There are a lot of issues concerning quality and health safety issues of products made in the PRC these days. The huge amount of outsourcing of manufacturing to the PRC going on affects the balance of payments, product quality, safety, and the strategic situation in US defense. This is an article written by Paul Midler.
Recent media reports detailing a series of quality problems with Chinese-made exports -- pet food tainted with prohibited chemicals, toys covered with lead paint and tires that fall apart at high speed -- have understandably alarmed the American public and resulted in a number of international product recalls. But supply chain professionals not directly affected by these recalls remain unusually calm. "Everything will be all right," said one U.S. importer on a buying mission to China. "As the country continues to develop, the quality of its products will naturally rise."
It's the sort of comment that sounds logical, but is not necessarily true. Quality does not always rise over time, as China's own history shows. At the end of the 19th century, the West rushed to buy China's beautiful silk products. Demand quickly expanded, and new players moved into the market. As competition intensified, manufacturers began to cut corners on quality, and silk products out of China soon gained a reputation as inferior goods. By the beginning of the 20th century, traders were already looking elsewhere, and Japan, which had been building a reputation for delivering a more consistently high-quality product, became an attractive alternative. By 1930, Japan was exporting twice as much silk as China.
One of the problems facing China is that manufacturers continue to engage in a practice I call "quality fade." This is the deliberate and secret habit of widening profit margins through a reduction in the quality of materials. Importers usually never notice what's happening; downward changes are subtle but progressive. The initial production sample is fine, but with each successive production run, a bit more of the necessary inputs are missing.
What is maddening to importers is that quality fade often occurs in the last place an importer thinks to check. One American company had been importing a line of health and beauty care products for over a year when the cardboard boxes that held its product suddenly started collapsing under their own weight. There was no logical explanation for the collapse except quality fade, and the supplier in this case blamed sub-suppliers for replacing an acceptable cardboard box with ones that were inferior.
The Case of the Missing Aluminum
Some quality issues are not all that serious, but others are downright frightening. One of the most disturbing examples I have encountered while working in China involved the manufacture and importation of aluminum systems used to construct high-rise commercial buildings. These are the systems that support tons of concrete as it is being poured, and their general stability is critical. The American company that designed and patented the system engineered all key components. It knew exactly how much each part was supposed to weigh, and yet the level of engineering sophistication did not stop the supplier from making a unilateral decision to reduce the specifications. When the "production error" was caught, one aluminum part was found to be weighing less than 90% of its intended weight.
Where did the missing aluminum go? Into the factory owner's pocket as a cost saving. The only thing passed on to the customer was an increase in product risk. Quality fade is like the straw that broke the camel's back -- only in reverse. Suppliers push the limit by taking more and more out of the equation until they are caught, or until disaster strikes.
Even when importers catch suppliers in a quality fade, they frequently don't do much about it. Many quality problems are seen as too minor relative to the difficulties involved in rectifying them. Customers may not notice a product flaw, but they most certainly notice when a product is not delivered on time. The chance of a product failure is usually remote, but the penalty for late delivery is an almost certain loss of business.
Some importers bravely attempt to fight back against quality fade by insisting a supplier replace substandard goods at the factory's expense. A savvy supplier -- and most are extremely savvy -- can respond to such demands by threatening to terminate the supplier relationship. Or the supplier can respond by raising prices. Importers might then say they will switch suppliers, but the factory owner knows this is an empty threat as finding and cultivating a new supplier can take a long time. And anyway, there is no guarantee that the next supplier won't engage in the same willful behavior as the first.
The factory owner who practices quality fade knows exactly where he stands with his customer in these cat-and-mouse games. He has virtually nothing to lose and only margin to gain -- and, having gotten away with it once, no one should be surprised when he goes for it again. When the factory owner offers his most sincere apologies and promises that it won't happen a second time, importers simply close their eyes and hope for the best.
If Adam Smith were around today, he would have had to write a separate chapter on global outsourcing. Because it takes importers a long time to find suppliers and to get them up to speed, importers keep their suppliers a secret. The last thing that an importer wants to do is let his competitors know the source of any supply chain advantage he may have. Even when it is in their collective interest to share information, importers keep to themselves. As a result, factories pay little, if any, reputational cost for production shenanigans. The invisible hand doesn't work well when the manufacturers themselves are unseen.
This lack of accountability also has legal implications. When a product is recalled in the U.S., the importer pays the cost of that recall. It remains next to impossible to take legal action in China, and only in the rarest case can an importer successfully sue the supplier responsible for a product failure. Since most suppliers are paid in full well before goods leave the factory, the importer doesn't even enjoy the leverage that comes with owing payment to the supplier. The average importer has far less leverage than imagined.
