Minimum Publishable Unit (MPU)

Friday Funny - THINK Before You Name

2011-04-01T07:00:00.015-05:00

Actual sign on Interpretation By Design Site.

It is likely that I am just a little punch drunk from three and a half weeks with very little sleep, but I found a sign on the road between Mena and Hot Springs hilarious. We were driving to Little Rock last Sunday to have a short (~3 hours) visit with Eliza's birth-mother, and we saw a sign that said "Little Hope Baptist Church - 2 miles". First, I had to ask Kristy if she saw the same sign. Then, I just started laughing (prompting the "Please don't kill us over a sign." commentary from the passenger seat).

As it turns out, others have found the "Little Hope Baptist Church" sign humorous. I found a picture of the sign on another blog. What were the church planters thinking?

I should mention that it doesn't surprise me too much that a church would get named this if the largest "town" close to you is Pine Ridge, Arkansas (home of the famous Lum & Abner radio team). If you spent much time in Oden, Pine Ridge, or Pencil Bluff, you would probably think that you had little hope as well. It DOES surprise me that there other churches in the country named the same thing (Canton, Texas; Tuomsuba, Mississippi; Madera, California). I am certain that I can find others.

Am I delirious or does anyone else find this funny?

And Then There Were Four...

2011-03-23T09:35:00.002-05:00

Last Wednesday (March 16), we officially added one little girl to our family. Judge Bryan seemed like she needed a break from her shackled, crazy people and spent a few minutes in her chambers to sign "happy papers." Maybe it is just my overall tiredness, but I think Eliza looks a LOT like Sophie. Is it the cheeks, nose, or something else? Or do all babies look alike?

2 week old Eliza Kate and a very tired Russ.

10 day old Sophie Kristin and a very tired Russ.

By the way, Happy Birthday, Dad!

41 - A Really Sad & Scary Number

2011-02-05T13:30:00.005-06:00

41. You know the number right after 40 and right before 42. As someone that deals with numbers every day, I don't usually feel sad or depressed by one of them. However, a couple of weeks ago, I heard a news story that really hit me pretty hard by using the number 41. In New York City, the abortion rate is 41% according to the city health department. The number for black women is closer to 60%. What is going on in that city that 2 out of 5 (3 out of 5 for black women) pregnancies end in death?

Don't get me wrong. I am not about changing laws, but I am concerned about what it is says about our overall societal well-being. Somehow, we need to figure out how to provide a different message to the women making these decisions. For some reason, they believe that the best plan for their future involves sacrificing the life of an innocent. Our churches (actually the individual Christians inside and out of those buildings) need to provide better hope and answers that don't come from changing laws or Supreme Court decisions.

Adoption is a WONDERFUL thing. I have a great brother (Lee) because of adoption. My daughter, Sophie, is a blessing every day. We have seen Chloe brighten up Walt & Annie's life. Esther has made Josh & Margo goofy parents just like Kristy and me. We are hoping and praying that little Eliza Kate will become our daughter in the next couple of weeks. This is the sort of message that we need to put out to women that are facing difficult decisions.

Newly hatched Sophie and a very tired Russ.

Anyway, I just had to get that off of my chest because it is not often that a number makes my eyes watery.

Vaccination Scares and Other Nonsense

2011-01-13T21:15:00.000-06:00

In 1998, a research paper in the journal Lancet entitled "Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" linked the standard vaccine for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) to a new type of disorder in the autism spectrum. The news media (in typical fashion) produced headlines and parents everywhere were scared to vaccinate their children against diseases that could cripple or kill them. I have had friends and family members talk about allowing others to carry the societal burden for immunization (that is, depend on herd immunity) based on this study and others that rely on it for their foundation.

So, how many of you have now seen the news media in any form trumpet headlines that the FULL paper has been retracted? Everything in the article is "scrubbed" from scientific literature. That means if you cited the paper in your paper for support, it is likely that your paper will be scrutinized next. The good thing is that no one was EVER able to reproduce the results of Wakefield's study. Here is a damning quote by the BMJ (British Medical Journal):

Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare.

So, what's the big deal? Well, when we allow JUNK SCIENCE to dominate the headlines and then put retractions as footnotes on the back page, the public has a FALSE image that vaccinations are dangerous. Vaccinations have wiped small pox from the earth, made polio a rarity, and saved millions of lives from other deadly diseases. The real truth is that the original paper should never have been published. The main author (Andrew Wakefield) failed to disclose a couple of small conflicts of interests like the fact that he was hired by a law firm to produce evidence against the multiple disease shot and that he studied children from anti-vaccine groups instead of those from a randomly drawn sample (Guardian article with more details).

The American has more details of the whole issue. It is a good read on why you should NOT rely on herd immunity. Here is the sub-head from the article.

The campaign against the most valuable medical technologies ever invented is based on junk science.

Brian Deer has worked for 13 years to kill this whole scam. Here is the full story:

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed.

So, if you are on the fence about vaccinations, don't give it a second thought. Herd immunity is a good theory until REALITY hits and your child is sick with something that could have been prevented by a small needle.

BTW, stuff likes this vaccine fraud finally being put to rest will probably bring me back to blogging now that ~~Global Warming~~ (no, I mean) ~~Climate Change~~ (sorry again, I meant) ~~Global Climate Disruption~~ (well, what I really meant was) Climate Challenges advocates have "almost" lost the argument. I say almost because they will remain around until the paradigm shift works through academia over the next 20 years.

How does this attract >30,000 viewers?

2010-12-08T21:00:00.006-06:00

I haven't posted in a while. That is a long story mostly associated with organizing a workshop that requires getting personnel from the Department of Defense and its contractors together with people from Department of Energy National Laboratories. That is a full month long series of posts that will NEVER see the light of day. I like my job too much.

