The World Leaders' Guide to Dressing One's Children at International Summits... or, what not to wear

The London Daily Mail has an article on Malia's attire at the G-8 Summit, specifically on the political nature of the peace symbol displayed prominently on Obama's eldest daughter's shirt.

Perhaps the Obamas see this differently than I and many others do. In their minds, a peace sign is non-confrontational, and besides no one in their right mind can be against peace. Maybe they do understand the significance of the symbol and this is someone's way (Michelle?) of making a point. Or could it be that this is a cheap way to score points with the disaffected Left, the folks who are angry with Obama for not pulling the plug on Iraq, Gitmo, DOMA, etc. Yes, this is the cynical view.

Look at the bright side. Maybe Obama's daughters can hang out with fellow Democrat presidential offspring Amy Carter, famous for the shoutout she received from Dad during one of the Carter-Reagan debates for her role as one of her fathers's sought-after advisors on nuclear weapons policy. Sure, then Obama can be like Jimmy Carter, following Carter's example, consulting with the Obama girls just like Jimmy. Because we all remember what a smashing job HE did on foreign policy, economic policy, etc.

Oh, wait...

The Definitive Electronic Reader: Amazon gets it right with the new Kindle DX

The new Kindle DX alongside an original Kindle

Although I was an early adopter of the original Kindle, I've eagerly anticipated Amazon's Kindle DX. The original device was, and is, well-suited for light reading of non-serious material, but its small screen size and lack of PDF support made it mostly a recreational device. I quickly realized that any serious technical book still worked better in physical form. That, combined with the original Kindle's inability to handle PDFs (Adobe Portable Document-format files, a rendering of a document's printed image via Adobe Acrobat and other converters) in a usable form (the conversion left a lot to be desired), made me look at other e-readers, particularly the iLiad iRex Digital Reader 1000-series. Unfortunately, the iRex 1000 ereader, at above $1000, was still a work-in-progress, with serious deficiencies in terms of functionality and reliability, and I didn't want to be an alpha tester of a device that might never be finished. Amazon's announcement of the large-format Kindle DX with native PDF support seemed like the answer... so I plunked down the money for a DX and the Amazon case and got on the waiting list.

Why would you want native PDF support? The small Kindles support PDF files via translation; you send a PDF document to Amazon and they convert it to the Kindle's AZW format and send it back to you, either to your desktop email account (free) or directly to your Kindle ($0.10 per document). However, if your document is anything more than simple text, formatting and imagery are mangled. What you get is readable but not nearly as readable as a Kindle document that was specifically prepared for the device. This is an inherent restriction caused by the difference between a document file structure that is meant to preserve formatting (PDF) and one that is meant to allow for text flow despite screen or font size concerns (AZW). The result was that you couldn't practically use either the original or 2nd gen Kindles for reading even reasonably complex PDF documents. Having an integral native PDF reader on the new Kindle DX (as seen to the left) solves this problem and opens up a HUGE world of documents to the Kindle owner.

I've had the Kindle DX for about a day now, and it's everything I was looking for. PDFs render beautifully, not like they did on the original (the same PDF on the original Kindle, at right) and Kindle AZW documents render even better than they did on the original Kindle due to the larger screen size and 16-tone grey scale capability. The large screen really elevates the new DX into something more than a convenient device for light reading. The Kindle DX shows the true utility of an electronic reader for the first time. It's what the Kindle should have been from the start.

What has improved? Performance is better, particularly the screen refresh rate. The new button design means not turning pages accidentally anymore (although I wish they'd kept buttons on both sides of the device for us left-handers). I don't like not having an SD card slot on the device, nor do I like not being able to change the battery without sending the device back to Amazon. Being able to turn the Whispernet modem on and off via software (menu item) is scads better than having to move a switch. The web browser's 'desktop' mode makes the browser very usable, especially when combined with the rotation feature. Speaking of rotation, the ability to rotate the device and view documents in either landscape or portrait mode is KILLER. Text-to-speech works well, but I have yet to try it for actually 'reading' (listening to) a document while doing something else, e.g., driving, to see if it is really useful or just a checklist feature. The Amazon cover (extra charge) is WAY above the original Kindle's flimsy cover; it actually holds the device securely, protects the screen, yet is easy to open (beware of the magnetic latch around external hard drives or near the bottom of your laptop).