Outwitting Third-party Testers
In the wake of quality problems, many are looking to third-party testing as a solution. In theory, testing works well. Prior to exporting a product, the supplier takes a sample and sends it off to a reputable and international testing laboratory, which then checks to make sure the product is safe. Unfortunately, testing doesn't work well when a supplier sets out to circumvent the system.
I recently worked with one supplier that was encountering difficulties making a quality liquid soap for export to the U.S. To get around problems the supplier was having with laboratory results, the supplier created 10 random samples and sent them to the same lab for testing. Nine of these samples failed, but one passed. The supplier took the one test result marked "passed" and sent it off to the customer. The U.S. company never knew about the failed results, and a purchase order was promptly issued.
Third-party testing is far from fail-safe. Consider one study conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2001. In a review of nearly 200 recalled electrical products from China, the CPSC found that more than 25% had had prior approval by an international third-party testing agency such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Intertek Testing Services (ETL) or the Canadian Standards Association (CSA).
Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have suggested that the solution to China's quality problems lies in greater vigilance on the part of importers, but the question remains: If professional third-party testing agencies are failing to catch product failures, how is the average importer expected to do so? After all, third-party testing agencies have far better resources, and their people are much better trained.
Private quality assurance programs may also be put in place, but suppliers can circumvent such controls as well. In one case, after a load of plywood was rejected at one factory, the supplier simply mixed a portion of it with product that was perfectly good in later shipments. Working the bad into the good is a common way for a factory to reduce loss. A supplier can bury sub-standard product knowing full well that warehouse workers in the U.S. do not have the time to examine each piece that comes in. And detailed contracts cannot succeed in bridging any moral gap. In order for supplier relationships to work successfully, there must be a basic level of trust.
Get Rich Quick
In an effort to reduce risk, American companies are also looking to suppliers that are larger and seem more capable. The unfortunate fact about China's larger factories, however, is they charge more for product than smaller factories do. It is as if economies of scale do not apply in China. There are several reasons why China suffers from such a problem, and one has to do with the role government plays in manufacturing.
Where a small factory may have been funded entirely by the government, future expansions are more often privately financed. Making the matter worse are extremely short payback periods on private investment. Many factories hope to pay off investments in as few as three years. One of the worst things an importer can hear is, "We want to show you our most recent expansion." The more a supplier invests, the quicker it raises prices.
There is a sense of urgency in China, the feeling that one must work fast before the window of opportunity closes. For factories, that means taking shortcuts on quality. Many factory owners can't see beyond the next purchase order.
One reason for the short-sightedness may have to do with China's political environment. The one-party government does what it wants, when it wants. And while there may be some advantages to a government that can operate without restraint or controversy, such a system limits predictability and leaves the business sector keenly aware that it is subject to the evanescent whims of officials who may or may not know which policy is best.
The U.S. administration has recently been applying pressure on China to revalue its currency in order to close the growing trade gap between the two countries. To appease the U.S., China has responded by reducing the tax rebates it offers to manufacturers. For some suppliers, the tax rebates have constituted a major portion of their bottom line. Massive and sudden changes such as these only confirm the factory owner's paranoid suspicions that the manufacturing opportunity could disappear at any moment. No one in China is sure how long anything will last -- a situation that keeps many focused on the immediate present.
Chinese manufacturers that engage in quality fade unfortunately subscribe to the view that business is about increasing one's share of the pie rather than growing the pie over time. They often focus on extracting profit through short-term maneuvers that inevitably militate against long-term development. This approach, it should be noted, contrasts sharply with the success strategies of such economies as Japan and Korea, which focus on building market share and developing strategic relationships.
Playing It Short
Some blame quality problems and product recalls on the relentless pursuit of lower prices. Importers most often go to the cheapest supplier, so the supplier who quotes low and quietly cuts corners on quality is the one who wins. Honest suppliers who prefer to quote higher and offer a better quality product lose out. The supplier who obfuscates catches orders first -- and most often.
Chinese suppliers are excellent at playing the short game. When an importer discovers a quality problem late, the factory turns around and suggests, "But you signed off on the original production sample yourselves." When goods arrive damaged in the U.S., the factory claims that the importer has been making up the story in order to lower import costs. Arguments like these work in the short term. Over the longer term, however, importers get wise, and alternative markets start to look increasingly attractive.
China's quality situation is by no means hopeless. Japan was known decades ago for making inferior products, but that changed. The key to turning the situation around is to incorporate a habit of quality into the culture. China, however, has not shown that it has any interest in doing so. Recent accusations of unreliability in Chinese products are now being met with tit-for-tat claims that U.S. products are faulty. This is an unfortunate strategy for China, and it means that we will continue to see quality problems. China will not be able to succeed so long as manufacturers are competing in a race to the bottom.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/09/2007 16:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Everything will be all right," said one U.S. importer on a buying mission to China. "As the country continues to develop, the quality of its products will naturally rise."