In any case, Kristy posted this video on You Tube about 3.5 years ago. Since that time, it has been viewed over 32,000 times.

Can someone please let me know how this is possible? If you are interested in WHY Kristy posted it in the first place, here is that blog post.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #9

2010-10-01T21:30:00.039-05:00

This post is the final post in a series that I have written about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. I can almost hear the cheering out there and being finished with this series makes me happy too. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Looking Ahead: Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons" chapter of the NPR. The last "standard disclaimer": I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

For the most part, this chapter reiterates much of what was written earlier in the report. However, in the last bullet of page 47, I read "... and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide." As I came to the end of the document, I was forced to admit that some of the short range plans outlined in the NPR were reasonable. This long range goal is laudable but entirely unreasonable. A world without nuclear weapons is a world in which we no longer have knowledge of how nuclear physics works. The physics greats that proved that nuclear energy and weapons were possible (Fermi, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Szilard, Wigner, and many others) knew that this genie could NEVER be put back into the bottle. In fact, most of them knew this shortly after fission was discovered in 1938 by Hahn and Strassman.

Thus, the Obama administration is either advocating for a new Dark Ages or Utopia. Both of these states are unrealistic. The Dark Ages approach is suicidal for the U.S. The Utopian view is a dream that only the immature indulge with "hopes" for "change."

As I conclude this series of posts, I want to recommend a few books that confront the issue of the existence of nuclear weapons with clarity and realistic assessments:

"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes
"Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" by Richard Rhodes
"Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race" by Richard Rhodes
"The Twilight of the Bombs: Recent Challenges, New Dangers, and Prospects for a World Without Nuclear Weapons" by Richard Rhodes

I don't always agree with Rhodes' conclusions about the necessity of the nuclear weapon stockpile, but he writes compelling history of this topic that will probably always be part of the lives of U.S. citizens.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #8

2010-09-28T21:30:00.002-05:00

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with both the "Strengthening Regional Deterrence and Reassuring U.S. Allies and Partners" and "Sustaining a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Arsenal" chapters of the NPR. Standard disclaimer: I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

The "Strengthening Regional..." chapter (pages 31-36) did not cause me much difficulty or tension as I read it. I did get "worried" in this chapter when the administration claims that, "we will work closely with our allies." I have seen too much arrogance (?), contempt (?), or something else from Obama toward our traditional allies like the United Kingdom and Israel to believe that there is much behind the words.

The "Sustaining a Safe..." chapter (pages 37-44) is essentially a three decade look ahead put out by the administration. In this look ahead, the NPR realizes that every stockpile weapon will require some degree of technical attention. Until a few months ago when the administration released the number of weapons in our stockpile, the specific number and type of warheads were classified (Secret Restricted Data - Sigma 5). The administration did not release the type of warheads, so I will assume that the information is still classified. The "transparency" with respect to classified information really chaps me. I am not claiming that the President didn't have the authority to release the information (both the President and Vice President have this power), but I do not believe that it is smart to start revealing this type of data.

Continuing with the chapter, on page 39, the administration details a plan that we will not produce any new warheads. Instead, we will continue our practice of Life Extension Programs (LEP). In addition, the administration has declared that we will have no new designs of nuclear components, no new missions for nuclear weapons, and no new capabilities in the nuclear stockpile. I don't like the outlook here, but this is consistent with maintaining the stockpile for defensive purposes only. One positive that comes out of this section is that all options (the refurbishment of current weapons, the reuse of nuclear components for different warheads, and the replacement of nuclear components for different warheards) are on the table for future LEPs. However, a strong preference for refurbishment and/or reuse was voiced in this NPR.

There is a section starting on page 40 called "Critical Infrastructure and Human Capital." The irony of this section is that you need highly educated, trained, and experience personnel to maintain the nuclear stockpile while these needed scientists/engineers are not going to be interested in the fact that the NNSA has declared that we will do nothing new. You don't spend most of your life training for an R&D job, and then decide you are going to work as a "caretaker" for someone else's project. The goal of no new design work and maintaining capabilities work against each other. On a very personal note, pages 40-41 are basically a job security outline for me.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #7

2010-09-25T21:30:00.005-05:00

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Maintaining Strategic Deterrence and Stability at Reduced Nuclear Force Levels" chapter of the NPR. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

This chapter seems to be about leaving a legacy for President Obama. The administration is outlining its plan for a START treaty that will limit the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia. Amazingly, China is omitted from these treaty discussions. Getting into the details on the planned New START reduction, there is a statement on page 22 that I simply do not understand, "Single-warhead ICBMs contribute to stability ..." This statement is followed up with the "DeMIRVed" ICBM force. Someone in the State Department believes that de-MIRVing reduces the incentive to strike first. This is a silly statement because the U.S. has maintained for as long as I have been alive that our ICBM capabilities are strictly a deterrent capability.

This chapter continues to support the idea of a nuclear triad which a positive. In addition, I found a lot of positives in seeking to be able to move treaty allowed weapons and delivery platforms as long as the flexibility to move them back to the original platform is maintained. The current alert posture for our nuclear forces is maintained (page 25) and I see this as a step forward.

On page 25, we find that we will maintain our policy of "Open Ocean Targeting" of our strategic weapons. I think that this policy is a meaningless exercise, but it does maintain the appearance of good faith in strategic deterrence. Also on page 25, we find that we will seek to "Maximize the decision time for the President." This is really silly because the President has the sole authority for the release of a nuclear weapon, so he can take all the time he needs.

