This is from the Chicago Boyz blog.
Venturing out to sea on boats during the bad old days of Viking culture was tantamount to suicide.
Their longboats were marvels of engineering. Shallow draft so they could travel up rivers, yet also able to operate in the open ocean, they were the perfect craft for lightning commando raids. They were also fast enough that they could catch any ship the Vikings could see, using oars for propulsion while larger ships were at the mercy of the wind.
If a band of Vikings set their sights on taking a ship, there wasn't anything the merchant skippers of the day could do to prevent a screaming group of northmen from swarming aboard.
But then some nameless genius, or more likely a group of geniuses, came up with a brilliant idea. If it was impossible to prevent the Vikings from boarding, why not build ships where the crew could fight them after the pirates were on deck?
This simple concept led to a ship known as the Cog, or cog-built ships.
Ironically, the general design was adapted from the Vikings own merchant vessels, but there were two changes that proved to make all the difference. The European ship builders constructed little wooden forts in the front and rear of the ship. They called these wooden castles the "stern castle" for the one in back, and the "forward castle", or "fo'c'sle". Quaint names that echo with past blood and terror. The idea was to let the Vikings come aboard if they so chose, while the crew retreated to their forts. The pirates would be out in the open, vulnerable to any sort of attack, while the crew fought from relative safety.
These new tactics by their former prey created problems for the Vikings that they never did manage to overcome. The best they could do was tie a bunch of longships together, forming a sort of floating roadblock to the merchant ship, and using the combined Viking crews to try and overwhelm the defenders through sheer numbers. The increased casualties that came from assaulting prepared defenses meant that going a-viking was nevermore as much fun as it used to be.
The merchant crews, even if faced with overwhelming numbers, would often refuse to surrender, and fight to the death. Word had gotten around from the few survivors and escaped sailors that managed to make their way back home that slavery, misery, and painful death awaited anyone who was captured alive by the Vikings. There just wasn't any reason to give up.
I'm going over ancient history with you because I saw a post at Strategypage.com that strongly reminded me of those long gone days. It seems that the same tactics first developed to deal with berserk Norsemen coming over the side also apply when faced with modern day pirates.
The crew of a Chinese merchant ship named the Zhenhua 4 managed to keep some pirates off the coast of Aden from taking their ship last December. When beset by armed gunmen in speedboats, the modern equivalent of Vikings in a longship, they took action.
"The resolute crew retreated to their living quarters and called for help. As the pirates came aboard, the crew fought back with fire bombs and fire hoses, and refused to come out of the living quarters. The pirates fired at the crew, and were apparently perplexed at what to do. Meanwhile, a nearby Malaysian warship dispatched a helicopter, which shot at the pirates and caused them to flee in their speedboats. The crew of the Zhenhua 4 patched up the bullet holes and resumed their voyage. "
Ships are still built with raised areas to the rear, leaving an area of open deck. This is to make it easier to load and unload cargo, as well as for open air storage while the ship is under weigh. But it also leaves the pirates with little cover if the crew decides to barricade themselves in the stern castle and fight back. The weapons were most assuredly different from those used by the sailors manning the Medieval cogs, with fire hoses and fire bombs instead of arrows and boat hooks, but the result was the same.
It is ironic that the old ways, the ancient tactics, have been rediscovered in this age of high tech marvels. The main difference seems to be that communications have become essentially instantaneous, with the skipper of the Zhenhua 4 using the radio to call for assistance. It seems that the Internet is also taking a role, informing other crews that are at risk as to their options.
"The Internet have proved an invaluable tool for ships planning for the Aden run. Everyone knows of the measures used by the Zhenhua 4 and the North Koreans, but there are many more ideas that have not gotten much coverage in the mass media. For example, crews now make more use of the fire hoses, and collect large objects (sheets of metal, junked furniture and empty boxes) to be heaved overboard onto the pirate boats. Poles are fabricated for pushing away ladders pirates often use to get aboard. The captains and crew members on the Internet exchange techniques for training crews, and preparing "repel boarders" drills."
