The Blinne Blog

Senator Kerry: Lack of Intelligence

Here's a portion of a FOX News Sunday interview with Senator John Kerry concerning intelligence:

WALLACE: Let's talk about national security. In 1995, you were the only sponsor of a bill to cut $1.5 billion from intelligence spending over the next five years.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And in 1997, you said that the intelligence apparatus was too big...

KERRY: Absolutely.

WALLACE: ... there were higher priorities.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And then in 2001, after 9/11, you complained and said, "Why wasn't our intelligence better?"

KERRY: Let me tell you exactly why I did that. I went to Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. I got out of an airplane, and I looked around me, and there wasn't a light, barely, that worked in the airport. There wasn't a new truck in the parking lots.

I went to the foreign office, and there were 12 telephones on a desk. And I asked, "This guy must be really important. Why does he have 12 phones?" They said, "Because they don't know how to hook up all the phone lines into one phone."

And this was the country that we supposedly had to fear marching through Poland...

WALLACE: But the intelligence, obviously, could have helped against the...

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: Intelligence failed us, because — I was on the Intelligence Committee. What we were trying to do, some of us, was push the funding not into technical means — there was a fascination always with satellites and listening devices, not with human intelligence.

I've always been somebody who has felt that we needed human intelligence. That's our failure. That was the failure with respect to 9/11. That remains the greatest gap in our intelligence.

So I wanted to reduce some spending from the national technical means and change the culture of our intelligence gathering. I believe we need to strengthen that, obviously now, post-9/11, but I wrote a book in 1996, Chris, called "The New War," and in that book, after that vote, I wrote about how we needed to strengthen our ability to be able to fight international criminal crime, including terror. In fact, I wrote a chapter called "The Globalization of Terror," and I said, four years before New York, it'll take one megaterrorist event in one of our cities to change life as we know it in America.

I think we deserve a president who does see ahead and who knows how to allocate resources correctly.

But will he allocate resources correctly? As I noted earlier, Senator Kerry opposed an appropriation that was to go to human intelligence and thus save the lives of American soldiers currently in harm's way.

That being said, intelligence is never perfect regardless of funding levels. As President you need to make decisions based on imperfect information. Kerry gave further indication of his thought process during the interview, here:

Now, I'm happy to answer that. I did indeed vote the way I voted in 1991. I thought we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I said so on the floor of the Senate. But with the memories of Vietnam, I also thought we ought to take a couple of months more to build the support in the country.

President Bush has said that 9/11 changed how he viewed intelligence. Namely, err on the side of the safety of the American people. Kerry, on the other hand, errs on being politically popular — that is, building support over months even though some of your intelligence says you don't have those months. It was never an issue that Saddam Hussein desired WMD. It was an open question whether he had them. It gets down to estimating his capability. Which intelligence error is worse, overestimating your enemy or underestimating him? In this age of terror and no warning attacks, we cannot afford to underestimate them. John Kerry's approach to intelligence, in my opinion, disqualifies him from being Commander-in-Chief.

High Calling: The Faith of Columbia Commander Rick Husband

As we come up on the one year anniversary of the Columbia disaster, a book has been released describing the faith of Columbia's Commander, Rick Husband. Evelyn Husband, his widow, answered some questions concerning her recently published book, High Calling.

Q: Why did you write High Calling?

A: When I was first asked to write High Calling, my reaction was that I would never write a book. But, after further thought and prayer, I realized what a wonderful gift this could be to my children -- a permanent record of who their father was, not only as an astronaut, but as a godly man who had his priorities straight and who loved his family dearly. It also gave me an opportunity to share publicly what God has taught me and my family privately -- that you can have hope in the midst of deep despair. People have asked me if writing the book has been therapeutic and my answer is, "No, it has not helped me through the grieving process. It has been a very difficult thing to do." However, as He promised, God has been with me every step of the way.

Q: What do you hope people learn from your story and message?

A: I hope people will find numerous truths in High Calling, including the truth that God is ready, willing and able to walk us through any crises that life may present publicly or privately. I also hope men will be encouraged to set priorities as Rick did, placing God first, family second and career third. Rick made these choices, and we will benefit from that for the rest of our lives. God showed Rick how to be a spiritual leader, a wonderful father and terrific husband. Rick was not perfect; no one is. But God takes us, if we are willing and pliable, and can make a marriage a joyous experience and a home a blessed place to be.