Trust a person whose paycheck is signed in Chinese ink to say something this blindingly stupid. Either this importer has never studied case histories of Chinese commercial malfeasance or he is a total moron.
Some quality issues are not all that serious, but others are downright frightening. One of the most disturbing examples I have encountered while working in China involved the manufacture and importation of aluminum systems used to construct high-rise commercial buildings. These are the systems that support tons of concrete as it is being poured, and their general stability is critical. The American company that designed and patented the system engineered all key components. It knew exactly how much each part was supposed to weigh, and yet the level of engineering sophistication did not stop the supplier from making a unilateral decision to reduce the specifications. When the "production error" was caught, one aluminum part was found to be weighing less than 90% of its intended weight.
Got that? These arent lead laced Thomas the Tank Engine toys, these are pouring forms used in the construction of high-rise buildings whose collapse can cause hundreds or thousands of deaths. There is no production error imaginable whereby an engineered and dimensionally specified part can somehow lose 90% of its intended weight. This is a case of someone knowingly taking profits by compromising critical criteria in a vital component whose failure can cause needless and massive loss of human life. It is nothing less than attempted mass-murder and should be punished as such.
Because it takes importers a long time to find suppliers and to get them up to speed, importers keep their suppliers a secret. The last thing that an importer wants to do is let his competitors know the source of any supply chain advantage he may have. Even when it is in their collective interest to share information, importers keep to themselves. As a result, factories pay little, if any, reputational cost for production shenanigans. The invisible hand doesn't work well when the manufacturers themselves are unseen.
This has to change. A blacklist of Chinese violaters must be assembled and those listed prohibited from exporting their garbage to American shores for years at a time. A supply chain track-back will be needed to prevent these scum from transshipping their trash through another manufacturer.
Third-party testing is far from fail-safe. Consider one study conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2001. In a review of nearly 200 recalled electrical products from China, the CPSC found that more than 25% had had prior approval by an international third-party testing agency such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Intertek Testing Services (ETL) or the Canadian Standards Association (CSA).
Got that? A solid 25% level of substandard quality in previously inspected electrical components. How many fires were started due to arcing or short circuits? This is no accident.
In one case, after a load of plywood was rejected at one factory, the supplier simply mixed a portion of it with product that was perfectly good in later shipments. Working the bad into the good is a common way for a factory to reduce loss. A supplier can bury sub-standard product knowing full well that warehouse workers in the U.S. do not have the time to examine each piece that comes in. And detailed contracts cannot succeed in bridging any moral gap. In order for supplier relationships to work successfully, there must be a basic level of trust.
Its time to recognize thatmuch like Islams delusions of adequacythe Chinese are imbued with a mistaken notion that they are the Master Race. There is no possible trust that can evolve in these circumstances. Much like Islamic taqiyya, Chinas overweening self-esteem permits them any fraud or deception without the least compunctions.
Chinese manufacturers that engage in quality fade unfortunately subscribe to the view that business is about increasing one's share of the pie rather than growing the pie over time.
Once again, the zero-sum equation rears its ugly little head. This is a recurrent theme in high context societies and more enlightened cultures will continue to pay the price until they understand that such a dismal lack of ethics must be slapped down hard.
The key to turning the situation around is to incorporate a habit of quality into the culture. China, however, has not shown that it has any interest in doing so. Recent accusations of unreliability in Chinese products are now being met with tit-for-tat claims that U.S. products are faulty.
A pluperfect example of the zero-sum equation at work. Just in case anyone thinks that this cannot happen in America, it already has. Nixon's disastrous "Price and Wage Freeze" taught American manufacturers how to shave materials and labor costs with ruthless abandon. The Ford Pinto's gas tank debacle is sterling proof of this.
#2
I can remember when "Made in Japan" meant shoddy. The Chinese can clean up their act, if they want to. If not, there's lots of people who'd like those jobs and we all know the factories are easy to move.
#3
I was thinking exactly the same thing. I remember when "Made in Japan" meant "crap", especially their cars.
One problem China is facing is that manufacturers looking for the lowest cost labor are now leaving China for other places where labor is even cheaper. China is being forced to compete with Indonesia and other countries and so are cutting corners to keep prices down. They are focused strictly on price rather than quality. That will change when their own consumers demand higher quality goods.
China is entering a new phase of development where the first phase was industrialization on a wide scale, this phase is more about maturing as their domestic market moves upscale. As that happens, expect Chinese goods to increase both in quality and price.
#4
And, frankly, some of the importers are working AGAINST the call to improve quality. Walmart, for example, is asking that seafood they buy from China be exempt from standing orders for inspection before release from customs.
Mind you, I don't care if Walmart wants to be known as the premiere source of cheap, poisonous fish...
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/09/2007 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
NS: we all know the factories are easy to move.
Once installed in China, factory equipment cannot be moved. This is why anyone with proprietary machine tools takes good care not to install them in China.
#6
You don't physically move the factory, you sell it to someone else and open a new one in Indonesia or Malaysia. So you move YOUR production to another country leaving someone else with the old factory. The new factory can now produce with less labor cost than the Chinese factory can and so the Chinese factory is most likely put to use in satisfying domestic demand as it will not be able to compete on the world market.
There was a time when one could open a factory in China and labor would flood to your door looking for work. That is no longer true. In order to get workers, you must entice them away from other factories by raising wages or adding fringe benefits such as meals. As this progresses though the system, Chinese goods slowly begin to rise in price. Taken to its logical conclusion, when China's standard of living finally matches America's, then Chinese goods will cost as much as American goods.
In a completely global economy with all trade barriers removed and complete free trade with no tariffs you eventually get to a point where the entire world reaches the same standard of living.
He was once billed as Obambi, the doe-eyed ingénu wandering innocently into the dark forest of an election, woefully unprepared for the dangers that lurked there. But in the old steamboat stop of Sioux City, Iowa, this week, an altogether more ferocious animal stalked its prey. Barack Obama jabbed the air and waved his hand dismissively as he branded his prey a creature of the establishment who had "been in Washington too long". This crony of "corporate lobbyists" was in denial about America being "less safe" than before 9/11 and had to be brought to book for the "disaster" in Iraq.
To the dismay of some Democrats in the high school gym, however, the Illinois senator's quarry was not George W. Bush, who escaped almost scot free. His stump speech was all about, as Obama himself put it, his "little argument with Hillary Clinton". In trying to stop the Hillzilla juggernaut, Obama is making a powerful case for why she should never be president. Painting the former First Lady as the ultimate Washington insider is a message that resonates in a country in which Congress is every bit as unpopular as Bush.
One of the most puzzling moments of an already extraordinary campaign came last week when Clinton suggested that lobbyists represent "real Americans". For a famously disciplined campaigner, it was a foolish mistake to champion the profession most associated with corruption and a poisoned body politic in Washington. While Obama is presenting himself as the agent of change, Clinton is banking on being the candidate of experience. "For 15 years, I have stood up against the Right-wing machine, and I've come out stronger," she declared in Chicago on Tuesday night. "So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl!" Her Achilles' heel, however, is that, at a time when disillusion with Washington and all its works is as pervasive as ever, the kind of experience she cites may not seal the deal with the electorate.
Equally, as Clinton pointed out in a sarcastic attack on Obama in Chicago, you can "think big", but that is unlikely to be enough either. Like a boxer with her opponent trapped in the corner of the ring, she has been pummelling Obama this week for being naïve and inexperienced on foreign policy. And the punches are hitting home. Slowly but surely, the Clinton machine is stripping away her adversary's lustre. Obama joked in Sioux City that he is accused of being a "hopemonger". But that reputation is receding as Clinton responds to his attacks on her by asking with mock dismay: "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?"
The frustration for the other Democrats is that they are confined to the sidelines. "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman," bemoaned Elizabeth Edwards, whose husband is running a distant third. It seems all Mr Edwards, a Southern pretty boy who voted for the Iraq invasion and has reinvented himself as an anti-war Left-wing populist, can do is snipe at Clinton. "You will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune saying I am the candidate that big, corporate America is betting on," he thundered.
In Sioux Falls, Democrats echoed the criticisms of the candidate they did not like as often as they sang the praises of the ones they did. "Hillary's been power-hungry since she was at college," said Martie Ebner, an Obama backer. Darrell Strong, 85, a retired railroad worker, questioned whether Obama could handle the Middle East. "This isn't kindergarten," he pointed out.
All this is giving hope to Republican strategists, whose underlying assumption since their mid-term drubbing has been that they have little chance of winning next November. Recognising that the odds are stacked against them, the Grand Old Party hopefuls are making a decent stab at improving their chances. Rather than attacking each other, the Republicans have been turning their fire against Obama and Clinton. When invited to attack the social stances of Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani during last weekend's Iowa debate, Mitt Romney declined to shoot for the open goal. "I'd rather let him speak for himself," he said.
Giuliani was similarly magnanimous when pitched a softball about John McCain's campaign finance legislation, which is despised by conservative Republicans. "I happen to be a very big admirer of Senator McCain and I can tell you quite honestly that, if I wasn't running for president, I would be here supporting him," he said.