Notice, if you will, that even the lowly boat hook is enjoying a renewed popularity as an anti-piracy tool. Besides steel hulls and firearms, I really doubt that a 10th Century sailor would be all that out of sorts if they were called upon to repel boarders.
The crews of modern merchant vessels are held for ransom by the pirates, so they are not made into slaves like in days of old. But, even so, most find that coming under the control of armed pirates to be less than a happy experience, and the sailors who went through that ordeal are eager to spread the word. "Sailors that have been aboard captured ships, and spent months in captivity, relate what that experience was like, and let other sailors know what to expect. This encourages the merchant ship sailors to pay closer attention to the drills and techniques to be used to avoid capture in the first place. "
The biggest value of resisting is to buy time so a warship can intervene. "These efforts by the crews have led to nearly 250 pirates being captured, in the past six months, by warships that often show up."
As Alphonse Karr once said, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
#1
Nice article, but how does this beat MA DEUCE, LAWS, TORPEDO NETS, "SEA GUARDS/BLACKWATER" + ONE OR MORE ARMED = UNMANNED RC DIRIGIBLES ON [slow] PERMANENT DUTY STATION.
#1
"Since the subprime crisis evolved into the international financial crisis in September last year, we have executed the central authorities' plans to cope with the international financial crisis and launched the emergency response mechanism. We have closely followed developments, made timely adjustments to risk management, taken decisive and forward-looking measures to evaluate and remove risks ... "
#4
America has a long and respected tradition of utterly screwing foreigners who hope to make big bucks here. After all is said and done, they will be lucky to recover $10 for every $10,000 they invest here.
I read an article the other day that said the Chinese may not like our deficits, or our stimulus package, or the colour of our hair, but there's no place else they can put their money... so they're stuck.
#9
ION CHINA, WORLD MILITARY FORUM > IIUC CHIN EXPERTS: US MAY SEND NUCLEAR WARSHIPS [ AEGIS, SSN, CVBG] INTO THE SOUTH CHINA SEA TO INTIMIDATE CHINA; + PHILIPPINES MAY USE PENDING US NAVAL, ARMS TRANSFERS [ 6 ex-USN Warships, Helos]TO ENFORCE SOVEREIGNTY CLAIMS AGZ CHINA ON SPRATLEYS/XISHA ISLANDS, + MALAYSIA, PHILIPPINES, AND VIETNAM REITERATE CLAIMS AGZ CHINA ON DISPUTED CHINA SEA ISLANDS.
* CHINESE MIL FORUM [paraph] > REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM LAUNCHES FORMAL PROTESTS AGZ PHILIPPINES BASELINE BILL.
Also on CMF, POSTER(S) > Iff USA truly follows its own demands per other world Nations, IT WILL SUBMIT AND ACCEPT THIRD-NATION/PARTY INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ON THE SOVEREIGNTY STATUS OF GUAM + HAWAII [strategic islands]. Read, PRO-CHIN/PRC POSTERS DESIRE GUAM + HAWAII, ETC. INDEPENDENT = FREE FROM THE USA [ China-Asia]!?
Even the audit log system on current versions of Premier Election Solutions' (formerly Diebold's) electronic voting and tabulating systems --- used in some 34 states across the nation --- fail to record the wholesale deletion of ballots.
#2
Indeed, iblis, vote fraud material to the outcome of an election has become an entirely one-sided issue. Wasn't always so, but I think since the 1950s - and that in very few cities - it's been strictly a donk affair.
But the ginormous, spectacular, almost defiantly brazen election/campaign law violations of Bambi's campaign elicited not a peep of interest from anyone on Earth. Kinda nice, adds to the surreal nature of almost everything in the US going on 6 months now .....
Written by a self-identified Obama admirer. Alex Conant, Politico
I've concluded that much of the conventional wisdom about Obama is wrong. Here are five of the biggest misconceptions:
1. Obama is bold. