OMG and Link Salad, Pre-Windycon Edition

[chris_gerrib]

I'm going to Windycon this weekend, and tomorrow's a bank holiday, so this is probably the last post for the week. (My schedule at the con is here.)

On the "OMG" front, I saw Rick Perry's brain freeze at the debate last night. Now, as a writer who forgets his characters' names, I sympathize with the man. On the other hand, write it down! He had notes, and I saw him look at them. Make a cheat sheet, dude! For a more in-depth overview of the debate, including the Cargo Cult Of The Sacred Free Market, see Charles P. Pierce.

Moving on, here's a few links for the long weekend:

1) John Scalzi says everything that needs to be said about the Penn State pedophile scandal. I agree completely with his comments.

2) On the pirate front, the maritime insurance companies are creating a private navy to hunt pirates. Something very similar happens in the sequel to Pirates of Mars.

3) The White House officially announces they are not hiding evidence of ETs, but they would, of course.

4) More evidence that we don't understand our own digestive systems - GI Specialists Suspect Specific Carbohydrates May Cause Painful Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

5) A serious look at a not-so-serious problem - Seven scientific reasons a zombie outbreak would fail rather quickly.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

From the piracy article:

If actions at sea by private security become more violent, is it not possible the actions by pirate attackers will also become more violent?

I find this risible: the pirates are already seizing and capturing ships, holding their crews for ransom, and murdering anyone who resists or can't be ransomed; which is about the most that they can do. The argument that "Oh no, we mustn't make the pirates angry! They might do terrible things if they got angry! is part of the problem: the pirates need to be hunted down and killed rather than appeased; obviously it's impossible to catch all the pirates, but by making piracy more dangerous for the pirates, it becomes a less attractive option.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Take 2: Not only isn't Chris saying that, but the article linked to, isn't really making that point other.

WHO is going to hunt down and kill the pirates? WHO is going to pay for this? Do you invade the sovereign, albeit barely so, territory of the pirates who are currently working out of half a dozen countries around Africa, do you allow private forces to do this? How do you prevent the police authorities and government authorities in the countries they're operating out of, such that they are, of reacting.

In other words, like many of your suggestions, it feels like you're a 14 year old annoyed that mum and dad aren't letting you take the car our for a spin...

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

WHO is going to hunt down and kill the pirates? WHO is going to pay for this?

Ideally, the navies of the Great Powers: however, they seem to be letting the world down on the job. In the meantime, I don't see a problem with commercial shipowners hiring mercenaries to put down the pirates.

Do you invade the sovereign, albeit barely so, territory of the pirates who are currently working out of half a dozen countries around Africa, do you allow private forces to do this?

The article did not discuss having the mercenaries attack the pirate bases -- it was my understanding that the mercenaries would merely escort the merchant shipping. So this problem doesn't come up.

How do you prevent the police authorities and government authorities in the countries they're operating out of, such that they are, of reacting.

Any country which is unwilling to put down pirates in their own waters but is willing to attack those attempting to put down pirates in their own waters is sanctioning the pirates, and would therefore be choosing to go to war against the countries to whom the commercial shipping belonged. Fortunately, the worst offenders here are also small, weak and easily-defeatable nations.

Again, the original article did not suggest that mercenaries go and attack the pirate bases, so I'm not sure how this is relevant to its suggestions.

In other words, like many of your suggestions, it feels like you're a 14 year old annoyed that mum and dad aren't letting you take the car our for a spin...

Wasn't even my suggestion, and you got the article wrong, so, like many of your responses, it feels as if you are simply cranking up a random insult generator and using it to substitue for rational thought.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

But just to re-iterate my point about lack of critical thinking skills:

"The article did not discuss having the mercenaries attack the pirate bases -- it was my understanding that the mercenaries would merely escort the merchant shipping. So this problem doesn't come up."

I know the article doesn't say this. But it does say, "Any disruption to the status quo can lead to unintended consequences" - I find the idea that paid for mercenaries who've been fired upon stopping at the territorial waters of X,Y or Z to be remarkably naive. (see my "random insult about critical thinking)...

And on that score...