Moving to non-strategic weapons (pages 27-28), I am encouraged by the decision to do a full scope life extension program (LEP) for the B-61, but I think the retirement of the sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N) is a bad decision. This decision assumes that bombers with B-61 or air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM-N) overlap the TLAM-N capability.

On page 30, I find a lot in the goals of the Stockpile Stewardship Program that is good. However, it will require significant $$$$ to actually perform the tasks and complete the goals. In reality, the true method of reducing the number of non-deployed weapons is TESTING. Resumption of testing is NOT going to happen until the Directors at the NNSA national laboratories (Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore) will not sign the annual assurance letter to the President. In my opinion, this action is well into the future.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #6

2010-09-22T21:30:00.001-05:00

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons" chapter of the NPR. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

I have mentioned it before but this chapter is the one in which the Obama administration details that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against any nation that is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This stance is taken even if we are attacked by Chemical and/or Biological Weapons (CBW). Here is a re-publish of my original take on this:

...the U.S. gave up its chemical and biological weapons by treaty a long time ago, so we can't retaliate "tit for tat" with this type of weapon. The research that we do in this area is limited to the development of protective suits for our soldiers and the development of agents to deactivate or decontaminate the chem-bio agents. In the past, we have used the unknown and ambiguous nature of our response to these types of attacks against us as a deterrent. We are now proclaiming that, as long as you are in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons even if you choose to attack us with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. I can't believe that I am the only one that thinks this is completely asinine and stupid.
Our soldiers went into Kuwait to expel Iraqi forces during the Gulf War wearing chem-bio protection because every one in the world KNEW that Saddam Hussein had those weapons. Was he hesitant to use them because he was a great humanitarian? We know that the answer to that is "NO!" because he attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq (his own people) with them in 1988. I think that he did not want his Presidential palace illuminated with a W80 warhead mounted on the front end of a Tomahawk cruise missile. If he had chosen to use these WMDs, he knew that was one of our possible responses. With this new NPR, he would not have had those fears.

As I went through this, I realized I have discussed this chapter in depth (basically in posts #1 and #2). To conclude my thoughts on this chapter, it seems that the entire section is devoted to demonstrating how "nice" the U.S. wants to be. This does nothing except project weakness around the world. It also makes increasingly cheaper and deadlier biological weapons MORE likely. Countries will be very sure that they are in compliance with all aspects of the NPT when they decide to use Chem-Bio Weapons against the U.S.

Nuclear Posture Report Review - Post #5

2010-09-20T21:30:00.004-05:00

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism" chapter of the NPR. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

As I continued to read through this document, I found that I am getting more increasingly frustrated at the tone of the Obama administration. Am I the only person that thinks that this administration uses the phrase, "For the first time" more than is reasonable? As you finish the 1st paragraph of the chapter (page 9), you will see the claim that we have placed non-proliferation and preventing nuclear terrorism at the top of our list of things to do "for the first time." While the priority may not have appeared explicitly in the previous NPRs, it is ridiculous to say that we have not placed the highest priority on securing loose nukes and nuclear materials since the fall of the Soviet Union. We have even worked with the Russian Federation to do just that since the early 1990's.

On page 10, there is the statement that we are "identifying and prosecuting its [international terror] networks and establishing international standards and best practices." I circled the sentence and wrote one word, "HA!" This section gave me a chuckle because the Obama administration still believes that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement activity. This is one of the flaws that the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report. The terrorists are at war with us and some still think that it is a matter of identifying and prosecuting crime.

On page 11 (second bullet), we find that the U.S. hosted a "Nuclear Security Summit" in April 2010. That is typical of the Obama administration:

Get together
Talk for a day or two
Declare agreement
Praise the work done.

If you remember, Israel refused to attend because of the implications of the pre-determined outcome. There was a lot of positive press coverage over this nothing Summit, but the "agreement" reached will have no lasting impact on international non-proliferation activities.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this chapter is found on page 12 (second bullet), where the NPR declares that we will strengthen our nuclear forensics efforts. In some circles, this activity is referred to as attribution. This is a give-up statement that declares "What we are going to do is going to fail, but we will be able to identify those responsible for nuking us." That scares the hell out of me.

The 3rd bullet on page 12 is ironic to me. It states that we will hold fully accountable any ... that helps nuclear activities against the U.S. However, we state previously in the NPR, that have taken nuclear weapons off the table for those that are in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It seems to me that a country could aid terrorists in attacking us with nuclear and/or radiological weapons while maintaining compliance with the NPT.

On page 13 (first bullet), we find that the Obama administration is going to pursue another failed Clinton administration policy, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In addition, the administration is going to try to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). The details of these two treaties are not fleshed out enough right now to outline my specific objections. However, with the track record we have of Obama so far, I doubt that U.S. interests will be protected by this administration in the negotiations of these treaties.

The final comment that I have deals with the final bullet in this chapter. The progress toward a "world free of nuclear weapons" mentioned there is incredibly NAIVE unless we are talking about developing technology that can and will be used even if the U.S. maintains a nuclear stockpile.

Just a few more of these posts left...

"A Most Wanted Man" Review

2010-08-26T20:30:00.005-05:00

Title: "A Most Wanted Man"
Author: John Le Carre
Finished: August 25, 2010
Synopsis: A young Muslim Chechen, Issa, arrives in Germany illegally after escaping from both Sweden and Russia. He befriends a Turkish family and obtains an idealistic young human rights lawyer. Issa is not entirely what he seems because he has large inheritance waiting for him in a private German bank. The intrigue surrounding him brings all parties into an old fashioned spy game mixed with the war on terror.
Impression of the book: It is pretty clear that Le Carre is trying to make a statement on the American war on terror. He ends up telling the story that makes it difficult to determine the good from the bad. A liberal will probably read the book picturing the "spies" as bad guys while viewing Issa as a misguided victim. I read the book thinking of Issa as a fugitive from the law, so his situation did not really tug at my heart strings. Le Carre has written a story that allows for a lot of interpretation, and he does it in very compelling way.
Read Again Scale: 3

I enjoyed this book a great deal, but it is not the kind of book that I typically read again. This is especially true if I am able to use the "Read & Return" option from the Paradies Shops in the airport.

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 7

If I encounter same situation while traveling, I would be willing to read Le Carre again. However, I won't search him out at the library.

This book was an airport impulse buy. Fortunately, I finished a book that was intended to last me an entire road trip, and I found this book to be a pretty good replacement. Le Carre takes a dim view of the war on terror but writes his characters with enough depth that you can understand motives on both sides. If you like spy/mystery novels, this one is a very good one. You will probably enjoy it.

"The Bone Garden" Review

2010-08-18T20:30:00.001-05:00

Title: "The Bone Garden"
Author: Tess Gerritsen
Finished: August 18, 2010
Synopsis: As with the previous reviews of Gerritsen books, the synopsis is probably best handled by linking to Gerritsen's webpage.
Impression of the book: This book was much different than the typical Gerritsen novel. The suspense and gruesomeness are suppressed to some degree by the knowledge that the murder in question takes place about a hundred years earlier and the killer is not out there stalking today. I enjoyed reading this one a bunch.
Read Again Scale: 7

Unlike the previous four Gerritsen novels, I would re-read this one if I happen across it in the library. The other Gerritsen novels were "definite maybe" re-reads.

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 10

Since I am reviewing a 5th book by this author, you have a pretty good idea that I will read her work again.

Tess Gerritsen shows a lot more range to her writing in this book. She weaves historical fiction with a modern day story. The flashbacks that reveal the story that she is telling do not distract from the present day adventure that the main character is going through. For you "Rizzoli & Isles" fans, Maura Isles is a very small character in this one, but Rizzoli doesn't even make an appearance. So, don't pick this one up thinking that you are getting an installment of that dynamic duo.

The Bone Garden brings the modern reader into a time when "Resurrectionists" delivered cadavers to medical schools. I think that many will find it offensive that early medical schools resorted to paying these grave robbers OR looked the other way as their students obtained their own gross anatomy specimens. It also shows us that, once doctors started WASHING THEIR HANDS between patients, the epidemics of some diseases (such as puerperal fever) were vastly reduced in scope. Wow, what a difference a hundred years makes!

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #4

2010-08-14T10:00:00.001-05:00

This post is part of a series that I continue to write about the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. Once again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

In the first 3 posts, we dealt with the Executive Summary (Post #1 and Post #2) and the Introduction (Post #3). I am going to dissect the "The Changed - and Changing - Nuclear Security Environment" chapter during this post. I found that I was actually able to read a couple of pages (page 3-4) without too much consternation. This situation quickly deteriorated as I read about the United States relationship with China.

On page 5 (2nd paragraph), I was sickened by the fact that, "The United States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater global role in supporting international rules, norms, and institutions." This, in and of itself, is a mockery of what I know about the PRC with respect to human rights, monetary policy, etc. However, the Obama administration CANNOT resist this welcome. It is ironic that in the very next paragraph (3rd paragraph) the administration notes that the very same China lacks transparency with regard to its nuclear arsenal. It also notes a lack of transparency with respect to its pace and scope of the modernization of its arsenal "as well as the strategy and doctrine guiding them." This administration, like many others (including the GWB administration), does not recognize the threat of a strong, prosperous China. It seems that the billion+ people economic market is the driving influence of too many of the policy makers. These wonks should spend more time worrying about their responsibilities to the 300+ million Americans on this end of their policies.

Moving on to the "Adapting to a Changed Security Environment" section, I see that once again the modification of the United States nuclear weapons policies and force posture "have not gone far or fast enough." The next sentence is, "As the President has said, we have to 'put an end to Cold War thinking.'" My notes on this section are particularly biting. Here is the transcription from my notes, "THANK GOD we have the 'The ONE' here to show us the way." For those that don't know me that well, that is definitely sarcasm.

As the report continues to bullet list the changes to the U.S. nuclear posture, I made a note on the last bullet on page 5 that reads in full:

"The United States has reduced our reliance on nuclear weapons as Cold War nuclear rivalries have eased and as our conventional military forces and missile defense capabilities have strengthened, but we have sent mixed signals about the importance we place on nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."

I noted that we have sent mixed signals in the past because previous administrations have recognized that "ambiguity about U.S. nuclear weapons policy is a good thing. It prevents our enemies/potential enemies from feeling too comfortable about how we will respond to acts of overt and covert aggression." However, the NPR seems to imply that this ambiguity is not what we want and then moves forward to remove that ambiguity. As I find later in my reading, this is a particularly bad outcome.

In the "Implications for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policies and Force Structure" section, I have one word for the first bullet on page 7 -- RIDICULOUS. The way in which we choose to use nuclear weapons in foreign policy and/or force projection and the number that we have, will have absolutely no impact on countries in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and will have even less impact on regimes in Iran and North Korea OR with terrorist groups intent on obtaining a weapon.

My final note in this chapter of the NPR is related to the last bullet on page 7. The note reads, "Thus far (in my reading of the document) I think that this NPR does exactly the opposite of this statement." This bullet is where the administration claims that implementing the policies in the NPR will reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapon use. After several months from the release of this document, I still feel the same way about this bullet.

The next post in this series will address the "Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism" chapter of the NPR. Hopefully, the final 4-5 posts in the series won't have the long time gap between publication.