Okay, so now I have two Kindles. My wife asked me why I need two, a good question. My answer is, the small Kindles are great for light reading... the latest fiction novel, public-domain classics, etc., but they're useless for PDFs or more serious reading such as technical books because the screen size is too small and images, formulas, etc., don't display well. The Kindle DX is great for any type of reading and shines with PDFs and more serious books, yet it is considerably heavier than the original Kindle (I'd say twice as heavy, if not more so) and not as convenient to stuff in a carry-on bag. I've already moved all of the technical books I own over to the DX, as well as many PDF documents. I had decided to not buy any serious books for my Kindle, using it only for light reading... but the new Kindle DX has changed my mind. The experience of reading a technical book is as good or better than the physical book, and that is something that could not be said about the smaller Kindles.

If I had to own just one electronic reading device, the choice is obvious: the Kindle DX. Amazon has gotten it right; the Kindle DX finally fulfills the 'book' paradigm in an electronic device.

"We Can't Manage The Federal Budget, So Let's Run The Automakers!"

I don't get why Glenn Reynolds is picking on Chrysler, when the real villain/moron in the story is the Obama Administration. I understand Chrysler's attempts to stimulate sales on vehicles sitting at dealerships, including the soon-to-be-ex-dealers; Chrysler doesn't want to take the vehicles back. To be honest, the additional $1k is making me seriously consider buying a new Dodge Ram half-ton. I've owned two Dodge Dakota Quad Cabs ('00 and '04) and have found them to be well-designed and built, and trouble-free. Ford and GM also make great trucks, but I don't hesitate to recommend Dodge and to buy another one. However, if Chrysler goes under (fails to emerge from bankruptcy) then the value of any Chrysler product including a brand-new vehicle will drop significantly, and that is perhaps the main reason why I hesitate to buy. The blame for this will lie not with Chrysler, but with the Obama Administration and their botched handling of the bankruptcy. More specifically, the responsibility will be Obama's.

Although Chrysler's problems are not new, all of the automakers have suffered from the recession. People who are worried about whether or not they’ll have a job aren’t going to go out and buy a new car. What differentiates Chrysler is the FUD that has been spread by the Obama Administration and it's hardball approach to the Chrysler bankruptcy. Chrysler's sales have slumped more than the others due to concerns about the automaker's future viability. Throwing money, or Fiat, at the problem isn't going to fix it. Instead, the fix is to give Chrysler the same labor environment that successful US automakers (Toyota, Honda, BMW, VW) have, by breaking the UAW's stranglehold on the company. Of course, this one critical fundamental step is the one that Obama won't do due to his obligations to the unions.

What I don’t understand is, why is Chrysler shedding dealers? There is no ownership involved; dealers are independent businesses with a contractual agreement to buy Chrysler products and then support them. Automakers need dealers, because consumers won’t buy a car without a dealer to back the car up. Chrysler evidently thinks that their sales won't drop if they close these dealers. What they fail to understand is that the marginal cost of additional dealers is minimal. Dealers are truly the automakers' customers, so who cares if they buy 100 cars or 10,000? Each additional car sale is one that might not happen without that dealer.The economy will rebound, and it will be a lot harder to get new dealers than to keep the existing ones.

Can someone tell me how, if the desire was to kill Chrysler instead of saving it, would the Obama Administration's actions concerning Chrysler be any different?

What I've Been Discussing...

I found a neat website that can parse through text and determine the relative frequency and contextual importance of the various terms it encounters. The website is Wordle, and I fed it my RSS feed from this blog to produce the following 'wordle'...


Pretty neat....

An Unfailingly Reliable Indicator

Then-President Jimmy Carter defending himself against a crazy rabbit (upper right)

I see former president Jimmy Carter has an op-ed in today's New York Times calling for the re-enactment of the 1994 'Assault Weapon' ban, a useless symbolic gesture and perhaps the single achievement of the Democrat House that allowed the GOP to take that chamber back after a half-century (certainly Bill Clinton believed so).