"Any country which is unwilling to put down pirates in their own waters but is willing to attack those attempting to put down pirates in their own waters is sanctioning the pirates, and would therefore be choosing to go to war against the countries to whom the commercial shipping belonged"

Panama then? You are aware that regardless of the technical ownership of the shipping, most of the ships aren't actually registered under the country. The argument becomes protecting the nationals involved, many of whom aren't from "great powers" either.

So you've a scenario where you're getting the "great powers" navies to intervene to protect ships registered with flags of convenience with crews who aren't from the "great powers" either all to protect assets owned by organisations who have arranged their affairs this way to save themselves having to pay taxes and follow regulations from the governments of the very same powers that are being expected to solve the problem.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

"you got the article wrong"

So you think I missed the point, except Chris seems to have read it the same way I did...

Fair enough. Plus ce change and all that with you Jordan.

And, to be fair, there really is nothing random about the insults - I call them as I see them, and you really do repeat the same category errors over and over and have been since I first came across you on rassf.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

My point in linking to the article was more of a "life imitating art" statement than an assessment of the validity of the suggestion. Also, I think if you actually read the blog the article comes from, you'll find that the author wants to put US Marines ashore in Somalia, backed up by a Carrier Battle Group.

There are a number of problems with private militaries. In this case, the first risk is that the escort ship shoots up innocent fishing boats. The second risk is that these private militaries are much less likely to accept surrender.

The third risk, which is more of a long-term one, is of competing private militaries. There is a reason nations banned writs of Marquee and Reprisal. Lastly, now the government navies in the region have to figure out if that armed boat following a merchant is a pirate or a protector. "Friendly fire" isn't really that friendly.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I think that suppressing the pirates by means of US naval action would be a far better idea than suppressing them by means of mercenary groups. Having said that, if the Great Powers do not suppress the pirates, it is far better to arm the merchantmen or have them act as motherships for mercenary groups than it is to just keep letting the piracy continue unabated.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, pirates, like cockroaches, spread unless dealt with.

On the other hand, when shipping companies register their ships in countries like Panama and Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience#Extent_of_use) specifically to avoid US regulation, why exactly should US tax dollars and US blood be expended to protect them?

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The irony of this had not escaped me :)

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, when shipping companies register their ships in countries like Panama and Liberia specifically to avoid US regulation, why exactly should US tax dollars and US blood be expended to protect them?

Because, since the shipping companies are in fact American and in fact carry American commerce, if we allow the pirates to attack this shipping we will suffer the real-world economic, diplomatic, political and social consequences of allowing these attacks. Furthermore, the pirates are not going to restrict their attacks to merchants registered under flags of convenience: they are not operating under the assumption that it is ok to attack Panamanian or Liberian-registered ships but dangerous to attack ships of other registries.

The larger point you should consider is just why nobody wants to register their ships as American. Could it be that our regulatory burden is so onerous that it's impossible, or at least very difficult, to turn a profit operating American-flagged vessels? We've obviously priced ourselves out of the commercial shipping trade: the market is hinting that we need to relieve the regulatory burden.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Biting back random insult generation.... gah... too hard... must resist....

"We've obviously priced ourselves out of the commercial shipping trade: the market is hinting that we need to relieve the regulatory burden."

More Seriously. WTF? Do you ACTUALLY believe this crap?

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Yet, if an American citizen can't pay for health care, you don't want your tax dollars expended on his behalf. Funny how your mind works.

Considering how over half of all merchant shipping sails under flags of convenience, and most commerce to and from US ports doesn't transit the Indian Ocean, the threat to American shipping is actually quite small.

Regarding your "larger point" - do you really want to get in a race to the bottom with Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands for worker rights, wages and taxes? 40% of the world's tonnage flies under one of those flags.

If the world's shipping companies are "in fact American," then let them "in fact" pay American taxes. Or let them see how much help they can get out of the Panamanian Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamanian_Public_Forces).

[daveon.livejournal.com]

For me the real problem is the issue of item 3. There is a reason why most countries have formal police forces with defined powers rather than having private services with the power to arrest and detain.

As soon as you start taking people into custody you need to have an exit strategy for what you do with them, how you process them and how you handle the situation. Even if all you're doing is killing them on the spot.

There tend to be some "interesting" opportunities for market failure from private military and police operations, just as there were for fire services.