"Head Games: Football's Concussion Crisis" Review

2010-06-11T20:00:00.017-05:00

Title: "Head Games: Football's Concussion Crisis"
Author: Christopher Nowinski
Finished: November 4, 2009
Synopsis: This book is a mixture of many things: autobiography, lessons learned, advocacy, etc. Nowinski tells the story of his battle with multiple concussions and warns football players, families, and coaches of the danger of not taking concussions seriously.
Impression of the book: I was impressed with Nowinski (Harvard football player turned professional wrestler) and his ability to tell a really sad story that continues to wreak havoc in his life. I closed the book feeling both sad for him and fortunate that I walked away from football mostly unscathed.
Read Again Scale: 6

I was suckered by the display at the Fayetteville Public Library. This is one time that I am not sorry about it.

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 5

A definite maybe on this score. I think it would entirely depend on the subject.

Nowinski tells a story that is perhaps familiar to many that have played high school and/or college football. He has multiple instances of getting dinged, having his bell rung, etc. What football players, coaches, and professional wrestlers don't realize is that each of those cultural phases for going loopy after hit are basically the recognition of the symptoms of a concussion (without actually saying concussion). I had ONE pretty serious concussion as a high football player, but thinking back on my career, it is likely that I had multiple "minor" concussions that never took me out of the action.

This book caused me a lot of consternation, but it also confirmed a lot of my beliefs about youth football. I am one that believes that tackle football at ages less than middle school/junior high is counterproductive. First, there is such a great disparity in body size at young ages that there is an inherent problem of the smaller players quitting (or never starting) because of the size mismatch with larger kids. Second, there is nothing that is taught or learned at those young ages that is neglected in higher levels of football. Finally and probably most importantly, the coaches of these Pop Warner or Pee Wee leagues don't have the training to recognize the signs of head injury. For that matter, neither do some high school or college coaches if we are to believer the reports from Texas Tech last season.

I think that every youth, junior high, and high school football coach should read this book. I think that coaches care about their players. Living with the fact that they could have prevented an injury (or death) of a player would be extremely difficult. I also recommend this book to anyone involved with high school athletics. Finally, I would recommend that high school coaches associations around the country bring in neurologists or other doctors to train/inform coaches on the dangers of head injuries for adolescents. Emphasizing the dangers might reign back some of the cavalier attitude toward head injuries that can be seen on almost any Friday night during football season.

"Children of Dune" Review

2010-06-09T20:00:00.008-05:00

Title: "Children of Dune"
Author: Frank Herbert
Finished: April 17, 2009
Synopsis: This book is the 3rd book in the original "Dune Chronicles" by Frank Herbert. A pretty good synopsis is found here.
Impression of the book: This book brings closure to many of the issues raised in the first two novels. Leto (son of the emperor who was both worshiped and hated) brings about a more complete transformation of society than even his father managed, but he pays a terrible price.
Read Again Scale:10

Like "Dune" this book is also on my five year re-read list.

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 10

As I mentioned in the "Dune Messiah" review, Frank Herbert is one of greats of science fiction. Eventually, I plan to read every novel that he wrote.

This book shows how the twin children of an emperor (who was elevated to messiah status) deal with the problems he left behind. The twins must negotiate assassination plots, family politics, and a crumbling religion based on their father. AND they have to do all this before they turn 10. The end of this novel is closure for the first "trilogy" in the Dune Chronicles, and it is likely that Herbert intended to end his story here. I enjoyed the follow-on novels, but the ~5 years between this book and the next one tells me that Herbert was persuaded to expand his universe rather than planning it. As I wrote during the Dune and Dune Messiah reviews, if you are a science fiction fan (or thinking of giving the genre a try), the Dune universe created by Frank Herbert is a good place to dive into. If you enjoy the world that he creates, you might try the other books written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. Again, I will warn you that if you don't enjoy sci-fi, take a pass on this book and series.

"The Hobbit" Review

2010-06-07T19:45:00.002-05:00

Title: "The Hobbit"
Author: J. R. R. Tolkien
Finished: April 10, 2010
Synopsis: Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, "signs on" for an adventure as the burglar for a group of dwarves. Gandalf plays a large role in his recruitment for this task. Along the way to reclaim the dwarf treasure, they run into many strange creatures, close calls, and exciting new acquaintances. By the way, during all this adventure Bilbo stumbles across THE Ring of Power made and obsessed about by Sauron, the Dark Lord of Mordor. Bilbo is able to use it to become invisible and help the company in many ways during the trek to the Lonely Mountain.
Impression of the book: I first read this book as a middle school student. Middle Earth was (and still is) a great escape from wherever I am. I love this book, and I think Tolkien is one of the best storytellers of the 20th century.
Read Again Scale: 10

I first read this book in middle school. I like to pick it up every so often.

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 10

I have read and re-read "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Simarillion."

This short novel is a small part of the backstory that launches "The Lord of the Rings" epic. I have always liked the story of how Bilbo stumbles across the ring. Bilbo thinks it is just a useful trinket, but eventually he finds it very difficult to part with it. This story contains a lot more fantasy and young reader stuff than the LOTR follow-up. I enjoyed it as a middle school reader, and I still like it as an adult. After the publication of LOTR, Tolkien "cleaned up" some of the details of the finding of the ring, but the essence of the story didn't change. Tolkien knows how to tell a story. He was also brave enough to take the amount of words necessary to tell a great story. If you like classic fantasy literature or want to give it a try, "The Hobbit" is a great place to start. If my voice would hold out (and she would patronize me), I will start reading this book with Sophie when she reaches middle school.