What I don't understand is why anyone is pushing for this law, a law that had absolutely no effect on crime, that was never successfully prosecuted, and that is almost certainly unconstitutional in this post-Heller world. One of Carter's claims is that American-made and legally purchased 'assault weapons' are being smuggled into Mexico and used by the cartels in their war against each other and the Mexican government... a claim which has been proven false as the cartels' main source of weapons is from other Central American countries like Panama, where real full-auto assault weapons (not the semi-auto lookalikes we can legally buy here), rocket launchers, grenades, etc., are available. Actually, I do understand. It's not about the problem in Mexico, it's about not trusting the American people.

Carter talks about his hunting guns, and then derides the NRA for "defending criminals' access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers." What he is either too stupid, or too dishonest to mention is that any centerfire deer rifle, including the ones he claims he owns and uses, will penetrate "protective clothing worn by police officers" (body armor). In fact, a criminal with a hunting rifle is far more dangerous than one with a semi-automatic AK-47. If Carter were really concerned enough about the danger to police he'd voluntarily turn in his own firearms before they can be stolen and put to criminal use. Again, the claim to be a 'hunter' is only a badly-disguised attempt to portray himself dishonestly as a 'sensible' gun owner instead of the elitist bigot that he really is. (If you're thinking I neither like or respect the man, you're thinking right.)

I for one am grateful Jimmy Carter occasionally makes a return to the world's stage. This man is the most reliable indicator of the intelligent side of a position the world has ever seen. You simply have only to determine where Jimmy Carter stands... and then you know unfailingly the opposite side is correct.

Don't The Police Have More Important Things To Do?

A perfect example of what is wrong with our country.

Santa Monica has hundreds of burglaries, robberies, dozens of rapes... and yet they have the manpower and money to go after this poor schlub?

The Seattle Tea Party

I went down to Westlake Center in Seattle this evening to photograph the Seattle Tea Party, and to gauge the mood of the crowd.



I arrived just before the event kicked off, and watched the crowd from across the street, taking a few pictures before I decided to get into the audience for some crowd shots:


The primary organizer and Master of Ceremonies was Keli Carendar, who spontaneously organized the first Tea Party in the country here in Seattle back in February.


Ms. Carendar, dressed as 'Alice in Wonderland', did a great job of firing the crowd up, introducing the different speakers, and even offering a well-sung rendition of "Obama, Won't You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz" based on the Janis Joplin tune. It was pretty funny, and the crowd loved it.


There were perhaps a thousand Tea Party-ers with a wide variety of signs, mostly related to taxes and spending, but there was also a lot of anger about the TARP program, the Stimulus Bill, and the massive increase in the federal budget:







There wasn't much of a counter-protest, maybe a couple dozen disorganized folks who mostly came down to have some fun." I talked to a few of them and really felt like the two sides are talking past each other; one teenager/twentysomething couldn't understand why the Tea Party folks were against "fairness" because "after all, that's what Obama is trying to do, ensure fairness. I tried to explain to him that maybe these folks believed that making them pay for other folks' mortgages, or for bailing out companies that took huge yet foreseeable risks was unfair, and that they thought putting a $200k bill on their children was especially unfair... but of course the young man isn't paying taxes because he doesn't make enough and believed that only the "rich" would end up paying for these programs. Another fellow evidently thought the Tea Party-ers were hypocritical in that they "supported socialism when it benefited them." His counter-protest sign illustrated his point, and since he was being very polite and well-mannered I didn't bother to explain the false premise he was making (that government services such as the military or law enforcement are a form of socialism). You can read his sign and make up your own mind. And then there was this last sign representing the motivations of most of the counter-protesters, who came down to shock the squares and get some laughs. I thought she was cute, so I sure hope that sign belongs to her boyfriend!


I especially liked this poignant sign from a capitalist wondering what the heck happened to his country. A witty way of capturing the change that has happened in America over the past quarter century; while the GOP was winning at the polls, the Democrats were winning the hearts and minds of Generations X and Y. The minority view of the 1980s is the conventional wisdom of today.