Instead of aiming at Republicans, Giuliani keeps hammering home his theme that all three leading Democrats are defeatists who have already declared Iraq lost. And there are glimmers of hope in Iraq and a slight up-tick in poll support for the troop "surge" there that could signal an opportunity for the Republicans. An opinion piece in the New York Times last week by Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack - both previously in line to get top foreign policy jobs in a Democratic administration - declared that Iraq was a "war we might just win". It was a message neither Obama nor Clinton wanted to hear.
Democratic voters fear that a stridently anti-war candidate - as Obama is fast becoming - could lose because he is seen as weak on defence, just as McGovern was in 1972 and Dukakis in 1988. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, could be a safe choice in the mould of Mondale in 1984 or Gore in 2000, whose problems over likeability and ennui spelt defeat against folksy, optimistic Republican opponents.
Being the change candidate in a post-9/11 world is problematic in a country that remains intensely fearful of the terror Islamism can wreak at home and abroad. The change and experience candidates, moreover, are already inflicting serious wounds on each other with five months to go before the first primary ballot is cast. With the general election still 15 months away, the Republican creatures in the forest can afford to wait, sniffing the air as the scent of blood approaches.
#3
Obama's Church Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the campaign trail that America needs a new consensus based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he continues to attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor routinely refers to "white arrogance" and "the United States of Whiter America." In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22.
...
# Wright on 9/11: "White America got their wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns." On the Sunday after the attacks, Dr. Wright blamed America.
Much more at link.
Posted by: ed ||
08/09/2007 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Painting the former First Lady as the ultimate Washington insider is a message that resonates in a country in which Congress is every bit as unpopular as Bush.
The last poll I saw suggested Congress is radically less popular than the President. And from what I can make out, the President's current popularity has suffered most from perception of weakness on the war, weakness on border security, weakness on illegal immigration, weakness on China, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc. etc. etc.
#8
"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman," bemoaned Elizabeth Edwards, whose husband is running a distant third.
Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Posted by: Michael Jackson ||
08/09/2007 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The only thing the GOP needs to do to win in '08 is educate about 10% of the Americans who don't know it already that the Democrats want to make America indistinguishable from Europe.
How hard can that be?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/09/2007 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
How many Americans realize what EUrope is really like?
#13
The Democratic Party is devoid of ideas and leadership. It uses the same old tired formula for trying to win elections. There don't seem to be any adults in the party. The far left has taken over the party. You would have to look hard to find a conservative Democrat. That animal just doesn't exist any more. The people in the party seem to be a shrill bunch of carping, nitpicking whiners and losers. They don't seem to have any national pride or patriotism.
It is one of the oddities of American politics that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) can describe itself as a "civil-liberties group" while crusading to crush the free-speech rights of its critics. But that's exactly what happened last week when CAIR deployed its legal arsenal in a bid to stop author Robert Spencer from speaking at a conference of the Young America's Foundation (YAF).
In a letter to YAF dispatched by its lawyer, former Democratic National Committee staff counsel Joseph E. Sandler, CAIR threatened to "pursue every appropriate legal remedy" if Spencer were not immediately silenced. In the event, the YAF honorably refused to yield. The moral of the story: If CAIR disagrees with what you have to say, it'll fight furiously to deny your right to say it. To heck with civil liberties.
CAIR is not a first-time offender in this regard. Indeed, Spencer is only the most recent target of the organization's ongoing campaign to strangle free debate, especially when it turns on Islamic extremism. Other recipients of CAIR's wrath have included scholar Daniel Pipes, conservative columnist Cal Thomas, talk radio host Michael Graham, venerable news pundit Paul Harvey, National Review magazine, Fox's 24, and Andrew Whitehead, the proprietor of the website Anti-CAIR. In a telling example of CAIR's bullying tactics, Whitehead's dogged criticism of the organization got him slapped with a defamation suit. When CAIR's suit was decisively dismissed last year, the victory of an independent critic against the 32-chapter group, with its war chest filled by millions in petrodollars from Saudi royals and Gulf sheikdoms, had a certain David-vs.-Goliath resonance. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
08/09/2007 07:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If they keep suing like this, RICO their asses.
#4
Interesting fact: since 9/11--which is to say, ever since CAIR became the most prominent letterhead group openly siding with the bad guys--90% of its members have bailed.
That is to say, 90% of the American Moslems who were motivated to join a "civil rights" group purporting to represent them on or before 9/10/01--presumably, those who felt the least assimilated into mainstream society, and were more likely to perceive discrimination than those who didn't join CAIR--have quit the organization.
The only thing keeping CAIR alive is the Saudi money, and the tendency of the MSM to call up letterhead "civil rights" groups every time they need an interview.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/09/2007 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
War On Terror: If al-Qaida were writing Congress' script, it's hard to imagine things would play out much differently than what leading Democrats are doing now. Considering the threat we're under, that's a chilling statement.