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #3

2010-06-05T23:00:00.000-05:00

I am finally ready to write a little bit more on the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. This post will deal with the "Introduction" chapter of the NPR. Again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

As I read the introduction (page 1), I was struck that NNSA national laboratories (Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore) were left out of the discussion. If true, it seems that a lot of brain power was left out. However, since reading the NPR, I have heard statements from NNSA lab directors affirming that the labs were consulted as the DoD and the administration moved forward on the document. I am not sure that they were heard or understood, but they were "consulted".

Continuing on to page 2, I can't help but notice that the 2010 NPR is trying to tie the hands of future Presidents and Congresses. Some of the policies that are outlined in the document would be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. In any case, there are five key objectives of the U.S. nuclear weapons policy and posture listed on this page. I will quote the objectives and then give you my stream-of-consciousness response as written in my notes on the document.

Objective #1: "Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism."

I agree that at this time in history this should be have the highest priority.

Objective #2: "Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy."

I disagree with this for a host of reasons. Foremost, even if we were going to do this, why are we telling the world about it.

Objective #3: "Maintaining regional deterrence and stability at lower nuclear force levels."

Probably can be done at the tactical level. It is also possible at the strategic level, but both depend ENTIRELY on implementation.

Objective #4: "Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners."

We must do this, but I don't think many of our "friends" believe us right now (e.g., England and Israel).

Objective #5: "Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal."

I agree with this, but the success of this (again!!) depends ENTIRELY on implementation.

Taken our of context, each of these objectives seems entirely reasonable even though I may disagree with the reasoning. The problem is that we cannot take them out of the context in which we are allowing Iran and North Korea (and possibly others) to pursue nuclear ambitions, committing the fortunes of our grandchildren to keep government union members employed, and blaming the previous President for every thing that goes wrong 2 years after he left office.

Basically, each objective has a chapter dedicated to it, so I will leave my stream of consciousness critiques and address the details of the policies in future posts. So, that's it for the Introduction. I must say that I was disappointed but not surprised by this document. Hopefully, in the next few weeks, I will outline (in coherent fashion) why this document concerns me a great deal.

Vote for Pedro!

2010-06-02T20:00:00.005-05:00

For the fans/haters of Napoleon Dynamite out there, you know that this is the battle call to get out the vote for your favorite cause. For the next few days (15 to be exact), I am going to Parents Connect to nominate Kristy's blog (Tales from the Krit) for the 2010 Best Parenting Blog. You can join me there to vote once per day.

You can click on the badge in the top left sidebar of this blog, and it will take to her picture which will be highlighted in yellow. On your first visit to the site, you will have to register. After that, you simply vote each day.

The Parents Connect website claims that Kristy's blog is one of the "up-and-comers" in the blogging world and I really believe that. She held her own against some really BIG blogs in the 2008 Weblog Awards. Since then, her writing has only gotten better. Back then, I nominated her for the Weblog Award with the comment that "Sophie provides the material and Kristy makes it hilarious."

Even if you aren't going to be rocking the vote on Parents Connect, I do suggest subscribing to Kristy's feed with your favorite feed reader (click here to subscribe). It is an easy way to get her latest posts. Don't forget to comment on her posts. She LOVES that!

"Moneyball" Review

2010-05-11T22:45:00.002-05:00

Title: "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game"
Author: Michael Lewis
Finished: May 11, 2010
Synopsis: Michael Lewis goes behind the scenes of the Oakland A's to find out how they are able to compete with teams willing to spend 3-4 times more money.
Impression of the book: I love this book. It takes a look at what most people "know" about baseball and reveals that they might know things that simply are not true. My interests in professional baseball has waned over the years, but this book rekindles that interest every time I read it.
Read Again Scale: 10

I think that I pick this book up about every 2 years (usually during baseball season).

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 6

It would very much depend on the subject. I think the the story carries itself.

When I first read this book, it challenged a lot of the things about baseball that I took for granted. Is bunting sound strategy? What about stealing bases? I always believed so, but now I am less convinced. The book delves into the oddity and phenomenon that is Bill James's writing. After reading this book I am always left pondering, "Do other sports have these hidden statistics that can make a team using them more efficient at spending their money?" I am certain that football strategy (particularly with regard to 4th down) can be re-thought to maximize a team's chance of success, but I am less certain that those other sports miss players that would succeed at the highest level (as baseball appears to do).

If you like baseball to any degree, give this book a read. If you don't like baseball, you may like the story anyway. This is one book that I recommend to anyone.

Quick Hits - Aftermath of Climate Gate

2010-04-23T07:30:00.006-05:00

Missing Heat Update
Some of you may recall that I commented on NCAR looking for "missing heat" almost two years ago. Here is a link to that post. Kevin Trenberth and his buddies are still worried about this fictitious heat. Roger Pielke, Sr., a leading climate expert (to me that means he doesn't rely on computer models), dissects the real issues with Trenberth et al at Watts Up With That. Here was my original explanation and my views haven't changed in the last two years (this was one of Kristy's favorite):

"Here is my final explanation for the location of the missing heat. It is in the same place where you guys keep the $20+ billion dollars of hard earned taxes spent on the AGW modeling boondoggle. Vanished, like the proverbial fart in the wind."

Global Warming Now Causes Volcanoes
Well, that is essentially the conclusion in this news article. Is there anything that doesn't cause or result from global warming? Well, apparently not.

"Now that's funny. I don't care who you are." -- Larry the Cable Guy

Really Quick Hits
How much has your state "warmed" in the 104 year climate record? You can find out at Watts Up With That.

Arkansas has COOLED by 0.2 degrees (you couldn't detect this in a room in which you were sitting) during all this global warming.

Once again, Watts Up With That tells you about the final nails in the coffin on the famous hockey stick graph.

This is the graph that Al Gore uses to scare school children, and once again, we find it to be a total fiction.