Q: In your book, you say you have "lost all politeness with God." What do you mean by that?

A: I have had many moments of intense crying and gut-wrenching grieving. Without question, this has been the most intense emotional experience I have ever been through and continue to walk through. In my grief and anger, I have not been polite with God. I have screamed at Him for allowing my children to grow up without their wonderful dad and for me to be a single parent and to lose my very best friend. In response, He has given me wonderful, unconditional love and understanding. Jesus is a man of sorrows acquainted with my grief. I think being honest and open with Him and telling Him exactly how I feel has greatly deepened the intimacy of relationship with [Him.]

Q: In the days after the Columbia tragedy, you were on national television demonstrating an extraordinary peace. How are you able to maintain such peace in the midst of such tragedy?

A: I knew that my only hope for survival and strength would flow from God, and I relied on Him. Every step, every breath, I sought and cried out to Him for supernatural strength and, just as He promises in the Bible, He met me with that peace that surpasses understanding. It has been amazing to feel His presence and love and encouragement at the lowest moments of my life.

NASA Gets New Signals From Mars Rover

Some good news on the rover front. NASA Gets New Signals From Mars Rover

PASADENA, Calif. Jan. 23 — NASA engineers received a half-hour of total transmissions Friday morning from the Spirit rover and planned further communications with it in an effort to diagnose and possibly patch up their ailing robotic patient on Mars.

Officials did not immediately elaborate on the signals.

The Blinne Blog has secret information on those signals. Here they are:

Mars Rover: Good News, Bad News

The Mars rover, Spirit, is experiencing problems.

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - NASA's Spirit rover stopped transmitting data from Mars for more than 24 hours, mission managers said Thursday, calling it an "extremely serious anomaly."

NASA last heard from Spirit early Wednesday, its 18th day on Mars. Since then, it has only sporadically returned random, meaningless radio noise, scientists said. Initially, the scientists believed weather problems on Earth caused the glitch. They said they now believe the rover is experiencing hardware or software problems.

"This is a serious problem. This is an extremely serious anomaly," project manager Pete Theisinger said.

That's only half of it. The problem is what the project manager saw transmitted from the rover.

Conservative Episcopalians Form Network of Dioceses

Further Update 1/21/2004 The following statement has been released with respect to the network.

The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes

A statement from Bishop James M. Stanton

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ

The Charter conference held in Plano is now concluded and the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has been established.

It was unanimously agreed to by the bishops and representatives of the dioceses noted, and by representatives of parishes in other dioceses concerned to preserve the unity of the Church within the Anglican Communion.

There are two points of paramount importance to me and, I trust, to us all.

1. The Charter makes very clear that the Network “shall operate in good faith within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church” (Article I). At no time was the suggestion made or considered that the Network would work outside the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.

2. The purpose of the Network is to “constitute a true and legitimate expression of the world-wide Anglican Communion” and to maintain the widest possible connection to that Communion (Articles II, III, IV).

The Network Charter provides a simple structure which will permit its affiliates to explore and pursue ministry together. I hope and pray that by this means we can begin to look to the future and, confident of our relationships with all others in the Anglican Communion, carry on our God-given mission.

Those representing the Diocese of Dallas besides myself were: Dr. Bill Power, President of the Standing Committee; Canon Paul Lambert, dean of our General Convention Deputies; Neil Anderson and Laura Allen, both deputies of long experience particularly in the area of Constitution and Canons (Laura has served as secretary of the relevant Convention Committee for two General Conventions, and is also a member of the Standing Committee).

Alternate representatives included: Dean Michael Mills of the Cathedral; Fr. Henry Pendergrass, member of the Standing Committee; Lana Valenta, chair of our Diocesan Convention Committee; Canon Neal Michell of our Staff; and Fr. David Roseberry, rector of Christ Church and host of the Conference and Fr. Larry Smith, rector of Incarnation.

A Network is only as good as the purposes it is designed to serve. My hope is that the Network will become a resource to all of us as we seek to move forward as the Church we are and which our Constitution proclaims us to be.

Much discussion among the representatives focused on matters that, in fact, are consistent with our own Strategic Plan: planting new congregations, discipling new members of the Body of Christ, educating our people for leadership in the years ahead. It will take time to reflect on and deepen our understanding of the Network.