The CIA's tough interrogation of terrorist prisoners like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has helped foil at least 10 serious al-Qaida plots, three of them on U.S. soil, according to President Bush.
But far from being grateful to those in government who have saved perhaps thousands of innocent American lives, Democrats in Congress are acting like al-Qaida stooges
But far from being grateful to those in government who have saved perhaps thousands of innocent American lives, Democrats in Congress are acting like al-Qaida stooges:
The second-ranking Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, demands that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tell him whether "it be legal for a foreign government to subject a United States citizen to these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques?"
Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is blocking the confirmation of John Rizzo, nominated as CIA general counsel by the president, because the 30-year-plus veteran of the agency helped establish the interrogation program.
In anticipation of a possible congressional investigation, "a number of CIA officers have taken out professional liability insurance, to help with potential legal fees," reporter Jane Mayer recounts being told by a former CIA officer in the latest issue of the New Yorker. Will our soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq be sued too?
Mayer's "Black Sites" article has caused quite a buzz, but while it reveals details showing the CIA program to be appropriately tough, it also indicates it not to be torture and its indispensability in wartime.
Two CIA sources say Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's cell was adorned with a sign that read, "The Proud Murderer of 3,000 Americans."
One former CIA officer told Mayer, "There was absolutely nothing done to K.S.M. that wasn't done to the interrogators themselves," referring to their own interrogation resistance training.
According to a confidential Red Cross report, "Mohammed claimed that he was shackled and kept naked, except for a pair of goggles and earmuffs. (Some prisoners were kept naked for as long as forty days.)" Degrading? Certainly, as befits such a mass murder. But mild compared with, say, Mohammed's admitted decapitation of journalist Daniel Pearl.
The same Red Cross report noted that "meals were delivered sporadically, to ensure that the prisoners remained temporally disoriented. The food was largely tasteless, and barely enough to live on. Mohammed, who upon his capture in Rawalpindi was photographed looking flabby and unkempt, was now described as being slim." An intensified version of Weight Watchers may be unpleasant, but it does not constitute torture.
After "waterboarding" treatment also, apparently, something CIA special forces are subjected to in their training Mohammed, the former CIA officer told Mayer, "didn't resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick." Clearly, the CIA's tough interrogation was an effective tool.
Robert Grenier, a former CIA counterterrorism center chief, told Mayer, "I can respect people who oppose aggressive interrogations, but they should admit that their principles may be putting American lives at risk."
Congress is putting American lives at risk not only by trying to prevent the tough interrogation of terrorists, but in its insistence that the Protect America Act passed last week, authorizing terrorist surveillance, should expire six months from now. We can all be sure that Iran and al-Qaida's jihad against America won't be expiring when that legislation sunsets early next year.
In the meantime, the threat is as great as ever:
James Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Clinton and has been bitingly critical of Clinton's policies against terrorism, told NewsMax that terrorists might be able to get a hold of cesium or strontium and detonate a radioactive dirty bomb, or obtain anthrax for a biological attack. "I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real," Woolsey said.
Interviewed by ABC News, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff recounted the split-second directives that were required to foil last year's London airline plot, in which as many as eight airliners could have been downed with hidden liquid explosives, slaughtering thousands. "You had to change literally thousands of people's behavior in the course of about 12 hours," Chertoff said. "So that everybody would understand what needed to happen at 6 a.m. the following day." Imagine if having to get warrants from judges were added to that process.
Every senator and congressman takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, which We the People ordained and established to, among other purposes, "provide for the common defense."
Trying to dismantle some of our most effective and innovative defenses against terrorists for political advantage comes close to violating that oath.
#4
Ya know, I used to think calling them traitors was a bit much, but newc's right. A Triator allows his own personal wants, desires and opinions to override the good of the country. He's a law unto himself, with no sense of the greater good. Sounds like the Pelosi and Reid crowd to me.
#5
We Americans declare jihad. Against the left, against the democrats, against the New York Times, against Hollyweird, against Political Correctness, against CAIR, against ACLU, against the MSM, and against Islam. Stomp them, stomp them into the dirt.
(rant/) that felt gooood.
I wondered whether the complete change in cultures in England will allow the maintenance of First World Civilization there, given that the people who built the civilization aren't having kids, emigrate often, and generally are being absorbed into an entirely different culture -- indeed with the enthusiastic cooperation of the Crown and government.
McCarthy thinks industrialization is irreversible.
