Laughing Wolf

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Practical Preparedness:  Snivel Gear for Bugging Out

Originally posted November 5, 2003

Yesterday, I gave a quick overview on bugging out and the need to be prepared to do it in stages. There are many circumstances that can require one to abandon your vehicle, from it dying to officious orders. Be prepared for it, and be prepared to make the best of it no matter the circumstances.

A large part of my philosophy of life is not merely to survive, but to survive with comfort and style. Yes, I can still go out with very little and get by, but why do so if you can avoid it? Also, the fact is that if you are going out as a family that not all the family members are going to be able to handle that, especially children and the elderly. Think ahead a bit, and be prepared.

At a minimum, you are going to want shelter and warmth: some form of dining fly or cover that can be put up, a tent, a means of cooking, sleeping bags and ground cloths for all, and some food and water. This is indeed a lot, but there are ways to double things up a bit.

For example, that dining fly can be made out of one or more of the groundcloths. If you go for larger groundcloths, you can have just a couple handle the needs of all. You also can get five or more people in a three-person tent in an emergency.

On the tent, get a good one that is roomy, very light, and can be set-up with out stakes and such as needed. This lets you set-up anywhere from the fields to the floor of a gymnasium as needed. You cover all the bases, and ensure that you don’t have to accept official hospitality when that hospitality is a problem waiting to happen.

Individual sleeping bags are a must, in my opinion, though two can share one in a pinch. The other thing to consider with the bag is a self-inflating pad to go with it. Again, field or floor, it will provide some much needed comfort for little room and weight.

Cooking gear should be light, simple, and easy to fuel and use. Go to a good camping/hiking store and check the wide variety out. I actually have a couple of different systems that I have obtained over the years. My favorite is a two-burner system that lets me heat food and water at one time, yet you can use just one burner as needed. It is light, rugged, and reliable. I also have a single-burner system, and I even have my old-fashioned tripod stove, which uses standard propane torch cylinders both as fuel and one leg. I will bug out with all of them, but am prepared to stage down to just one of them as needed. The excess also gives me trade goods and bribes along the way.

I also have a set of light, rugged, and nice pots for use. I couldn’t quite afford to go all titanium, but was able to get some. I have a small set of cooking tools, again light and compact, and I have some other basic snivel gear that will help get me by.

Water is an important consideration, and I strongly recommend using some of the Camelback systems in addition to water bottles. Make at least one of your water bottles a water purification system, such as the Exstream systems [UPDATE:  check out Katadyn as they appear to have bought out Exstream], and I also carry a stand-alone water purification system. These are not just useful in the wilds, but, sadly, are often very much needed at refuge centers and the like as well.

I also keep on hand some camping food, so that I can eat without hunting or foraging as I go. If you are with a family or group, this is going to be a very important consideration. The newer freeze-dried and irradiated food will keep for years, so it is not a bad investment. The other thing I keep on hand, and eat and replace, are things like jerky. Allow me to also highly recommend the small bottles of tobasco and the like. Trust me on this, field or refugee center, the food will need all the help it can get.

This may seem like a lot to have, but remember that I also used to camp a good bit and want to get back to doing it again one day soon. Some of the gear is good to have no matter what.

There are two other important considerations to keep in mind.

One, have kids carry a pack with their own sleeping bag, a small first aid kit, some jerky and trail mix, and a small bottle of water. This will not be a problem for even small children, and may make a huge difference to them. It gives them a stake in things, a sense of responsibility, and it takes a load off you, literally. If you are in a group, spread the load as much as possible on the snivel gear.

Two, be prepared to cache things as you stage down, and if possible have pre-selected positions for such. You want to be able to hide valuables or other things you can’t take with you if you do stage down, so that if possible you can recover them later. Also, you are not going to be allowed to take anything that might conceivably be a weapon (nail clippers anyone?) into a refugee area and you sure don’t want to carry real valuables in either. If you turn them in to the authorities, I would not plan on getting them back, so think ahead and plan what and how you will do. Look at probable evacuation routes and figure where you might store things as needed.

For example, I know where nature or terror could take out two critical bridges on my prime paths out of here. I also have some idea where I might could cache some items for later use because I am familiar with those routes. Plan ahead just a bit, and it will make things much easier if you ever have to do them.

A final thought is that the snivel gear not only gives you comfort, it gives you trade items as well. You can trade parts of it for rides, for shelter, or more. If you have excess gear, you can and will find a use for it.

Going back to yesterday, another recommendation I will make is to look at Load Bearing Vests in addition to knapsacks and packs. These give you additional carrying capacity, and can keep truly critical items (ammo, medicine, emergency rations) on you no matter what. There are many around, and even sporting vests can serve for this in a pinch.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and take what comes. Survival with style and comfort is the ultimate revenge against nature or man. 

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Saving Pvt. Journalism Pt. 9

Originally posted June 24, 2003

One of the largest keys to saving journalism will be simple to identify, but difficult to make happen: Lose the attitude.

Yes, what passes for news in The Media comes with loads of attitude. There is the open anti-American attitude that is so prevalent in the New York Times, the BBC, and a host of other outlets. There is the less obvious, but no less prevalent, attitude of holier than thou that comes from many in the profession. You see, they are the anointed ones to enlighten the masses, to guide them as betters should guide social and mental inferiors, the bearer of higher standards to which mere mortals (and bloggers) can not possible understand, much less aspire to. Like the Anointed One in Buffy, they forget that the inevitable name for such quickly becomes the annoying ones. There is also a cultural attitude of “we don’t make mistakes” that goes hand in hand with the-end-justifies-the-means approach towards biased news coverage.

The fact is, many in the media are so far involved in causes and politics, that they fail to comprehend that they are, deliberately or not, biasing their coverage. That they are also so far away from real journalism goes without saying, but they will not see that either.

Changing the attitudes will not be easy. The Journalism Purity League and the Journalist Citizen Councils are out in force already, and have been for some time. Even within professional organizations, these groups have fought long and hard against any encroachment into their turf. If you are not a full-time writer at a major daily paper or news magazine, you are lower than pond slime and should not be considered in any way, shape, or form a journalist.

Now, there is a conflict of interest here for me. I have a strong bias and it will show through. For several years, I have fought within one particular professional organization against some of the nonsense, and for highest ethics for all members. This has been met with strong opposition, including some rather interesting political maneuvers and flat out misinformation.

Within what has been going on in The Media and elsewhere, you should understand that there are those who do hold to high standards of reporting and ethics. There are others who wrap that around themselves to build themselves up for other reasons. These are often the people who feel that if you have every done anything other than their definition of “pure” journalism, then you can never be a journalist again. You are forever tainted and unable to join the exclusive self-anointed club at the peak or Olympus. My word to them continues to be “Get Over It.”

The fact is, I agree with some of the ideals espoused by the hard-liners. Conflicts of interest do need to be spelled out, but that needs to include political affiliations, organizational membership, and other things that just are not done by today’s so-called journalists. To do anything less is as dishonest as writing a story promoting a product that you have been paid to promote, and passing it off as an unbiased news article.

The fact is that many members of The Media are quite happy to see their views, their prejudices, and their ideals as “right” and everything else as “wrong.” The fact is that most members of The Media are a rather isolated bunch and most journalism schools do little or nothing to expose them to any outside ideas. Environmental reporting courses often have strong inputs from outfits like the Sierra Club, but limited influence from counter groups. Heaven’s forbid that you send them to a gun range or do anything like that. If fair and balanced is not in the classroom, how can it be in what comes out?

So, today’s suggestions are as follows:

1. Start by improving journalism schools and training, so that students are exposed to new ideas, concepts, and more in school. Fair and balanced needs to start there.

2. Make conflict of interest rules and ideals have relevance by including political and other sources of bias as much a part of them as financial and work history are supposed to be today.