I leave today (Wednesday) for the enthronement of the Rt. Rev. Henry Orombi as the new Archbishop of the Church of Uganda. (That event will take place on January 25. Please pray for him and all of us.) On my return, I will call a meeting of the Clergy to discuss the Network and will plan to present it to the Diocese in local meetings in the weeks ahead.

How would I describe our participation in this Network? For the time being, we will be provisional participants.

As I said to the Executive Council and the Standing Committee, I expect that if the Network meets a need and serves the purposes for which it has been established it will be presented to the Diocesan Convention in October for formal action.

Let me add a comment concerning an article that appeared in the Washington Post concerning a document that was circulated by a sub-committee of a sub-committee of the American Anglican Council. It concerned “adequate episcopal oversight.”

As I understand it, that document was a draft. It was never circulated to any bishops, and in fact had never been approved by the AAC. I certainly knew nothing about it until the matter appeared in the press, and would never have supported any such approach.

I raise this matter because the Post article and the document itself seemed to link it to the Network - which had not yet been formed!

I trust that the Network will be judged on its own merits and by what it does, and not by the acts or interpretations of others.

For my own part, as I have said consistently throughout the weeks preceding and all the time following our General Convention, we stand on the Constitution and Canons of the Church and will not depart from them.

I want to be clear that the matter of “adequate episcopal oversight” was first raised by the Primates (including our own) at the Lambeth Meeting on October 15-16 and was set out in their letter issued at the conclusion of that meeting.

The Network is committed to “work for the provision of adequate episcopal oversight” (Article VII) as envisioned by and in cooperation with the Primates. Nothing more, nothing less. Please look at the Charter.

Update 1/21/2004: The network has been established. Here is their charter.

Original Post (12/19/2003):
It was unclear how conservatives in the Episcopal Church were going to procede after the canonization of an openly gay bishop in November. There was communication to the people on the ground something would happen before Christmas. This appears to be it.

FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - The Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese has joined an alliance of 13 dioceses opposed to the ordination of an openly gay bishop, a move some priests and theologians see as a step toward a split in the denomination.

Other priests said the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes will work toward reconciliation and is not breaking with the U.S. Episcopal Church.

The network's strategy is to win recognition from the worldwide Anglican Communion and to oversee conservative congregations in liberal dioceses, according to a letter written by Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker posted on the diocese Web site.

Iker, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment. The alliance also includes the Dallas diocese. Dallas Bishop James Stanton did not return several phone messages this week.

Network representatives plan to meet Jan. 19-20 in Plano, Texas, to adopt a charter.

SCO Accidentally Makes Linux Viable

The question about Linux is how do you make money on free software? Without a business plan Linux could go the way of the dot-com bubble. SCO has been suing everything Linux hoping to produce a business plan out of a legal one. They dared the commercial Linux destributors to offer what is known as indemnification — holding the consumers of Linux legally harmless. Here's the response from the Linux vendors:

"Our customers need the ability to use Linux code without interruption, and developers have to keep working on open-source software," Bryan Sims, vice president of business development at Red Hat, told NewsFactor.

The company has been offering such protection to its customers for some time, he said, but decided to make a formal announcement. Sims said the assurance program was not a specific response to recent attacks by the SCO Group against Linux providers. "This is recognition of what it takes to put out a good product," he maintained.

The top Linux vendor, Red Hat becomes the third major Linux provider -- joining HP and Novell -- to offer some form of indemnification to its customers. Novell, which recently purchased Linux developer SuSE, last week began offering protection for copyright-infringement claims made by third parties against SuSE Linux Enterprise Server software.

Now business has a very good reason to spend money. The free version carries a risk. Thus, SCO in its attempt to kill Linux may have saved it.

The Kerry Quagmire

As the result of the Iowa Caucuses yesterday Senator Kerry is now the front runner. One reason was Howard Dean had stated that Americans were not better off because of Saddam Hussein's capture. In comparison Kerry's position on Iraq seemed more moderate — at least to Iowa Democrats. Kerry voted for the original war resolution but against the $87 billion dollar appropriation. When the major operations of the war ended there was a significant insurgent campaign in Iraq. We hadn't captured Saddam Hussein, yet. Kerry opined that the Bush administration had "f'd it up badly".

When this bill was debated a number of field commanders were begging for quick passage. Why? Because they needed the money to grease the palms of informants. While debating the bill Dr. Condoleezza Rice said, "We will eventually bring to justice the entire al Qaeda leadership, and Saddam Hussein himself, too." Congress passed the appropriation and Saddam Hussein was captured, proving the field commanders' assertions.