I haven't thought this through; but the enormous crop yields of the past decades, over 160% more food grown on essentially the same land, require intensive fertilizers; this is a very high energy industry; can the energy and transportation grid be maintained? High energy civilizations look to me to be more fragile than most suppose. I did a good bit of work on that in studying for Lucifer's Hammer and some of the High Justice stories; and like Jane Jacobs I think Dark Ages are easier to come by than one may think.
In a Dark Age it is not that we have forgotten how to do something: it is that we have forgotten that it ever was done. As for instance we no longer remember that even in the legally segregated Old South over 90% of all school children, black or white, learned to read.
I hope John is right; but I am not sure I agree that civilization is irreversible. There used to be a country called Rhodesia. Are we not moving in that direction in all of the West, beginning with Europe. Are we not moving toward instant gratification, contempt for deferred rewards, rejection of savings, decline of literacy and numeracy? All over Europe? With the enthusiastic assistance of the bureaucracy? Or have I misread the situation?
#1
Oh yes... it is, and it would happen very easily; more easily than most people like to think.
And it happened to the Romans, after all. Consider what life would have been like for ordinary people in Imperial times... and then look at what it would have been like in the dark ages, as I did, here.
#2
Sgt Mom, I read the post you cited & it was excellent. Some of my hobbies are camping, hiking & genealogy. They've given me an intense and physical appreciation of civilization and its amenities. For example, last summer I came down with a kidney stone after hiking in 90 degree weather in 13th century Chaco Canyon. I drove 150 miles to Albuquerque, found a 24-hour Walmart, bought some NSAID's and Tylenol & took them with relish. Excellent relief in 45 minutes. My great grandfather died of kidney stones in 1873. My locked up knee was healed by arthroscopic surgery only recently invented. My aunt Janet died of rabies in 1928, after colliding with a bat in her kitchen doorway. Because her family was both impoverished and ignorant of the significance of this chance encounter, she was not immunized & died in an agonizing manner. My pregnant niece was struck by gallstones in her 6th month, and was successfully treated & had a full term delivery. This wouldn't have happened as recently as 125 years ago.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
#3
This is a multi-part question. To begin with, the first question should be "Is Technology Reversible?", to which the answer is yes.
Technology advances are based on need, skill, experience, knowledge, and retention. As such, our society has 'critical points' in technology where one or more of these things is lacking.
Not too long ago, Syria lost the last of its traditional makers of "Damascus steel" for swords, and as that knowledge was passed down in families, not written down, it is gone forever. Of course, with metallurgy today we can make far finer steels, but never again will there be any new Damascus steel.
The next question should be "Is Technology Sustainable?", and it has its own criteria. For example, major universities in the US once taught nuclear explosives engineering, the peaceful use of nuclear explosives to build earthen dams, dig canals, etc. But civilization decided it was not sustainable as a technology--just too many negatives.
The third element is "The Institutions of Civilization", which are many and manifold. If these are preserved most anywhere, civilization survives, as they will masterfully reinvent themselves in less civilized places.
But this is tempered with barbarism: The rejection of civilization which demands its destruction. But even this is no longer pure anarchy, just antiquated systems that once represented civilization trying to overwhelm those that came later and were far superior.
So the bottom line is only if mankind is reduced to near annihilation is there any chance for an end to civilization.
#4
Thank you AH!
That is exactly what I mean; we benefit so completely from a high degree of civilization that most of us manage to be unaware of it!
Like fish are unaware of water, I suppose.
#5
---- I don't think "near annihilation" is necessary to roll things backwards a few centuries. Collapse of the oil export process alone might do it.
---- I'm one fish who is very aware of the water he swims in & drinks & is intensely grateful to those who have contributed & to those who are still contributing.
#6
A better example is China. The Chinese invented paper, gunpowder, the compass, the rudder, planting crops in rows and many, many other technologies centuries before the west. And all it got them was the opium wars.
#7
Anyone else see the most recent episode of "Dirty Jobs"? Mike helped (more or less) the Makinac Bridge maintenance crew. They were scraping and painting one of the pylons -- the interior -- to prevent rust. As the guy who normally does that job said, "It has to be done."
Then he helped paint some of the suspension cables. Apparently every exposed surface is repainted each year.
It takes a massive amount of effort to maintain even the basics of civilization. The traces can hang around a long time -- there are large buildings supported by Roman-era construction in Rome and Istanbul -- but the functions take work.
And, again, I'm reminded of a couple of shows I've seen about archaeology. One was at the site of the city that appears to have been the home of the Queen of Sheba. Something like 3,000 years ago, the locals built a dam to catch the seasonal rains, and created a massive lake. They used that lake for irrigation and built a rich, powerful city.
That site's in Yemen. The present occupants sure don't seem interested in rebuilding the dam. Exact opposite, in fact -- archaeologists studying the site have to keep an eye out for the jihadis.