3. Accept the fact that journalists are not elites, and that the club is open to anyone.

4. Start correcting mistakes online, and do so by updating rather than trying to put things down the memory hole.

5. Take the best of the blogs and use it in online sites by The Media

6. As consumers, keep on keeping them honest by pointing out errors, lies, bias, and more.

7. If a media outlet won’t admit to things, then blog about it and force them to honesty.

Now, some of these have come out before, but they are as relevant here as they were elsewhere. This has gone on long enough for now, so tomorrow should be a wrap-up piece. Maybe by next week, some of the guest blogs I have been soliciting will come through and can go up as well.

Practical Preparedness:  Bugging Out

Originally posted November 4, 2003

It has been too long since I posted anything on practical preparedness, so wanted to get something useful out especially given the recent firestorms in California. Also, Kim du Toit did a post a few weeks ago on his bugout weapons and means of carry, all of which reminded me that most people are not prepared to bug out when disaster strikes.

In an ideal world, we would be able to ride out disasters large and small in our homes. Yet, there are many things natural and man made that can oblige us to leave our castles – sometimes in a hurry. The trick to getting out with all that truly matters is a small amount of pre-planning and an equally small amount of preparation.

As I’ve noted in past articles, I keep my emergency gear in Rubbermaid boxes with snap lids. Boxes are nice because they can be easily moved and keep things together. The type of box is far less important than simply having the supplies in some form of easy to move and stack containers.
This is a major part of the pre-planning I mentioned, because if you do have to evacuate, it is easy to gather up all the boxes and have the emergency supplies packed in a hurry. The other part is to take the time and have the truly important stuff like insurance papers, documents, and other critical items in an equally easy to move firesafe or similar box. Remember, if it is an emergency you are not going to have the time to go hunting around for everything, so plan ahead and have it all together and easy to move.

When and if you ever need to evacuate, you have your family, you have your boxes, and all you have to do is grab the travel gear and go. Easy to pack, easy to do.

Yet, there is one more bit of thought that should go into this. Plan on what to do if you can’t use a vehicle.

The fact is, I can think of several natural disasters that could occur around here that would eliminate my being able to use a vehicle or to use it for very long. Consider also that Big Brother Government at any or all levels may try to force you into busses or such, or just plain block your way. So, plan your evacuation gear with the idea of staging in mind.

Staging is simple. In this case, you have the emergency gear (food, flashlights, tools, etc., see previous posts in this category) in boxes and ready to go. You load it, load the travel gear and truly important stuff, and go. Yet, you need to be prepared to abandon the vehicle and take the truly critical things with you.

To do this, invest in a good knapsack or three and/or a good backpack or two, along with some basic camping gear. Both items should have a waist/hip belt to help carry the load, and be as roomy and as rugged as possible. I have both, and both came from REI. I used my knapsack at trade shows and other events where I needed to haul stuff in and out for security purposes each day, and it also meant that I had the knapsack with me in case I got the chance to go hiking.

The packs and gear go into the vehicle with you, so that if you have to leave the vehicle, you can then winnow down the emergency gear even further, put it in the packs, and continue on.

Tomorrow, I will go into some of the basic camping gear I recommend having with you. 

Rational Preparedness:  Power

Originally posted August 16, 2003

What, did you think I was going to miss something this obvious? The great blackout gives ready fodder for the mill, especially when you have reporters and anchors on network news talking about how ill prepared they were. The fact is, a power outage does not have to be the end of the world, just a mere inconvenience to those who are prepared.

There is already talk about lawsuits, who let this happen, and such, but lost in all the blather is the simple fact that it is up to each and every one of us to be prepared. It is not up to the government to take care of us, it is not up to the power company, nor is it up to anyone else. It is up to you to be prepared. This goes double if you or yours have a critical need for electricity, such as for medical equipment.

First off, you should always have at least one flashlight in the home with batteries changed out every six months. I have absolutely no sympathy for those caught without during this last blackout. Good flashlights are not that expensive, and you can get so-so quality lights for almost nothing. Personally, I recommend and use Hubbell brand/HubbelLite [UPDATE:  No longer making flashlights, alas] because they are well designed, much brighter than the average flashlight, and about as rugged as they come. They can even be used in some hazardous environments. Yes, they are a little pricey at close to $20.00 each, but well worth it.

While you should have at least one flashlight, I recommend having at least one in each room and one in each vehicle. There is no warning when the power goes out, and rummaging through the dark trying to remember where you put the single flashlight is not a fun party game. Put them someplace obvious, even if discrete, and check them periodically.

Candles can also provide light, but they are a fire hazard. If you have proper holders and take great care, candles can and will provide light and even a small amount of heat if needed. They make a great way to conserve batteries, and you can even have some fun turning the incident into a good excuse for romance with a partner, or adventure with kids. A good way to protect furniture and walls in an emergency is to use aluminum foil to catch wax, reflect light, and protect surfaces from heat.

Better than just plain candles for lighting are candle lanterns. These are sold a sporting good stores and are a wonderful gift to the camper and preparedness freaks such as myself. A candle lantern is a self-contained system that keeps the candle in a protective environment for fire safety, provides a reflector that can be used to make it directional, and a mechanism for either standing or hanging the system. The candles that go in them are multi-hour candles, so they can be used for very long stretches. The replacement candles are also fairly inexpensive, so it is not a problem to have enough candles to go 48 or so hours straight.

Because I both like to camp and because I live in an area where thunderstorms, tornadoes, and ice storms hit, I also have a good lantern. Lanterns can be a good investment and the route I chose was to go with a multi-fuel lantern. These can burn the special lantern fuel, white gas, kerosene, or unleaded car gasoline. If you have my luck with mantles, keep several spares handy.

Okay, these take care of light, now what about heating for heating food, water, and such? Easy. I have my camping stoves, and for the urban reader I also have a portable chef’s stove. The latter can be found in restaurant supply stores, online at Chef’s Club and similar outlets, or even in some department stores.  [UPDATE:  Also check out local Asian groceries as they often sell them.] It is the same thing many places use for made-to-order omelets and such on buffets, makes a nice addition to any household, and has practical uses for entertaining and such. No reason preparedness items shouldn’t be used for other things, in fact all the better.

Other heating can be problematic, but solved by things such as kerosene heaters, fireplaces, and such. To be honest, I don’t have a kerosene heater [UPDATE:  Do now, want more, much colder here] simply because the apartment comes with a fireplace. If I did not have a fireplace, I probably would have something else but to be honest I have never absolutely had to have one. The last time we had a significant power outage because of an ice storm, the place stayed fairly warm just from candles, cooking, lanterns, etc. With proper clothing, I was quite comfortable and set to the point that the people running the nearby shelter threatened to come stay with me.

Now, what about the wonders of modern life, the many electronic conveniences? If you are fortunate enough to have a gas stove, heater, water heater, etc., you may think yourself set for much of the vicissitudes, but bear in mind that many will not come on without power. Your computer, fancy phones, and other items also require power. What to do?

Again because of thunderstorms and such, I have invested in a series of real surge protectors (not talking cheap power strips here, stick a crowbar in it and get real) and UPS systems. With them in place, I can keep the command phone running including message system, keep the laptop going for quite some time (provided the laptop battery is in good shape), and even run some of the peripherals as needed. Were there other critical systems, they would have a UPS as well. I have threatened to put one on the entertainment center, but that is just because I hate resetting everything after the thunderstorms roll through. All major or expensive electronics do have good surge protection because of the storms. This is an area where the Air Force invested some significant money in a nearby facility to put all the computer cable over to fiber optic in large measure because of the thunderstorms and the repair bills from same.

If you or a loved one have critical medical equipment, call your local power company right now and find out how to get them set for priority support. There is a brief amount of paperwork (at least here), and it ensures that in an emergency you or they will get priority service. I did it for my Dad and his oxygen system, just in case.

Yet, if you have a situation where it is a matter of life or death to keep power, it is not up to the power company or the local government to take care of things, it is up to you. Get with an electrician, go to the local home store, and get a generator. Get the electrician to hook it in on a special circuit that will run the medical systems and maybe a light or two. This does not have to be expensive, especially given that a life is at stake. Splurge a little and get a larger generator and have a bit more comfort at home. Also, don’t forget to check and see if this can be deducted from your taxes because of the medical necessity.