Well, that clears out my feed reader of climate stories. The bad science is still out there, but "Junk Science" has even moved the global warming stuff to the back burner. The editor there believes that Climategate was the final bell tolling for the flawed science of AGW.

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #2

2010-04-21T23:30:00.009-05:00

As I mentioned a week or so ago, I reviewed the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here. I finally finished the entire 72-page document. This post will deal with the second half of the executive summary. Again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

I stopped the previous post at the section entitled "Strengthening Regional Deterrence and Reassuring U.S. Allies and Partners" in the Executive Summary. Believe it or not, I went almost a page and a half before finding a major issue that I don't really agree with or understand. On page xiii, we have this item in the list of things that are concluded that the U.S. will do:

"Retire the nuclear-equipped sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N)."

Although the air-launch cruise missile is not removed from the current stockpile by the NPR, this particular item causes me some heartburn. It removes an element of our capability to project force. Here is what I mean. Imagine that Iran knows that we are no longer be able to station nuclear equipped surface ships or submarines just off their coast or in the Strait of Hormuz. This means our stealthy attack submarines or very visible surface ships do not present as big a deterrent to their nuclear (or other) ambitions. To attack them tactically (I don't think strategic systems make sense in this discussion), we would be forced to fly bombers halfway across the world (risking the crew and aircraft) rather than having the force ready and able on their doorstep.

Now, it could very well be that I don't understand the complete context in which this decision is being made. However, I don't see how this particular decision does what the title of the section implies. It does not strengthen regional deterrence and it doesn't reassure our allies and partners. In my view, it weakens both of these things. The very next bullet in the section declares that "no changes ... will be made without close consultations with our allies and partners." I am not sure that our allies and partners will believe that based on the decision in the previous bullet. I know that I wouldn't.

As I continued on to the "Sustaining a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Arsenal" section, I question the decision not to develop new designs (page xiv, bullet 2). I will address this in a future post. To be completely fair, the final two bullets on page xiv seem reasonable. These items do move the ball forward in assuring that we have a safe and reliable stockpile. On a personal note, those items provide some job security for me.

The first full sentence of page xv restates something that my colleagues and I have said many times:

"As the United States reduces the numbers of nuclear weapons, the reliability of the remaining weapons in the stockpile -- and the quality of the facilities needed to sustain it -- become more important."

Basically, each one becomes more valuable and it is more important that we and our adversaries know that they will function if that nightmare need arises. This section of the Executive Summary seems to be more in line with the traditional outlook for our stockpile stewardship program. I found little to quibble with in the section overall excepting (of course) the no new design policy.

My only note on the concluding section of the Executive Summary ("Looking Ahead: Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons") is that the outlook presented is incredibly naive. I will spend some time defining my view of this in the post relating to that chapter of the NPR. The second half of the Executive Summary did not reek havoc with my emotional state (and blood pressure) like the first half did. However, I still believe that the worldview that produced the document leads to dangerous unintended consequences.

"Dune Messiah" Review

2010-04-19T22:45:00.002-05:00

Title: "Dune Messiah"
Author: Frank Herbert
Finished: January 31, 2009
Synopsis: This book is the 2nd book in the original "Dune Chronicles" by Frank Herbert. A pretty good synopsis is found here.
Impression of the book: Of the six Dune books written by Frank Herbert, this one is the shortest and maybe the most disturbing. It deals with the elevation of a ruler to Messiah or god-like status. Paul struggles with what his followers (both political and religious) are doing in his name and his inability to stop them even with his tremendous powers. The book deals with the dangers of religion and politics riding in the same boat. It also demonstrates that sometimes these political-religious movements depend more on a figurehead than a true leader.
Read Again Scale: 10

Like "Dune" this book is also on my five year re-read list.

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 10

Frank Herbert is one of greats of science fiction. Eventually, I plan to read every novel that he wrote.

Even though this is the second novel in the series, it is the last book that I read. That is a long story. This is an excellent bridge between Dune and Children of Dune, but does not stand out as a singular encapsulated story. It does however introduce new concepts such as the pitfalls of absolute prediction (perfect prescience) and the intrigue that surrounds an emperor with no heir. If you are a science fiction fan (or thinking of giving the genre a try), the Dune universe created by Frank Herbert is a good place to dive into. If you enjoy the world that he creates, you might try the other books written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. Again, I will warn you that if you don't enjoy sci-fi, take a pass on this book and series.

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #1

2010-04-10T16:30:00.006-05:00

A couple of days ago the Obama administration released the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report. In the past (the last two were 1994 and 2001), this sort of report had an unclassified portion released to the public with a classified appendix for those who had a need to know. All indications with this NPR point to the fact that the entire NPR is likely contained in this unclassified 72-page document that you can download here. At this time, I have read through the Table of Contents and the first 11 pages of the "Executive Summary."

Before I start commenting on what I believe is thoroughly misguided and naive NPR, I need to add a disclaimer. I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen. Now, on with the show...

It is not often that I get choked up while reading the Table of Contents, but this NPR is a real page-turner. The last chapter of the report is entitled, "Looking Ahead: Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons." This stopped me for a bit because, while this is a noble goal, it is an incredibly naive. It is also dangerous to think the that the United States will be able to bring this about through the nuclear posture that is outlined and detailed later in the document. By the way, I was fine with the rest of the Table of Contents, so you can't say that I disagree with Obama on EVERYTHING in this document.

I don't start having real problems with the document until page viii (page 14 in the pdf). Here are some excerpts that I would like to discuss further:

"... the role of U.S.nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks – conventional, biological, or chemical – has declined significantly. The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks."
"To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing “negative security assurance” by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."
"This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime."

