than studying for your Friday exam.

Since then I have transferred to Old-Fashioned University where I believe I will receive a higher quality education according to my degree path (Mechanical Engineering Technology) and where I have already noticed a difference in the level of student diligence.

While the point of this message is not to rant or complain about Behemoth, I am a [Behemoth sports fan] and will always be one, but rather express some of the feelings I had in your class and what I have taken away from it. I am interested in hearing if some if my feelings paralleled some of your own.

Sincerely,

Student

Student, of course I remember you. My heart soars like a hawk to have your email. I am thrilled to hear that you have moved on and enrolled in such a demanding program. I am sure you will do well.

I recall one day—actually many more than one day—where I asked one student after another, “Did you do the homework?” and receiving nothing but “No” as answers. That was depressing, disheartening, and disappointing. It made it difficult for me to have any enthusiasm. Ultimately it convinced me not to seek employment at any university like Behemoth.

I also, now fondly, recall one student arriving for a Friday morning exam announcing to the class that he was still drunk and freshly arrived from an all-night party. I say fondly because this student was not disappointed in his inevitable grade, nor did he blame me for it. Plus, his brazenness was oddly charming.

Mandating all freshmen live in the up-all-night dorms initiates them into the party culture, which develops into a habit that becomes hard to break. It’s not impossible to receive a good education at Behemoth, but it’s damned difficult. I’m glad you made the escape.

Keep in contact and let me know how your new program goes.

Best,

Matt Briggs