Okay, you say, this is fine if you have your own home. What if you are part of an apartment complex, live in an apartment building, co-op, condo, or such? Well, then, work with your neighbors and the owner of the complex to go in on things together. If you do it right now and live in an affected area, you might be surprised at what people would be willing to chip in to help all. If one or two don’t want to participate, keep in mind that it is okay. Yes, they may get a free ride in an emergency, but better that than you be without just because of them.

The other thing to do is be sure you have battery powered radios and at least one battery powered television. Be sure to have spare batteries as well. This way, you can get news and information, and even have entertainment as needed. I say radios because I recommend having one boombox or similar device that many can listen to, and at least one personal radio that can clip on a belt or go in a shirt pocket to stay with you as you move around. Consider also some of the handcrank radios and related gear as they will not be totally dependent on batteries.

While it is not directly related to providing power, I do recommend keeping a few gallons of water tucked away for emergencies like this. It can be in the back of a closet or shelf, or wherever works for you. Just remember to change it out about every six months or so. With water, you can survive about anything. If you keep some food as well, remember to make it food that does not require extra pots or things that will need water for cleaning…

When you travel, also take certain precautions. I always travel with a flashlight (actually, a Hubbell and a penlight Hubbell) and some other basic gear. I prefer hotels that have windows you can open, rather than totally sealed. In this way, you need not end up like those poor people who slept outside in New York the other night rather than in the rooms they could not get to or stay in. Yes, you or your travel agent can find out about such things before you go, so take an extra 30 seconds and ask.

Also, wherever you are when the power does go out, get a light and every available container in the room and head for the bathroom. Fill up the tub(s), and fill the containers with potable water. The water may not stay on if the water supply system also looses power. It should have backup power, but as seen recently even cities that know better may not have a working system for such. The tub water can be used to flush the commode every now and then (not every time you go), and the potable can be used for drinking, making coffee or tea, etc.

Have a plan for travel and home, and follow it when needed. For an hour or two of planning, an hour or so of shopping, and less than $100.00, you can do a heck of a lot of preparation that will get you through a blackout in comfort if not style. Spend a little more and do even better. Remember, as I’ve pointed out before in the rational preparedness posts, you don’t have to (and shouldn’t) go spend large amounts at once. Do it over time, take your time and shop around, and build up for emergencies.

Yes, you will end up with an investment in supplies, but that investment is returned many times over when you need it. It is not up to anyone else to take care of you or provide for you when the lights go out, that is up to you.

Into The Light:  Aunt E

Just got the word that my aunt E passed into the light yesterday.  She gave the big C a good fight.  May the light shine on those she leaves behind, light their path, and fill their lives with warmth.

LW

Monday, December 18, 2006

Saving Pvt. Journalism Pt. 8

Originally posted June 23, 2003

In my opinion, one of the largest problems facing real journalism today is the practice of advocacy journalism. To my mind, advocacy and journalism are an oxymoron as to dwarf any other two words of your choice, from military and intelligence to politician and trust.
Advocacy journalism is in many ways a child of the 1960s, though it claims roots to the start of the century. It was then that stories broke about the conditions, and ingredients, in the meat industry and in the food industry in general. The stories, which if my not so great memory serves were actually discovered by a book author and then picked up by the newspapers, are alleged to have made the then President physically ill. The government enacted laws to help protect both the workers and the consumers, and good things are supposed to have been done.

The actual good done by some of the laws can be debated, and by others it can not be disputed, but it set a precedent in terms of journalism that has become somewhat distorted with time. Rather than exposes of fact and then let the reader and government decide as happened earlier, advocacy journalism takes the “for the greater good” approach. The reporters go in with an agenda, gather facts to support that agenda, and usually push one particular means of solving “the problem” as the only realistic solution.

Problems abound with such an approach. For one, facts are rarely presented in a clear and unbiased manner. Facts which might mitigate the impact of “the problem” tend to get distorted or dropped; facts which support other approaches to solving the problem also tend to get short shrift; and, the reporter has violated both the tenets of journalism and the tenets of rational investigation: observe, hypothesize, test, refine, and theory.

Journalism owes a great deal to the scientific method and the idea of natural or rational investigation. It has helped shape modern journalism on several levels, including the philosophical ideal that facts can be studied, judged, and combined so that a reasonable course of action can be determined for any situation. What many or most practitioners of advocacy journalism fail to consider is that many different courses of action can often be built from the same set of facts.

As advocates, they have given up any pretext of being observers, much less impartial observers, and become a part of the process. As such, they blind themselves to facts, nuances, and alternatives. There is a great danger of becoming a zealot in the cause, and falling prey to the shortcomings of same. Anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how slight, or suggests even a slightly different course of action, is the enemy and must be destroyed.

This is particularly true in terms of environmental advocacy journalism. The underlying ideals and philosophies get lost, and often in my opinion, the prevailing idea of man equals bad becomes the unspoken bedrock of what is “reported.” Most stories present complicated ideas in very simplistic terms, leaving accuracy in the dust. The Earth’s environment is an extremely complex system and we are not yet even close to fully understanding all of its components, much less being able to model them.
Yet, this is rarely brought out in most stories. This is close to being criminal, given that trying to base actions, particularly remedial actions, on the basis of just a few dimensions out of a few million dimensions or levels, can actually do more damage than good.

Advocacy journalism actually started with a good idea: expose problems, suggest solutions, and push for change. This quickly was lost to the practice of exposing and exaggerating problems for the hype, push one solution and attack all others, and demand change at any cost without due process.
None of this is acceptable, nor is it good journalism. It is time to end this practice within serious journalism and real media outlets.

Rational Preparedness:  Lists, Communications, Kits

Originally posted May 23, 2003

This one will be a bit short, but I wanted to give you the same information I have been giving to my extended family.

First, don’t bother with the preparedness kits you see advertised. I got one of them to check it out, and you pay $30- $50 for information that you can get for free from the Internet. To get the same information, much better presented than the one I checked out, go to:

Red Cross Disaster Counseling Materials, FEMA, The American Academy of Pediatrics which has a great set of information on preparing for disasters for those with children, and the Department of Homeland Security’s preparedness page.

Unless a kit has things like food, emergency gear, or other things with it, save your money. Take a long, hard look at any kits that do have that gear, as you have a pretty good chance of putting together a better kit for less on your own.

Short and sweet, you do need lists. You need the lists so that everything gets done, when it should, and you are not caught short. Lists can help ensure you have a can or bottle opener to deal with all the cans and bottles.

You also need communications. I heard this morning as someone pushed cell phones as great for emergencies, and they are just that. When they work. All too often, natural and man-made disaster tend to overload or take out the cell phone system, so don’t rely on them alone. Spend a little bit and get some good walkie talkies. They can and do come in handy for non-emergency situations, and are worth their weight in gold in an emergency.

I think I said it before, but in terms of food, think calories and long-term storage. Many of the meal-in-a-box things that are sold for school lunches are great. Do I think you need to rush out and buy large amounts right now? No. See the previous posts and build up slowly.

That is it for today, and I will try to go into more in the days ahead. Enjoy the holiday weekend, be safe, and be prepared.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Saving Pvt. Journalism Pt. 7

Originally posted June 20, 2003

I just realized that I forgot to post the discussion on how most media outlets operate, and to contrast it with other types of communications. So, I am going to do an abbreviated version and then jump into today’s suggestions and commentary.

First, all traditional outlets have the concept of deadlines. This is because the presses were only run once a day if possible, to cut costs, and in broadcasting because radio picked a set time for large-scale news that carried over into TV. How a story gets selected is simple: it is either a breaking news story that is big (fire, robbery, murder, etc.) or is a story that was most likely assigned to a reporter. Reporters can and do come up with their own stories, but they must be approved by, and other assignments come from, an editor. This editor then says have this story ready by XXX and the reporter hops to it. They research, talk to sources, write up/produce the story, and it goes into the hopper and out into print or broadcast. Review is often cursory by an editor or senior producer, and the copy desk (where a lot of fun and interesting mistakes can and do occur).