Civilization takes work. The more people assume it just "happens", the less likely it is to last.
(BTW -- I think "Dirty Jobs" isn't just a good show, but one of the best. Rowe respects everyone he meets, and the show's opening includes a line about "the men and women who make our way of life possible".)
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/09/2007 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Just look at New Orleans when the power, clean water, waste disposal, infrastructure to support the arrival of food and the like, breaks down. Only the existence of means just outside the immediate area to support a rapid recovery diverted an even greater disaster. Had Katrina happened as late the the '30s, you'd seen what the preindustrial society would have looked like, as both massive resources and funding wouldn't been, to paraphrase a statement accredited to a southerner, "thar fustest with the mostest".
One of the major contributors to the 'threat' is a 'professional' education establishment that has moved its rationale for existence from preparing youth to work and operate in the modern world and instead indoctrinating them into good Winston Smiths of Oceania. Form over function.
#9
GREAT summary, P2K! I truly believe we are more close to collapse than most realize. And, those who'll be strung up first are in bed with those who'll conquer us.
As many other engineers here, I know what it takes to keep modern day America going. From coal-powered power plants, to the "average Joes" working on your water and sewer lines and plants, to the road crews maintaining MILLIONS of miles of roads, bridges, tunnels, etc., your average person on the street has NO CLUE on what "goes on beneath". For example, look at the recent steam pipe explosion in NYC and the bridge collapse in Minn.
And, yet, those who dish out the moolah for these projects are more content to build "a bridge to nowhere" than they are maintaining what already exists. We're gonna have a HUGE price to pay soon for all these repairs, but if we continue to "kick the can down the road" it only builds up more.
And, New Orleans was the fault of leadership at the local and State levels. Absolutely nothing to do with the Feds.
Posted by: BA ||
08/09/2007 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I've said for years now that when the barbarians wrest control of europe, it will very quickly look like the shitholes they come from, not europe. Majority rules in europe dumbasses, now just sit back and stare blankly as you become a minority.
#12
Re: #7
I think I saw someone on this site once write that there is no such thing as a menial job. If anyone thinks ditch digging is menial they should try living without ditches for a while.
It will give them a new appreciation for ditch diggers.
#14
Is civilization reversable? Ask Rhodesia, the Union of South Africa or those in post-Shah Iran. Yes all three nations were unpleasant before but they are all retreating from the First World as quickly as possible.
#15
I think I saw someone on this site once write that there is no such thing as a menial job. If anyone thinks ditch digging is menial they should try living without ditches for a while.
It will give them a new appreciation for ditch diggers.
To quote Ted Knight from Caddyshack. "Well the world needs ditch diggers too."
#16
Someone once said something to the effect of "beware of societies that do not praise great plumbing because it is a humble art, but do praise shoddy philosophy. Neither their theories nor their pipes will hold water."
Sounds like the Dems Leftists.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/09/2007 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#17
One of the major contributors to the 'threat' is a 'professional' education establishment that has moved its rationale for existence from preparing youth to work and operate in the modern world and instead indoctrinating them into good Winston Smiths of Oceania. Form over function.
Word, Procopius2k. Style over substance, sic transit gloria mundi.
#21
RADICAL MULLAHS > Radical Islam will prevail becuz, besides the power of Allah-Heaven,no need to fear the "oil cataclysm" becuz camels don't use oil, no need to fear rising oceans becuz camels can swim, no need to fear ice ages becuz they live in desert/torrid regions, and no need to fear the Sun + Global-Solar Warming/Nova becuz in the desert/torrid areas only the Strong = Males survive, rule, and maintain order for the sake-survival of the group. Iff Radical islam does not prevail in war, it will prevail by outlasting and frustrating its enemies, + letting the West/Non-Muslim World destroy itself from within. *As a reminder, O'REILLY > Radical Enviros-Globalists are mostly ANTI-MATERIALISTS, ANTI-CAPITALISTS, ANTI-REPUBLICAN/FEDERALISTS, and ANTI-DEMOCRATICISTS/LIBERTARIANISTS and similar.
Spot on, Kelly. Of course, someone else already brought up N'awlins (ya know, the "Chocolate City") after Katrina, though.
What IS scary is how little the average Jane or Joe on the street know about how much energy it takes to keep their lives civilized. From paving miles of hot asphalt in the hot summer sun, to keeping pumps running and pipes from crumbling to keep raw sewage outta your home, to drill rig operators off the Gulf Coast who risk life and limb to bring us that "black gold," your average city-dweller NO LONGER KNOWS how much energy goes into making that cup of Starbucks or that McDonald's "burger." They WILL find out soon enough, though, if'n they continue to lie down with dogs and bring fleas in the house.
Posted by: BA ||
08/09/2007 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