Maybe it takes a Jimmy Carter, or a Barack Obama, for people to relearn the lesson of how There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch every generation, and that someone has to pay for all of these programs. Maybe it's a good thing the Democrats won everything, so that America can realize just exactly how Democrats govern (unapologetic big spenders, as opposed to apologetic big spender Republicans). And maybe the GOP needs some time in the wilderness to think about the butt-kicking they've taken since 2006 and for the lesson of what happens when you don't govern the same way you campaign to sink in.

There was a considerable police presence, with a half-dozen mounted police (on horseback), perhaps another dozen bicycle police, and a couple of patrol cars with another half-dozen officers distributed through the square. The crowd was well-behaved, though, and the police mostly talked to each other and enjoyed the afternoon.



The event ended around 7:30, with the last speaker getting the crowd fired up about throwing all of the incumbents out to send a message. I think the only way to solve the problem with our government is to get rid of the concept of career politicians by enforcing term limits on all federal elected offices. If eight years is good enough for the president, then surely twelve years is good enough for a Congressman or Senator.



It is unconscionable that a person who has never worked in the private sector can become a multi-millionnaire through public office, and this seems to be especially prevalent among Democrats, the prime examples being Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Finally, Ms. Carendar announced that more Tea Parties were scheduled for upcoming holidays, and promising to run them until the 2010 elections.

In summary, a surprisingly strong crowd of folks who don't ordinarily come out and protest, reflecting considerable anger at their elected officials. I don't think the GOP understands how much of this anger is pointed their way, either. The true test of the Tea Party movement is its longevity; will these Parties be a flash in the pan, or will they grow over the next two years and culminate in a changing of the guard in Congress and the states? I think the answer lies in whether or not a leader emerges who can effectively speak to this anger and inspire a following, and so far I don't see that person.

Note: All photos taken with a Sigma SD14 dSlr, and either a Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC Macro lens, a Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX DG lens, or a Celestron 300/5.6 mirror lens.

The Nightmare Scenario: Are We Paying For The Rope That Will Be Used To Hang Us?

Let's say you were running a country with a huge population but a primitive infrastructure. For historical reasons, your population was not well-educated and your country was not industrialized; manual labor predominated. Your political-economic system provided security for the ruling elite and a docile populace, but the fundamentals of your economy could only change if you obtained money from other countries. More important to you as a leader, you believed your country was not treated with the respect it deserved given its historical accomplishments. How would you address these problems?

Let's say you realized that, although your economy was aligned with socialist principles, you were enough of a realist to realize that economic capitalism was the best way to bring prosperity and technical advancement to your country. So, you decide to utilize capitalism by exploiting your greatest resource; your people.

Fast forward a dozen years. Your country's factories produce durable goods for the world. Because you don't enforce intellectual property laws, much of what you value from other countries is used without compensation in your country... software, entertainment. You even turn a blind eye to the illegal copying of this, because it brings in hard currency. But all isn't rosy.

You realize that you need to not repeat the mistakes of countries like Japan, or England, Germany, or even the Unites States... manufacturing powerhouses who failed to control the natural resources that they depended on to keep their economies afloat. So, you bribe corrupt leaders of resource-rich but poor countries elsewhere in the Third World so you can develop and control their resources. You give guns and money to the Sudanese regardless of their deeds in Darfur, so you can get the oil you need. You do the same things in Nigeria and Angola. You go elsewhere in Africa, sending your people over to oversee the natives in places like South Africa and Zimbabwe. Like a drug pusher, you give poor nations cheap loans so they become beholden to you. You dump consumer goods in their markets, squeeze out the local competition for textiles, and you set up companies for these markets using mostly Chinese labor. In short, like the European powers you practice colonialism, but unlike your antecedents you have no religious or moral sentiments to make lives better for those you exploit, and you have no plans to leave. You don't stop in Africa, either. Iran and Venezuela need a friend who can sell them weapons, and you need oil. It's just business.

How do you handle your largest competitor, the Unites States? Well, you buy their debt so they can become beholden to you also. You give weapons technologies to proxies like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, so that America has to spend its time trying to do something about proliferation... and each time its efforts fail American prestige suffers another blow. The Islamists leave you alone, because unlike the Americans you really don't care about world opinion, and they know it. Not that you can project power... yet... but you've ensured that countries like Iran understand that it is in their interests to be aligned with you, to sell you oil and buy your technology, while they rail against the West. You don't care if the Islamists want to fight with the Americans. It only weakens both, and that benefits you. You don't care if the North Koreans or the Iranians get the Bomb. They won't use it against you, and it only weakens America.