This is in contrast to lets say a science journal, where stories usually are produced in a manner of months, reviewed by outside experts in the field of the story who approve or disapprove it, and who often provide commentary to go with the story. The process is relaxed, and deadlines are in terms of months or more, instead of hours and minutes.

Both have one thing in common, however. Journalism and peer-reviewed science writing count on people who are knowledgeable in their field to write and edit the stories in question. Journalism is increasingly requiring reporters who are intimately familiar with given subject areas, from science to law to business. While it is required, it is often not the case and it is not at all unusual to find that editors assign a general reporter to cover a major story that needs a specialist instead of the staff or freelance specialist.

This is a subject that has been debated hotly and long within journalistic circles, as well as being the stuff of water cooler discussion as well. In some cases, it is because the general assignment reporter is a name or someone they trust to give the story the particular slant desired. In some cases it simply reflects a deep seated prejudice on the part of the editor, who most likely came up as a general assignment reporter and is still not comfortable with specialization. In other cases it is probably nothing more than a brain fart on the part of the assignments editor. Other scenarios may be applicable as well. You pays your money, you picks your reality.

That there is a prejudice within journalism against specialists is something of a given. When I was starting out, I could have already retired if I had a dime for every editor who said to me that the public was not interested in science. It didn’t matter if the paper in question had just conducted a poll that showed they were, the editors did not understand science, were scared of it, so “the public” was the same. I have seen it in other areas as well, and the horror stories by other specialists, such as in business, are both funny and heartbreaking.

But to be fair to many in editorial positions, there is another concern that lurks: conflict of interest. There were and are some in power who fear the specialist because they do know the subject matter. They have studied it, covered it, and are intimately familiar with this. While the validity of the fear is doubtful, I think that there lurks within the subconscious of the editors mind the idea that because the reporter is an expert that they have been co-opted and can no longer write objectively.

One area where this can be clearly seen is in coverage of the military. For many years, I found it was the kiss of death to let anyone know you were familiar with such, or had even been in ROTC. If you did so, you were immediately branded the enemy and heavens help you. This was part and parcel of the war waged by The Media against the military (see this for more on that topic), but I also feel it is indicative of how The Media feels about other specialties as well.

It also does not help that in many institutions, the copy desk is not required to run specialist stories back by the writer after editing. The result is that stories that started out both accurate and precise (and there can be a big difference between the two) end up garbage. If lucky, it may be just a bad headline, such as one that was in a paper during a Shuttle mission. The mission featured some plasma physics experiments and the headline identified the payload as a blood experiment. At worst, you get factual errors that can endanger the public with faulty information.

So, I think it essential that The Media and related outlets embrace the era of specialization. Knowledge and familiarity do not mean subversion or conflict of interest, but are crucial to accurate and fair reporting. This specialization needs to extend from the writing all the way through the editing. You have that specialist for a reason, let them do their job and learn how they can help you do yours as well. That does not diminish you in any way; indeed, it shows that you are a big person for being willing to do so.

So, today’s suggestions are as follows:

1. Make use of specialists in subject areas, particularly in science, business, law, military, and other arcane matters.

2. Make use of specialists all the way through the process.

3. No outlet can have all the specialists it needs, so make use of freelance specialists as well.

4. Since no outlet can have specialists in all areas, if you see a problem let the outlet know in a constructive manner. Offer to help them with correction, correct information, introduction to experts, etc.

5. If the outlet won’t make a correction or is otherwise uninterested, let the blogs know and see if pressure can be applied that way. Public ridicule can work wonders…

6. Be an informed consumer of news from The Media. Learn the track records and background of the local or other reporters of interest. If you find they are lacking, switch media and let it be known. Media outlets are businesses, and they can and will change tunes – and reporters or editors – if the proper motivation is applied.

There is, of course, more to come. Stay tuned.

Rational Peparedness:  Defense and Gas Masks

Originally posted May 17, 2003

I promised more on rational preparedness, and it is time to deliver. The questions I get asked the most that have not already been addressed come down to one topic: personal protection. There are two main topics: guns and gas masks.

I am going to take the easy one first, gas masks. No, I don’t think you need to go get a gas mask right now. There. Easy. Happy? The reasons why are fairly simple. Gas masks work great if you have warning with enough time to put them on before you are exposed. It is doubtful that the terrorist are going to give warning, so the utility of a gas mask is questionable.

In the interests of full disclosure, yes I do have one. It was given to me by an acquaintance when I visited them on a regular basis, as they happened to live next to U.S. Government repository for nastiness. We probably needed MOPP gear, but he had the mask and it made him feel better for me to have one too. Not sure if the canisters are still good or not, but it is somewhere in my closet.

What to do if there is a warning and you don’t have a mask? Simple, according to government sites and experts: take a tight-weave t-shirt, get a double thickness, and put it over your nose and mouth. It is not as good as activated charcoal and layers of micron-level filters, but it will get quite a good bit including – I am told – most biologicals.

If you look at the odds and types of threats, the likelihood of same, and do a cost-benefit analysis and decide differently, knock yourself out. Don’t want to spend that much? There are escape hoods that are much more reasonably priced and will do in a pinch. They are even good for travel in case there is a fire at the hotel or other location.

Now we get to the nitty gritty and the thing that will upset most people: guns. The upsetting part is that I am going to say up front that most people should not go buy a handgun.

Unless you are going to take the time to buy the gun, get instruction on proper use and safety, and practice with it on a regular basis, please don’t get a handgun. If you are like people I have met over the years and go get one, load it, and put it on the bedside table, please never invite me to your house.

“I got my gun today!”

“You did? What type?”

“I got a Frick 9mm. I’ve got it loaded an up on the bedside table. Want to see it?

“Well, how does it shoot?”

“I don’t know. I haven’t shot it yet.”

“Really.” (Oh bleep. This guy is an accident waiting to happen, and I don’t want to be the accidental death) “When are you scheduled for the range and lessons?”

“Oh, I haven’t done that yet. Don’t know when I will.”

“Oh.” (Wonder if I can take out a policy on his wife, kids, and dog?) “But you have it loaded and ready to shoot?”

“Yeah! I will smoke any intruder that comes in.”

“Since you haven’t shot it, how can you be sure that it is accurate?”

“Oh, the sights are good, and everyone tells me it is the most accurate pistol on the market.”

“The sights probably are good, but without being sighted in how can you be sure that where you aim is where you will hit?”

“Oh, its accurate and it will hit where I aim!”

“Riggghhhhtt.” (Can you take out insurance on other people’s possessions?) “Well, then, what type cleaner did you use on it?”

“Oh, it was clean as a whistle when I bought it.”

“Oooookay.” (Wonder if I can take out a dismemberment or death policy on him?) “You didn’t check to be sure there was no grease in the bore or receiver?”

“No, should I?”

Okay, you get the drift here and the truly scary thing is that this is close to a real conversation or three I have had. This is a perfect example of a firearms accident waiting to happen, and I tend not to go back to these people’s houses. People like this give responsible owners a very bad reputation. This is also the type person who sticks the gun down the front of their pants and eliminates future contributions to the gene pool.

If you do want a pistol and are willing to be responsible and do it right, here is the way to go. Go to a reputable gun store. To find one, talk to those who do shoot and get recommendations. Try different guns, find one that fits your hand and has the things you need, such as stopping power, ease of use, good skull sweat in the design, etc. Also, keep in mind that no one pistol is going to be the best thing for all situations. Try them on a range, this is something good gun stores are happy to do. Most shooting ranges will rent pistols to you or let you try a variety of rentals for the price of one if you are pistol shopping. Once you have done your shopping and research, then buy what works best for you.