All the Democratic presidential hopefuls have stated that they support the troups but not some or all of the President's policies in Iraq. That could be defended if they voted for appropriation but not the original war resolution. But, Senators Edwards and Kerry did the exact opposite. We have seen what happens when we properly fund the military when American men and women are in harm's way. The best way for Congress to show their support for the troops is to properly fund them, even if they have doubts about the overall war effort. Senator Lieberman and Representative Gephardt show that this is possible — the latter sacrificing his political career for what was right.

It was truly touching to hear the story of Lt. Kerry risking his life to save the life of his buddy in the jungles of Vietnam. Too bad Senator Kerry wasn't willing to risk his political life for his buddies in the deserts of Iraq.

What Makes Us Unique?

Dobzhansky quipped, "All species are unique, but humans are uniquest".  But, what makes human unique?  Judeo-Christian theology states that it is we are created in the image of God and part of that includes intelligence.  Today's Science provides some clues on why we are the uniquest.

The study looked at hierachical grammars known as Phase Structure Grammars (PSG).  These differ from Finite State Grammars because PSGs can insert strings inside of strings.   Why this is important is shown from the following quote from Fitch and Hauser.

Rule systems capable of generating infinite sets of sequences ("grammars") are arranged in a mathematical hierarchy of increasing generative power, termed the Chomsky hierarchy. The weakest class in this hierarchy are finite state grammars (FSGs), which can be fully specified by transition probabilities between a finite number of "states" (e.g., corresponding to words or calls). Recent evidence suggests that parsing procedures at this superficial level of complexity are spontaneously available to both human infants and nonhuman primates. However, FSGs are inadequate to generate all the structures of any human language, because all languages minimally require procedures at the next level of complexity, termed phrase structure grammars. In addition to concatenating items like an FSG, a PSG can embed strings within other strings, thus creating complex hierarchical structures ("phrase structures"), and long-distance dependencies. For example, in English, the word "if" is typically followed by the word "then," but any arbitrary number of words or phrases can be inserted between them. Such constructions (and many others) demand more sophisticated parsing capabilities, including a perceptual ability to recognize these structures and an open-ended memory to store them. There is a broad consensus in linguistics and machine learning that PSGs are more powerful than FSGs and that grammars above the FSG level are, minimally, a crucial component of all human languages. Though such abilities are available to all normal humans, it is currently unknown whether parsing abilities above the FSG level are available to nonhuman animals. We used a familiarization/discrimination procedure to address this issue in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus), a New World primate species that has previously demonstrated successful discrimination of linguistic stimuli according to rhythmic class, along with a capacity to grasp transitional probabilities and abstract rules implicit in speech stimuli.

What makes humans unique amongst primate is the ability to process these grammars.  Thus, human language is truly unique and so is the abstraction allowed by such language.  The review article gives other characteristics of our uniqueness:

1. Voluntary Control of Sensory-Motor Systems.  Vocalization is reflexive in chimpanzees but voluntary in humans.
2. Second level imitation. Here is where the individual not only copies the object of the model but also the motor action.  Chimpanzees can do this with training but even human infants can do this autonomously.
3. Teaching. Here the direction of communication is reversed from imitationg.  This is uniquely human.
4. Theory of mind. Human communication is intentional.  When the speaker sees a listener making an error, he corrects it. Other primates do not.
5. Grammar. Human langauge is recursive while Fitch and Hauser prove that primate language is non-recursive.
6. Intelligence. All other species are specialists while humans are flexible.  Other species are "hard wired" to solve particular problems.  Our ability to abstract allows us to solve an open-ended series of problems.

  Is the ability to have a recursive grammar the key to intelligence? In part, but there appears to be more to it.  Nevertheless, we are not merely advanced animals.  Intelligence does indeed appear to be the sine qua non of humans.  And as such we truly are made in the image of God.

President Bush's Space Exploration Goals

The White House released today the President's goals for space exploration. The Crew Exploration Vehicle intrigued me. I submitted two questions to NASA's Chief Scientist concerning what was different about this plan and what will the new vehicle be like. If I get a response, I will post the answers here.

