View 337 November 22 - 28, 2004 (original) (raw)
This week:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Many comments on sources for Heavenly Discourses. I am still working on a piece on intelligence and organization; the short version is that competition is good, and having a czar who controls every intelligence budget is bad. Coordination is good, and having a National Security Council staff group for that is good, but too much sharing compromises sources: Kim Philby is one of the best examples of that. He was routinely shown "NoFORN" intelligence including agent source data by "coordinators" who didn't believe in Communist infiltration of security services, and thought our British Friends ought to know. I can give other examples of compromised sources going through Israel, and through the German intelligence networks. Back in Cold War days the German intelligence organizations were very leaky outfits penetrated to their cores by Stasi, but many in the US refused to believe it. Over here we had Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and a number of other Soviet penetrations of our policy making (i.e. intelligence-using and "coordinating") agencies.
More later after my morning walk, but the President's Intelligence Czar is a Bad Idea.
If we centralize intelligence, while removing any enforcement of immigration laws, what's the point? The Senate intends to allow enemy agents to come to the US through gaming the sanctuary laws and to give them driving licenses.
And centralization of intelligence is a very bad idea; see the letter from Francis Hamit and my reply in mail. Sensenbrunner understands these matters better than Bush. Bush should listen.
=========
The new FBI Hate Crimes 2003 publication is at:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf
Aren't we so much safer now that we have Federal Hate Crimes?
========================
Purple Hearts:
I saw a 60 Minutes in which a man who had lost his leg in the crash of a military convoy vehicle, deployed as protection for a convoy from armed attack, did not get a Purple Heart and is not considered a casualty of war for statistical purposes. This in insane. This was no ordinary accident, and although not directly caused by enemy action, took place during a military operation. It's quite different from a car accident while on leave even overseas.
It has been a very long time since I thought about such things, but I thought that being wounded in a combat zone while on a combat mission was sufficient for being awarded the Purple Heart. I am almost certain I recall someone who got one because a typewriter fell on his foot while in a field hq. And I don't think anyone begrudged it, although there were a few snickers. Still, compared with getting a small bit of shrapnel in the buttocks, I would think that losing a leg, or even having a foot broken, would be more than sufficient.
If we have an expert here who saw that 60 Minutes, I would like an opinion, please. This seems like a very bad idea, to not accord people severely injured during a combat operation but not by enemy action so much differently from those who got hit by their own grenade when trying to destroy enemy supplies.
================
This came up in another conference, in a discussion about daughters...
Bitter Thoughts on Receiving a Slice of Cordelia's Wedding-Cake
Why have such scores of lovely, gifted girls
Married impossible men?
Simple self-sacrifice may be ruled out,
And missionary endeavor, nine times out of ten.
Repeat "impossible men": not merely rustic,
Foul-tempered or depraved
(Dramatic foils chosen to show the world
How well women behave, and always have behaved).
Impossible men: idle, illiterate,
Self-pitying, dirty, sly,
For whose appearance even in City parks
Excuses must be made to casual passers-by.
Has God's supply of tolerable husbands
Fallen, in fact, so low?
Or do I always over-value woman
At the expense of man?
Robert Graves