Once you have bought, then take the gun to the range and get with the range master/certified instructor. They will help you learn the pistol, clean it before using it (you need to get a kit with the gun), and teach you all you need to know. This may take more than one lesson, though a lot of range and safety basics can be covered during the try-them stage. Then practice, practice, practice. You need to do a lot to get used to the pistol and to break it in. You then need to go at least once a month to maintain your proficiency.

Unless you take a full day at the range once a month, maintaining is about all you will do. To give you an idea, I used to fire around 500 rounds per weapon per month when I was semi-serious about shooting. That was simply to maintain, not to necessarily improve – though I took any advancement I could get.

Rather than a pistol for home defense, I tend to recommend a shotgun. If there is a situation, real or imagined, the adrenaline flows. Your hands shake, your heart hammers, your breath comes in gasps, and none of these things is conducive to pinpoint accuracy. Take a look one day at the statistics for gunfights, and see how many shots are fired at very close range, and how few (if any) hit the target(s).

A shotgun makes up for that with lots of bullets, called shot. Get some number one buck, or even some number two shot and it will do the trick. Lots of pellets with punch to do what you need done. The trick is, also, that you need to shoot the shotgun at a range as well. That way, you can see the damage that will be done. You will know what it is going to do to your home, which is tear the holy hell out of it. Even though you can get rounds that won’t penetrate a wall, they are still going to tear up the things in that room where you shoot and the wall.

This is a good thing. It means that you are not likely to use it unless you have a clear target that really needs shooting. You are not likely to shoot the spouse, the kids, the dog, the cat, the bird, or a shadow. If you do have to shoot someone or something, you are going to do it right to spare the rest of the house.

Two other quick points. First, I do not believe in trigger locks or locking guns away. This is dangerous, far more dangerous than you think. If you want the citations, take a look at John R. Lott Jr.’s “The Bias Against Guns”. It will be getting a review here in the next couple of weeks. I hope, as it is a hard read for me simply because some of what he goes over in the way of bias tends to raise my blood pressure to the point I have to quit reading.

Second, teach your kids properly about guns. Do NOT traumatize them so that they never want to touch one; that is your psychosis and should not be put off on them. Teach them responsibly and well, be it with an Eddie Eagle program or some other. My parents taught me from a very early age, about 3 if I remember correctly, that guns were not toys. I knew not to touch one unless I was going hunting or to a range. I knew what they could do and would do if not handled properly. Doesn’t mean I did not make mistakes, just that the mistakes were controlled and knowledge applied to the seat of learning as needed. Do thou likewise, as an educated child is far less likely to do something stupid simply because you were stupid and did not teach them properly.

Final thought of the day: the choices you make are yours. Live with them and take responsibility for them. No one else is responsible for your decisions, for what you do, or what you do not do. You and you alone are the master of your fate.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Saving Pvt. Journalism Pt. 6

Originally posted June 19, 2003

From the background provided, it is clear that this is a complex situation and that simplistic solutions just won’t cut it. That is not to say that some of the suggestions I am going to put forward will not be simple and easy, but each will only be a part of what needs to be done.

The first thing I recommend is acknowledging the attacks on the Internet, the WWW, and the blogosphere as a start. These come from both within and without, and should be a matter of concern to everyone.

With all due respect to Senator Hatch, which is damned little in this case, he is just one of the people who are broaching the idea of controls and rampant intrusion into private lives and private activities in the guise of protecting private property, to wit copyrights. While one can question his position in regards the DCMA and the RIAA (and pockets therein), there is no question to my mind that his proposal is clearly unconstitutional and that he is well aware of the fact. The current copyright law is extremely poorly crafted, and while there is considerable debate as to how deliberate that was, it is also clear that this needs to be addressed.

It does not, however, need to be addressed by actions that violate the Constitution by eliminating due process and providing for government sanctioned destruction of private property without due process, recompense, and other little niceties of law. I seem to recall that the last time something like this was tried, that some tea got dumped in a harbor and a small fracas ensued. If Senator Hatch, and any other congresscritter, fail to understand their sworn oath to the Constitution, then they need to either resign, join the appropriate totalitarian party and run in an honest manner, or be defeated under false colours.
This also applies to regulation by content. While I deplore a great deal of the content that is out there, and just love the spam I get each day promising to enhance different portions of my anatomy, the government does not need to get involved under any pretext. This is called a slippery slope, and it is not well regarded for a number of reasons. Almost all totalitarian actions began with the pretext of doing something for the public good, and this is a real threat to our freedoms and the Internet as we know it.
Whatever aid and comfort can be given to those opposing totalitarian regimes or other assaults on free speech should be given. This is already being done in the case of a number of bloggers in Iran, for example, and should be expanded. Since the free exchange of information and ideas scares these people, let’s really scare them.

We also need to view with some concern, and a lot of contempt, calls from those within The Media who want to regulate. Their reasons for doing so have been brought out in the previous posts: continuation of media dynasties, control of news and gatekeeping, protecting a privileged position (i.e. being a member of the press), and control of the economics of the media.

The blogosphere will play a key role in that by acting in the best and purest motives of real journalism: providing accurate and immediate information that will go out to the world. By providing multiple sources of information, thoughtful and documented commentary, and means of discussions through comments, the blogosphere will prove the ideal of rational discourse and the ability of the masses to govern themselves.

This will mean some changes to the blogosphere as well. For now, there is a perception, if not a reality, that all blogs do is negative. Blogs expose lies, corruption, bias in reporting, and more. Critics charge that this is all there is, and while it can be refuted fairly easily, it is a charge that unfortunately tends to resonate with those who are not yet a part of the Web and blogdom. One must also consider that many who make and shape laws are a part of this latter group, and act accordingly.

The real issue being this charge is the difference between being a destructive force and a constructive force. Blogs have been destructive in that they have exposed lies, misrepresentation, mismanagement, and more at major media outlets. While one can argue that such is in reality constructive, there is a need to provide some positive context so as to live up to the potential inherent in the medium and eliminate this avenue of attack.

This is already underway, and discussions are readily found at a variety of sites. This multi-part presentation could also be seen as a sign of constructive action in that specific actions will be called for in each, that will help remediate the problems identified here and elsewhere. Other sites are, I believe, doing the same thing but as noted earlier I have not read them so as to avoid potential problems.
Another point to consider here is historical trend, and the fact that The Media, and media as we know it, will no longer be the same. Newspapers, broadcast outlets, magazines, and other staples of traditional media will never completely disappear, but their role and importance is already in a state of fundamental change. Most of them are operating under old models and having considerable difficulty adapting to the changes that are taking place. This will make for interesting times in terms of the Chinese curse, and much of the mantle of journalism has already fallen onto other shoulders.
Blogs and other new media to be developed will most likely take over much of what was the role of traditional media outlets. Some outlets will adapt and move in. For example, the Wall Street Journal does have one of the better WWW sites of the “old” media, and seems poised to take advantage of the new media. If they can or will remains to be seen, but do expect to see some make the transition.
This does place a heavy burden on blogdom, however, in that with freedom comes responsibilities. Those very responsibilities that we harp about to “Old Media” (and yes, I do love comparing The Media to Old Europe a la Rumsfeld) have now become ours to uphold as well.

So, here are the first suggestions I am putting forward:

1. Let your congresscritter know, in no uncertain terms, that attacks on freedom of the press will not be tolerated, and that blogs and people on the net are just as much journalists as are people at the New York Times or Fox News. Remind them also that America does not condone or accept the licensing of media.

2. Let your congresscritter know that you oppose other government involvement in, and regulation of, the Internet for any reason. What is free speech today is all too likely to end up as pornographic or unacceptable tomorrow. Beware the slippery slope.

3. Support your local blogger. Make that monetary donation if they have a tip jar, and make comments to keep them honest. Promote valid discussion and rational discourse. That is, after all, one of your duties to the Republic as a Citizen. It should even be argued that it is your duty as a Citizen of the World.

4. Bloggers need not only to point out problems, but suggest means of remediation directly or encourage discourse such that one or more means are developed in the course of said discussion.

5. Bloggers also need to make use of the fantastic opportunity to update, correct, and refine offered through the medium. The best already do this, the rest of us need to follow the lead.

6. Bloggers need to operate to the highest standards possible, both for themselves and for the duties that are headed our way. This is not only for large sites, but for individual sites as well. Remember, anything worth doing is worth doing right.

With this as a start, real journalism can indeed be saved. Tomorrow, some more thoughts and suggestions on other aspects.

Saving Pvt. Journalism Pt. 5

Originally posted June 18, 2003

We are getting near to the end of the background portion, and remember that you should count Rational Discourse/Persuasibility as a part of this discussion. Before we go forward, however, there remain some economics and some theory that also need to be put forward.

Economics truly is the heart of the process. Despite what a lot of idealistic writers and academics may say, the pursuit of truth at all costs is not what journalism, or any aspect of The Media, are all about. What it is all about, besides the hokey-pokey, is money. Newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations, shows, movies, plays, etc. all exist for the purpose of making money. Capitalism at its best, and none of the aforementioned outlets would exist unless they succeed in making money. To make things easier on you and me, I am going to refer to all the outlets as publications, as printed text is required for each, either for publication, scripts, or other means of communicating dialog.
Now, the amount of money made can vary. There have been a number of advocacy publications that were content simply to break even. The people involved were on a crusade and/or had other means of support. This was made possible by changes in technology that lowered the cost of printing.
That cost has been a driving force in American journalism and communications from well before the revolution. The cost of a press, of setting type by hand, of ink, of paper that was neither inexpensive or in plentiful supply, of repair, and other expenses made it so that presses were limited. Again, this is why many publications would use the same press and it is also why the phrase “press,” “the press,” etc. are so frequent in the writings of the founding fathers and in the Constitution. It was anticipated that this situation would change only slowly, and until it did that protections needed to be in place to ensure the independence of the presses from government.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson hit it on the head when he said “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”

Therefore, the Constitution set forth certain guarantees for this purpose, and the government for a considerable time did not charge for the mailing of newspapers and related documents, so as to foster the spread of information.

Of course, technology had begun its rapid ascent and as an outgrowth of that improved printing methods and improved methods of paper production were developed. As a result, presses became more commonplace and competing groups took advantage of the fact to own their own presses. This resulted in larger cities having several newspapers, all of which represented a different political viewpoint. This was also made possible by the elimination of expensive rag paper for that made from lint, felt, and ultimately wood pulp. When paper became comparatively inexpensive, and available in massive amounts, this further fueled the process. It also meant that papers might be put out morning and evening, and that special editions came out “as needed” to highlight special events or to push a particular objective.

It is well to remember that objective, honest, fair, and balanced were not the watchwords of the day. It was not unusual to find stories made up out of whole cloth, or slanted towards a particular group or objective. Laws against libel did not cover events, merely people, so the admonition of the founding fathers towards reporting the truth and facts went largely unheeded in the push to both convert and to make money. The latter was required to cover the costs of the presses, paper, and such, and to further the goals of the organizations behind the papers, most often political parties.

To get a better idea of what this period of history was like, go check out the copperheads, the Chicago Tribune, and related articles during the Civil War. Indeed, if looking for feet of clay in heroes, check out the actions of Lincoln and his government in regards the Tribune and other papers. There were many dubious actions on all sides at the time, and it is an interesting read.

Towards the end of the 1800s and in the early 1900s was when the idea of a press committed to the truth came to be proposed. There were a number of scandals that helped push it, and it was also advances in technology and changes in economics that helped bring about the acceptance of the idea of a fair and balanced press.

The changes in economics were a part of the maturity cycle discussed earlier. The markets were saturated, and no matter how lurid the stories or how much pandering was done, it was inevitable that some papers would die off, or that some other means of accommodation would be required. The Great Depression helped push this, and newspapers and magazines either folded, or found ways to work together. It was not unusual for bitter rivals to agree to share a common printing plant, so that they could both stay in business.

The Government encouraged this up through the 1980s, ruling that such was not a violation of anti-monopoly laws. Rather, it was but was allowed because of the need for multiple sources of information in order to obtain fair and balanced coverage. This is also a bit of an indictment of The Media in that it was a tacit admission by the Government that no single outlet was capable of, or should be trusted with, providing fair and balanced news.

The other factor that forever altered the economic landscape was the development of news means of communications. The telegraph was the first example of this, but it was not a true mass instrument of communication. Instead, it provided a foretaste of what was to come by allowing news to get across the country relatively accurately in a matter of hours or days instead of weeks or months. In this way, newspapers and magazines across America could, would, and did provide news and information (and fiction and misinformation) on a much more timely basis. This, too, was a part of the revolution that was to come in journalism and The Media.

The first true new mass communication method was radio. While it was years before every home could afford one, enough were out there to allow news and entertainment to reach large amounts of the population. Indeed, the problem was that it was sometimes quite hard to tell the news from the entertainment, and vice versa. The subconscious feeling was that if it came over radio, because of its immediacy, it must therefore be true. That is one of the reasons that Orson Well’s “War of the Worlds” broadcast was taken so seriously, and created a panic.

Radio did take revenue away from newspapers, magazines, and other publications. There was not an expansion of the market, and where the market could not afford to do both there was a tendency to go with the new media. This was for several reasons, ranging from hearing rather than imagining a symphony to the fact that it did not require quite as much though and knowledge to understand. It also provided the first means since the public readings of papers in pamphlets in colonial days to reach illiterate portions of the public. Those people voted with their money and helped make radio a dominant communications means.

There was also the fact that you could take it everywhere. From the early, large, cumbersome radios, there soon evolved small units for the home and even units for that newfangled horseless carriage. This allowed news to get much faster, and made it easier for the public to be informed and to be more easily entertained.

Recognizing the threat, many of the great media empires bought into the technology and opened up radio stations as a corollary to their print operations. They particularly went after the “clear-channel” stations and locked up corresponding slots on the FM spectrum when they became available.
It was also inevitable that radio stations would buy into television when it came along. At first, many did not see television as truly being a separate medium. It was perceived as, and treated as, radio with pictures. It took a number of years for that to change, and a good argument can also be made that television has simply built on and refined the so-called golden age of radio with its comedies, dramas, and the like.

Both new media, however, moved into journalism and as such ensured minimal government controls over the new media. In fact, there were (and are even now) campaigns to get the government completely out of the picture by abolishing the FCC and related organizations. The original purpose of the FCC was simply to ensure the fair distribution of available broadcast slots to prevent interference between competing stations. That has, as in inevitable with any government agency, to a much more intrusive role, with the rational that government control is needed to deal with new technologies not envisioned by the founding fathers and the resulting complexities. Good arguments have been put forth, however, that things might have functioned much more smoothly, and technological advances come earlier and better, without such regulation.

New media has always been a problem both for the government and for the American media dynasties. The Media has seen advertising dollars shift, operations become marginal or outright losses as the fickle public switched en masse to the new technology, and seen challenges to their dynasties in the form of new “upstarts.”

For this reason, there has been a great deal of attention paid to the internet by many in The Media and in government. The Media was worried about competition, challenges, and the like, as well as how it would affect the economic landscape. Unlike radio and television, however, the Internet did not take off in the same relative timeframe and did not follow the established models for same, so quite a few failed to realize its potential. The government, despite some strong desires both within and without, could not find reasonable arguments to provide control since there were no frequencies to allocate, etc.

Yet, the Internet has finally taken off, and many in academia and the real world see the World Wide Web as the new media of this new technology. Through the Web, information transmission truly has become instantaneous such that news is flashed around the world in near real-time. It also bypasses many of the traditional checks by government and The Media in that there are no gatekeepers to restrict the flow of information. From almost the start, the Web went into specialization of information, with sites devoted to almost any topic, and any sub-topic to the topic, popping up like mushrooms in a field.

The blogosphere is a prime example of this. There are sites to cover almost any topic of interest, as well as more general sites that try to cover the high spots. The best of these sites are multi-faceted such that there is the general and the specific provided. Glenn Reynolds is a good example of this with the somewhat general Instapundit site, as well as other specialized sites where certain topics are taken up in greater detail.

It also represents an unprecedented challenge to The Media and all governments. For the first time in history, so-called news coverage is subject to immediate investigation and refutation. Comments are spread around the globe with immediately, without the ability to retract them, merely redact them as needed. Unlike traditional outlets, Blogs and other Web sites can make corrections, updates, and changes as they happen and the entire result is available for review. This does make historical revisionism much more difficult, since many on the Web cheerfully archive things as they were up originally for comparison, and are not at all shy about posting notices of such attempted revisionism for all to see. Worse yet, from the point of view of The Media, they have no real way to seize control of the outlets in the same manner that they did radio and television. There is no exclusivity to them, and peasants and princes both have the same access and availability – for now.

Governments are also scared by the Web. Many totalitarian regimes exist because they control the flow of information to and from their subjects. This control is paramount to ensuring continued power, because if the people do not realize that things can be better and are better elsewhere, it is hard(er) to foment revolution from within. By keeping things like mass murder, burying babies alive, etc., from getting out, it keeps down the noise from the neighbors and allows idiots to bury their head in the sand and pretend that such horrible things are not happening, and therefore do not need fixing. Even relatively benign governments are scared of the unprecedented freedom of expression and freedom of information provided by the Web. Our own government, denied traditional rationalizations for interference, has opted to approach it from a law enforcement perspective by focusing on the reprehensible uses of same to provide pornography and such, particularly child pornography. Conveniently overlooked is the fact that this industry was largely created by the government in the form of the U.S. Post Office. When that agency decided to go after child pornography being sent by mail and the internet, there was so little of it that they had to create their own. In the process, a new horror was born, and the similarities to what happened with prohibition are best left to the reader or another series of long posts. This has been fairly well documented, even though very little coverage has been provided by The Media.

Today, we have calls by those who should know better, such as Senator Hatch’s abominable statements of late, to regulate the Internet and particularly the Web, on this basis. Also added into the equation are demands for restrictions and back-doors for national security. For now, I merely suggest that all concerned go read the Constitution, and think again.

For now, the real factor that upsets most of the apple carts is that the U.S. Government has never required the licensing of journalists, and in fact has ruled against such. While there have been a number of cases of individual judges deciding – in most interesting fashion, (see the case of the freelance writer jailed in Texas by a judge who has a most creative and interesting definition of “real” journalism) – who is and who is not a journalist, the law of the land simply states that it is anyone covering and reporting the news. Most interesting decisions by judges end up getting overturned when and if the cases involved reach the Supreme Court.

As for me, I see the blogosphere as being the new media and the new journalism. With the power provided by this technology, the relatively low cost and wide availability, everyone has the capability to be a reporter, and it can and should be argued that blogs represent the new media outlets. Indeed, many of the blogs do a far better job of reporting news in a fair and balance manner, with discussion in comments or in separate columns that would fill Jefferson, Paine, and others with fevered delight in terms of rational discourse. Not to say that many comments are rational, but even the most irrational spark discussion and thought.

Add to this the power of economics, and you have a winner. Bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan have proven that blogs and the Web can be a money-making proposition in the same way as traditional media, fulfilling the economic requirement. It is quite likely that we are witnessing the start of a new revolution within the Web and blogging as payment, voluntary or otherwise, becomes the norm rather than the exception. Even with such, there will be few restrictions on anyone taking part from the point of view of the technology. Governments can and are putting restrictions elsewhere, in a desperate and doomed attempt to control the flow of information, but at least for now there are means to bypass such efforts. Care needs to be taken, however, to ensure that this situation does not change from ill-intentioned laws (cloaked in the best of intentions/save the children/protect the public from what it can’t or shouldn’t understand) both local and international.

Now, we are finally set to begin discussing specific suggestions for saving journalism and actually making it what it has wanted to be, and has never truly been. Stay tuned, more to come.

Walking Home

This post by Uncle Jimbo reminded me that I was way behind on some specific posting promised earlier.  Yes, my site is in the process of being upgraded, and I have finally hired professionals for the task.  My temporary site has also had some ups and downs, from cracking of the homepage by an AQ-linked group.  Nevermind the apparent continuing DDOS/spam attack on the “old” site that has my hosting provider kvetching about excessive CPU usage… Well, enough of that.  Things are finally moving in a good direction, and it is high time to start posting as promised.  One of those promises was to post on practical and rational preparedness, and Jimbo’s post reminded me of the following postdone a year ago September on car kits.  In the interest of transparency, I am correcting some spelling and other errors as I repost.  Maybe. 
*****

One of the projects I undertook this weekend was the annual car clear and re-arrange, which includes pulling out and re-doing my “Walking Home” kit that stays in the car.  It is not a full bug-out kit, though it can be used for that in a pinch, but rather something designed to get me home or to help if things go bad. 

I have kept something like this in my vehicles since I started driving.  Not only does it make a lot of sense to be prepared, but I also used to go off into woods, mountains, and other areas off the beaten track.  If something had happened, it would be up to me to get it out, get it fixed, or otherwise beat feet.  While I am not in the wilds that much anymore, caca can still occureth, so I remain prepared as the best way to ensure something does not happen is to prepare for it.  Most of these preparations are not obvious to anyone looking into my trunk, which has its own advantages…

The first thing any vehicle should have are some basic tools:

With what I have here, I can fix most things that are fixable outside of a shop, dig or pull my way out of problems, remove trees or other impediments, and otherwise cope with most situations.  Many things pull double duty, and can also serve as camp implements if needs require. The throwing axe actually has about three uses right off the bat…

Next up are fasteners:

Fastners can also pull double duty, but I have rope, cord, wire, chains, pack webbing, and my tow rope.  The latter is actually part of a cargo parachute system used to drop tanks and similar items, and so can handle about any loads I may place upon it.  The snow/ice chains are technically illegal where I now reside, but I keep them anyway for emergencies, as the letter of the law will cheerfully be stretched in the face of a life-threatening emergency. 

Other items include:

Plastic wrap/tarp, a canvas painters tarp, a collapsible jug, and a breath mask.  Can you say waterproof and warm/cool shelter as needed?  Can you say emergency window repair?  Can you say being able to breathe in a dust or other storm?  I knew you could, and know that you can think of other uses too…

Scrapers, tire inflator, heavy-duty jumper cables, a hat, snow salt, wiper fluid, and canvas tote bags round out the other items.  With these, many car problems can be solved, I have a cover for my head as I work or hike, and the ability to go get or otherwise carry items in a comfortable manner. 

Finally comes the pack.  The backpack I have tucked away in the car has three major parts.  The outer pocket:

contains paper and pencils, eating utensils, compass, bottle/can opener, knife, sewing kit, and locking D-rings. 

The middle part:

contains food and other essential supplies.  Essential supplies include a filter mask for dust or other delights, cord, and a water purifier.  That brand is no longer available, but you can go find the same technology in Exstream products from Katadyn.  With it, you can take water from almost any source except salt water, and drink it safely.  Food includes beef jerky, sweets, salty, and even some textured vegetable protein in case the trip home takes far longer than anticipated.  All the food is chosen as it will last for a year in some rather extreme temperature ranges. 

The back part:

The back part contains a space blanket, foil blanket, heavy duty cord/parachute rigging, clothing, and a flashlight.  Note that this is in addition to the normal car flashlight, just in case the car stuff disappears… The old film cannister contains tacks, brads, and other items that might come in handy. 

Again, remember that most of this is out of sight and not taking up space in the main trunk.  Modern car trunks offer a lot of places to put this and more where it can’t easily be found. 

Not shown are two first aid kits, one that stays out in the open and one that is hidden with the pack, and a few other implements including several bottles half-full of water.  Yes, half full so that they don’t split from heat or freezing.  I am considering adding a couple of other things to the mix, most notably two siphons, one for gas and one for getting water out of containers, wells, or other such places without electrical power (I have one in the basement of the lair to get water out of the well if the power goes out).  I am also considering adding this to the car:

though I would prefer something a bit more portable.  Will see. 

So, what is in your vehicle?  Are you prepared to walk home or out if needed?  For more on preparedness, remember to check out this archive and all the links. 

LW

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Bah Humbug

For a number of close friends, a running joke of life is my saying Bah Humbug this time of year.  To my utter disgust, I read this, and then went and found this local coverage.  He’s troubled?  Troubled???  Frell that.  I wrote the good mayor at rloveridge@riversideca.gov the following: 

Sir,

I am writing to express my outrage over the silencing of the children’s choir by city employee and faux civil servant Michelle Baldwin, and the subsequent handling of the situation.  What happened is nothing more or less than a travesty, and a particularly disgusting one at that.  Compounding it is what I have read of the response to it. 

It is my sincere hope that the press reports to date are wrong, and that you have done more than just offer what appears as a flip apology via media.  Quite frankly, what happened to those children was indeed devastating, and you as the leader who is responsible for what happens under your command need to do all in your power to rectify it—for nothing can ever make it right.  While I personally feel that you, Belinda J. Graham, and most especially Michelle Baldwin, need to get on your knees and personally apologize to each and every one of those children individually, the least you as a leader should do is apologize to the group in person. 

This day and age I don’t expect much from those who claim to serve the public via politics, but I would love to be proven wrong.  Until this situation is dealt with honorably and properly, I say Merry Freakin Christmas to the government of Riverside, California and my thanks for putting the Bah Humbug into the season. 

Troubled.  Frell that.  Frelling Bah Humbug to them all.  I hope someone does right by those kids, for I have no faith or confidence that the local civil master wannabes will do so. 

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Into The Light:  AG

Well, they say these things run in threes, and I am afriad that in this case I am afraid this may be true.  A great-aunt of mine, a strong figure in the family, went into the light today.  It was not unexpected, and a blessing given all.  May the light have welcomed her home, and may it light and warm the way for those she left behind. 

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Some Thoughts On Intelligence:  Mores

Before life handed me enough to make a fortune in Nashville could I but set it to music, I had started a post on intelligence gathering and analysis.  A precursor post is here.  At the risk of getting ahead of myself, some of the comments to this post provide a timely point for discussing what is perhaps the largest problem with, and most difficult aspect of, intelligence analysis:  mores. 

Mores often are defined as some variation of the customs and conventions that make up a society and allow a person to function within them.  To my mind, the best definition I have heard is that they are the blinders we wear as a result of living in a particular culture. 

It is a very complex and fascinating subject, for it is something most seldom stop to consider.  Each of us is shaped by the country in which we grow up, for each has its own unique history and social makeup.  Each of us is shaped by the region, city, or other location as well as the unique social mix that is the family or group in which we are raised.  As we grow up, we tend to take certain things as “gospel” in that certain assumptions, outlooks, stories, and more are such a part of our life that we accept them without question. 

Such core beliefs shape our lives and our methods of thought in ways much more subtle than mere bias.  These beliefs shape the way we process and interpret the data that comes at us in life on a level well below conscious thought.  It is part and parcel of the entirely unreasonable, yet natural, human assumption that everyone thinks as we do. 

Yet, not everyone does think as we do.  Even within the United States, there is a large variance in the mores of people raised in different areas or ethnic and cultural groups.  Someone raised on a farm who is used to dealing with animals, butchering them, helping raise them, etc. is going to have a different set of mores from someone born and raised in downtown Chicago.  They are going to have very different frames of reference, and one of the early purposes of education/mass education was to provide a common frame of reference so that people from different backgrounds could communicate effectively.  This also served to add a new layer into the mores that shaped the people. 

From an intelligence standpoint (and political as well), is the fact that we all tend to assume on that deep level that everyone thinks and believes as do we.  Some of the worst analysis of events comes from those who insist on presenting analysis based on this assumption, particularly if their mores are extreme even for their culture. 

When a majority of people involved with doing some form of analysis all have similar backgrounds and beliefs, be it called corporate culture or sheer institutional inbreeding, the result is that any analysis and interpretation will be shaped by the common mores no matter the internal checks and balances designed to prevent such.  It doesn’t matter if it is an intelligence agency or a newsroom:  when all have very similar or same mores (beliefs, training, instillation of corporate culture), there literally is no way to avoid skewing the results because the underlying unconscious assumptions are so similar. 

An obvious solution is, of course, to bring people who don’t share that tradition.  Be it outsiders coming into an institution, or bringing in people from the culture/region/etc. being studied, it is a great way to get a different set of ideas and interpretations.  The problem with intelligence can be, however, that such people have an axe or three to grind.  They may be people who detest the current regime in the area, which will skew their analysis.  They may be reluctant, the people who left on a matter of principle but still love their country, people, and friends—a thing that will also skew thier perceptions.  They may also fall prey to the very human trap of not providing complete translation or context because of the fear that doing so may not measure up to the mores and social conventions of the country/organization doing the research.  They may be plants put in place to deliberately skew things through false information and deliberately wrong analysis.  Finally, they too are constrained by their mores in their analysis. 

Another obvious solution is to have a mixture of sources for doing translation, analysis, and interpretation, so that each effectively checks the other.  The problem lies in the fact that any such mixture then has to go through the institutional process.  For this reason, more than one administration has made use of what Tom Clancy referred to as a “Backstop” program to get an outside/independent source of information and analysis.  Of course, that does no good if any or all analysis and recommendations are rejected because it conflicts with the institutional mores of an administration.  A study of events/history of the challenges inherent in the collapse of the Soviet Union and rise of the Russian Federation, particularly looking at the time of the tanks and Yeltsin’s stand, is a prime example of this. 

A staple of Hollywood and of literary potboilers is the individual who has not only gotten the data, but analyzed what it really means, yet is thwarted in efforts to head off disaster by evil types who reject the data and/or analysis out of hand.  From the civilian/military analyst who detects the impending attack to the researcher who detects the next major natural disaster but is ignored or actively suppressed, it is a staple of entertainment.  So prevalent is this meme that it has become a part of our culture and even shapes our mores.  This has reached the point that there is a collective tendency to try to force people and events to fit it, rather than to simply accept that events are much different and more complex (Plame being a good example).  This is not just an American problem, but affects countries and institutions worldwide, and is the root cause of many serious diplomatic and military miscalculations. 

One of the hardest things for any analyst to do is to make a conscious effort to set aside their mores.  It means studying the situation, the data, and the societal context in which they reside.  The short version is to think like the enemy, which can have its own perils.  There are those who have done so, and ended up converting to the other side.  There are those who have done so and in so doing damaged their ability to work within the mores of their own culture.  Yet, to truly analyze and understand any event in the world, be it domestic politics or enemy actions and intentions, we must at least attempt to make the leap to think outside ourselves and our mores.  For if we do not, any analysis, interpretation, and action we take will be tragically and fatally flawed. 

The information age and the blogosphere offer a strong ray of hope in this area.  Take a look at these comments again.  In my opinion, some have that tragic flaw, but it is not my opinion of such that matters.  What matters is that several informed opinions are there, differing opinions.  These have been placed into the marketplace of ideas, and in so doing, a huge step has been taken.  While there will be much dreck out there, a lot of good and differing analysis and interpretation is now available for consideration and evaluation.  The import of that for critical issues of the day can’t be overstated. 

So, a question for you is:  can you make a reasonable effort to set aside your cultural blinders and look at the world as unfettered as possible?  Or, are you a prisoner of your conscious and unconscious biases?  Can you look past these to take a reasoned measure of what is being said and respond in an equally reasoned manner?  Or, are you such a prisoner of yourself that you must attack, obfuscate, and avoid reason and facts as ground upon which you dare not tread? 

Just some food for thought…

LW

Crossposted at Blackfive

Content copyright C. Blake Powers and the individual authors. Comments become the property of C. Blake Powers and may be altered, edited, deleted, and used by C. Blake Powers or the individual authors without restriction or recompense.