The President's plan for steady human and robotic space exploration is based on the following goals:

• First, America will complete its work on the International Space Station by 2010, fulfilling our commitment to our 15 partner countries. The United States will launch a re-focused research effort on board the International Space Station to better understand and overcome the effects of human space flight on astronaut health, increasing the safety of future space missions.
• To accomplish this goal, NASA will return the Space Shuttle to flight consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the Station, and the Shuttle will be retired by the end of this decade after nearly 30 years of service.
• Second, the United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit to other worlds -- the first of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. The new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is retired.
• Third, America will return to the Moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020 and use it as a stepping stone for more ambitious missions. A series of robotic missions to the Moon, similar to the Spirit Rover that is sending remarkable images back to Earth from Mars, will explore the lunar surface beginning no later than 2008 to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, humans will conduct extended lunar missions as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.
• The extended human presence on the Moon will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the Moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments. An extended human presence on the Moon could reduce the costs of further exploration, since lunar-based spacecraft could escape the Moon's lower gravity using less energy at less cost than Earth-based vehicles. The experience and knowledge gained on the Moon will serve as a foundation for human missions beyond the Moon, beginning with Mars.
• NASA will increase the use of robotic exploration to maximize our understanding of the solar system and pave the way for more ambitious manned missions. Probes, landers, and similar unmanned vehicles will serve as trailblazers and send vast amounts of knowledge back to scientists on Earth.

Temper, Temper

There seems to be a lot of anger out there. For example, take Howard Dean's latest blow-up. Futhermore, zeal — even religious zeal — seems to be the "excuse" for it. This is not the exclusive province of the left. For example, note this review of Philip Yancey's book, What's So Amazing About Grace?:

Yancey tells of the response to an article he wrote on President Bill Clinton for the magazine Christianity Today. Given the rare opportunity to interview Clinton one-on-one, Yancey did his homework and then wrote what he thought was a balanced account of the President and his faith. "I was totally unprepared for the firestorm of reaction," Yancey reports. "I wonder if my mailman will ever recover from the strain of lugging bags of angry letters to my mailbox. The vicious tone of personal attack caught me off guard. As I read through stacks of vituperative letters I got a strong sense for why the world does not automatically associate the word "grace" with evangelical Christians."

How are we to react to opposition? Are we to show righteous indignation? I contend, in most cases, we should not. Take the following passage for example.

Luke 9:51-56 (NKJV): A Samaritan Village Rejects the Savior

51 Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?"[1]

55But He turned and rebuked them,[2] and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them."[3] And they went to another village.

Footnotes

1. 9:54 NU-Text omits just as Elijah did.
2. 9:55 NU-Text omits the rest of this verse.
3. 9:56 NU-Text omits the first sentence of this verse.

Calvin's commentary on verse 55 is quite instructive:

You know not of what spirit you are. By this reply he not only restrained the unbridled fury of the two disciples, but laid down a rule to all of us not to indulge our temper. For whoever undertakes any thing, ought to be fully aware that he has the authority and guidance of the Spirit of God, and that he is actuated by proper and holy dispositions. Many will be impelled by the warmth of their zeal, but if the spirit of prudence be wanting, their ebullitions end in foam. Frequently, too, it happens, that the impure feelings of the flesh are mingled with their zeal, and that those who appear to be the keenest zealots for the glory of God are blinded by the private feelings of the flesh. And therefore, unless our zeal be directed by the Spirit of God, it will be of no avail to plead in our behalf, that we undertook nothing but from proper zeal. But the Spirit himself will guide us by wisdom and prudence, that we may do nothing contrary to our duty, or beyond our calling, nothing, in short, but what is prudent and seasonable; and, by removing all the filth of the flesh, he may impart to our minds proper feelings, that we may desire nothing but what God shall suggest. Christ likewise blames his disciples because, though they are widely distant from the spirit of Elijah, they rashly take upon themselves to do what he did. For Elijah executed the judgment of God, which had been committed to him by the Spirit; but they rush to vengeance, not by the command of God, but by the movement of the flesh. And therefore the examples of the saints are no defense to us, unless the same Spirit that directed them dwell in us. [emphasis mine]

So, the question of the day is when we rush to vengeance are we truly following the Spirit or indulging our flesh? The diagnostic question that Jesus gives us here is are we seeking to destroy our opposition or to save them? It is no coincidence that at this very time Jesus was set on going to Jerusalem to die. He wasn't willing to rain fire from Heaven on the Samaritans but rather to storm it on their behalf.