In case you don't understand the context, the U.S. gave up its chemical and biological weapons by treaty a long time ago, so we can't retaliate "tit for tat" with this type of weapon. The research that we do in this area is limited to the development of protective suits for our soldiers and the development of agents to deactivate or decontaminate the chem-bio agents. In the past, we have used the unknown and ambiguous nature of our response to these types of attacks against us as a deterrent. We are now proclaiming that, as long as you are in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons even if you choose to attack us with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. I can't believe that I am the only one that thinks this is completely asinine and stupid.

Our soldiers went into Kuwait to expel Iraqi forces during the Gulf War wearing chem-bio protection because every one in the world KNEW that Saddam Hussein had those weapons. Was he hesitant to use them because he was a great humanitarian? We know that the answer to that is "NO!" because he attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq (his own people) with them in 1988. I think that he did not want his Presidential palace illuminated with a W80 warhead mounted on the front end of a Tomahawk cruise missile. If had chosen to use these WMDs, he knew that was one of our possible responses. With this new NPR, he would not have had those fears.

My next piece of heartburn with the NPR shows up on page ix (page 15 of the pdf). If you search for the second bullet on the page, we will find:

"The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners." (emphasis added)

I know there are those of you who wonder why I would have trouble with this statement. Well, it is not the statement. It is that I simply don't trust that Obama and his administration have the same vital interests as the rest of the American people (e.g., the Health Care legislation) or our allies (e.g., snubs of the Brits and the Israelis over the last 15 months).

Now, my final bone of contention in the first 11 pages of the Executive Summary is found on page xi (page 17 in pdf):

"First, any future nuclear reductions must continue to strengthen deterrence of potential regional adversaries, strategic stability vis-à-vis Russia and China, and assurance of our allies and partners. This will require an updated assessment of deterrence requirements; further improvements in U.S., allied, and partner non-nuclear capabilities; focused reductions in strategic and nonstrategic weapons; and close consultations with allies and partners."

This is the classic mathematical mistake of addition by subtraction. While it is quite clear that less regulation (subtraction in the number of rules and laws) can add to the quality of life of citizens, I don't think the principal of disarmament (subtraction in war fighting capability) in the face of growing and unknown threats in any way adds to the security of this country. I am willing to listen to counter-arguments, but it is going to be had to convince me that carrying a big stick wasn't the most important part of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy. Instead, we are going to shout loudly that we want to be nice, and we will show you this by laying down our stick. I wonder how often that works in someplace other than La La Land.

At this point during my reading, I had reached a section heading and my blood pressure was spiking. So, I put down the document and tried to relax a bit. As I slog my way through this document, I think that I will post opinions on a chapter by chapter basis. The next post will handle the rest of the Executive Summary. I have hopes that the document is better than the summary, but that is probably just more of that same "Hope and Change" that really isn't working all that well right now.

"Tales from the Dad Side" Review

2010-03-19T20:00:00.002-05:00

Title: "Tales from the Dad Side"
Author: Steve Doocy
Finished: January 28, 2009
Synopsis: Steve Doocy tells his view of fatherhood from both his childhood and adult perspective (with a very quirky sense of humor). Here is the description of the book from Doocy's website.
Impression of the book: I found the book to be mildly amusing, but not nearly as funny as others who have read it. As Kristy will tell you, most people don't "get" my sense of humor or my jokes. I am ok with that, and it tells me that this book is probably much better than I would give it credit for being.
Read Again Scale: 1

One time through this book was enough for me. I will likely pass it along to one of my siblings to get their thoughts on it.

Read Another Book by the Same Author: 2

Doocy is not really my style of writer or humorist.

This book was a Christmas gift. I must admit that I would not have picked this one up at the bookstore. I don't feel like I wasted the time spent reading the stories that Doocy included. In fact, I appreciate the effort that he put into trying to pass along gems that might help other dads. As I said earlier, other people have liked this book much more than I did. If you like Doocy on Fox & Friends, you will probably like this book. It is also a real quick read, so even if you don't end up liking the book, you will be done with it in a couple of days.

So, Preventive Medicine Saves Money?

2010-03-17T21:00:00.003-05:00

I have been carrying an article with me around the country over the last year or so. It was written in February 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The "Perspective" asks the question, "Does preventative care save money?" The writers conclude that most of the political rhetoric about the possible dollars that could be saved by prevention is "overreaching."

The authors make it clear that vaccinations, smoking cessation, low cost screening for a disease (when a cost effective treatment for the disease exists), and avoiding misuse of alcohol DO save money. However, they also point out that expensive high-tech treatments for some diseases might be a more cost effective use of medical care. I think that the most interesting statement in the article is the following:

"Although some preventive measures do save money,the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literaturedo not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specificinterventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical." (emphasis added)

I am pretty sure that this finding is counter-intuitive to most of our feelings on the subject. Somehow, we believe that knowing we have a disease before the effects start to mess with our systems is better for us in the long run (both in terms of health and economics) while the medical research demonstrates that this is not true. In any case, I thought I would toss this question out for discussion:

"Is an ounce of prevention REALLY worth a pound of cure?"

Let me know your opinion.

Whether we like it or not, our future medical care providers (whether private doctors, HMOs, or the federal government) will be looking at some of the issues raised in this short article. In fact, the "quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)" discussed in the article are essentially the means by which all socialized medical systems ration care. I really don't like to think that my health care decisions will be made by someone looking up the QALYs of a particular treatment before deciding to allocate the funds for it. I like the ability to make that decision myself. In any case, how much freedom do you think we will have when our heart, lungs, knees, and backs become line items in the federal budget?

Quite frankly, I think a lot of sickness could be prevented if we just stopped talking about a takeover of our health care system by the government. I know that my blood pressure would be lower if we did.