So, here we are in 2009. China holds almost $2 trillion in US debt, in the form of treasury bonds. Foolishly, we have borrowed money from them to buy from them. And, we are counting on them to buy another couple trillion over the next few years. What happens when China calls in that debt? Or, even worse, what happens when China decides on a course of action that we find objectionable, and their response to our objection is to threaten to destroy our economy? Will we fight for Taiwan, for instance, if the cost of doing so makes our current economic woes seem like a bank holiday?

I don't think we've woken up to the fact that we are currently losing an economic war with China, and if we don't change course quickly we are going to be destroyed as a country. The evidence is there; all one has to do is to look at the contrast between Detroit and Shanghai, and to realize that the money that used to support America's industrial areas (the Rust Belt) has been sent overseas and has built China's shining cities and manufacturing facilities. It's not China's fault, of course. We gave them the opportunity by deliberately choosing to be non-competitive, and they have capitalized on our stupidity. And we're continuing down this road, further stifling our competitiveness because of shortsighted policy decisions. Americans were naive enough to believe that economic prosperity and political freedom had to go hand-in-hand, but that isn't necessarily true in a modern industrial society. Unlike us, the people who govern China don't have to worry about fractious political battles, and unlike us they have learned from their past policy mistakes.

Look ahead a few years. China is preparing a blue water navy, and there's only one reason a country needs a blue water navy: projection of power. China is working on a ballistic missile 'carrier killer' to deal with our blue water navy. China understands the latest GPS and computer technology, because they manufacture it for us, so there's no smart weapon in our arsenal they can't build. And China will have 32 million military-age men for whom there are no Chinese women, so these men will not be able to marry in their own society. All of these things will come to a head at the time we finally run out of money because China can choose when it will stop financing our debt... and then we are broke.

That is the nightmare scenario, the game of Risk in the real world: a China that has sewn up its natural resource needs, that has built a powerful military, and that has brought our economy to a halt. What if they go into Siberia? Only we could possibly stop them, and I don't think the American people will accept the risk of a nuclear strike against an American city to do so. The Russians don't have the population or the military to stand against them, even with nukes. Once China gets Siberia and has a few years of rest to rebuild what they lost in the Sino-Siberian War, who will be next?

The Second Rule of Gun Fighting

The First Rule of a Gun Fight is 'Have a gun.' What is the Second Rule?

There are four possible outcomes of any gun fight:

No one gets shot (showing a gun gets compliance).

Now, this may be a 'win' and it may not be. If you point a gun at a bad guy and he goes face down on the ground until the police arrive to haul him away, score it a win. If the bad guy makes you comply, e.g., steals your wallet, rapes you, ties you up and throws you in the trunk of his car, you lose... and the scenario dictates how much you lose.

You shoot the bad guy.

He loses. You may or may not win, depending on whether shooting him was the correct thing to do.

The bad guy shoots you.

You lose.

You both get shot.

You still lose, even if the bad guy loses worse.

So, the Second Rule of a Gun Fight is 'Don't get shot!' because winning a gun fight isn't strictly a matter of shooting the bad guy, it's surviving the encounter intact. It seems obvious, but a quick perusal through the 'Lessons Learned' archives of this site alone shows that most gun fights are lost because the good guys fail to faithfully follow the Second Rule.

Let's look at the Miami Burger King shootout that happened today. The bad guy walks in complete with ski mask (thanks for the target identifier, buddy!) and holds up the place. A good guy, complete with concealed carry license, pulls his gun and confronts the bad guy. The bullets start flying, and when it's over the bad guy is dead and the good guy is seriously wounded. Ask yourself, did the good guy really win?

Let's see... he won a trip to the emergency room, several hours of emergency surgery, months of painful convalescence, and perhaps some permanent disability... if he survives. Doesn't sound like much of a win to me.

I'm not saying good guys should never fight back. Quite the contrary. What I want to emphasize here is to keep the goal in mind. The goal is not to protect Burger King's till. It is to protect your life, the lives of your loved ones, and the lives of innocents... in that order. Don't place one day's sales of a small business above your life and the well-being of a family that depends upon you.

Before getting involved in a gun fight, ask yourself is this necessary? As Clint Smith is fond of saying, life will give you plenty of chances to show your heroism, so don't volunteer unnecessarily. Sometimes, however, there are no good choices. Sometimes you will have to get involved, because the cost of not engaging is too high. If you find yourself in such a situation, then remember the Second Rule of a Gun Fight: Don't Get Shot!

Remember also that weapons are merely tools that we use to accomplish a task. Strategy and tactics are really what ensures success with the tool at hand. Have a plan, and develop the skills necessary to carry your plan out to a successful conclusion. In the case of the Miami Burger King shootout, the good guy had the initiative, and he had a gun. But did he have a sound strategy, a plan that would ensure success? No.

From reading the news reports, it appears that the good guy pulled his gun and confronted the armed robber. At this point, the good guy has thrown away every advantage he has, and given the advantage to the bad guy! The lesson here: don't confront armed bad guys, shoot them... or don't get involved! If I was in a similar life-threatening situation where deadly force was warranted and felt I had to intervene in order to save my life or the life of others, rather than confront the bad guy I'd get behind cover if at all possible... something that would have a good chance to stop a bullet, like a counter or a booth partition. However, once I made the decision to shoot, I'd pull my gun out and aim it at the bad guy, and then I'd shoot him until I was absolutely positively sure he no longer posed a valid threat. No challenge, no "Drop your weapon!" or "Freeze!" I am not going to give any bad guy a chance to shoot me if I can help it.

I understand that sometimes you can't seek cover, because there isn't time. Sometimes all the choices stink. Sometimes you have to resign yourself to the very real possibility that you will get shot, but the alternative of doing nothing and getting shot, raped, or killed is much worse. Your strategy doesn't change. Once you've made the decision that deadly force is warranted, then don't hesitate. Draw and shoot, and keep shooting until there is no longer a threat. Putting the bad guy down, now, is your best chance of minimizing harm to yourself and other innocents. It may be your only chance for survival. At the Burger King today, the first shot from the good guy could have ended it all. Make that first shot on your time, with all deliberate speed ("take your time, fast" as Bill Jordan wrote), and make it count because it may be the only shot you get.

He who hesitates is lost. Don't hesitate. Make your decision, and then carry out your plan vigorously.

Is The Glass Half-Empty?

Over at The Right Coast, Maimon Schwarzschild ponders on Things To Be Depressed About, asking who is right, optimists or pessimists and more pessimists? ht: Instapundit

I gotta go with Scott and VDH on this one. It's not even close.

You know, the really bad thing about reality is that it has a way of catching up to people who refuse to face it, and then smacking them in the chops until they do. As my dad said, "Life is hard, but it's a lot harder if you're stupid."

America as a nation is stupid. We elected a charismatic, attractive, apparently-intelligent person to the President, ignoring the fact that the man had very little experience actually running things and making decisions... and the experience he did have wasn't illustrative of brilliance as a leader or manager (his management of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge oversaw the spending of almost $150 million! with no apparent quantitative results - no improvement in child or school performance). We could have elected a man with tremendous experience, and proven leadership and management abilities, but as I said, America as a nation is stupid.

Now we have this resultant mess of the economy, which a strong, confident hand on the wheel could have prevented. We have trillion-dollar deficits stretching out as far as the eye can see. We have a Congress that is too lazy to actually read legislation before passing it... and then too stupidly arrogant to realize that passing unconstitutional bills of attainder are no substitute for due diligence. We have insulted our strongest allies, left important friends who trusted us at our word hanging by themselves, and kowtowed to our sworn enemies, earning not peace but a dangerous lack of respect that will foment more trouble around the world. But give the Obama Administration credit for one thing: we did all of this in 60 days! Yep... we made history alright, and let's pray that it's the history we wanted instead of the second coming of Jimmy Carter, or worse.

We needed the best and brightest, but instead we elected the glib and facile, the popular kids in high school who got all the dates but ended up working where they could use their connections rather than innate ability to go farther... and we are going to pay for it.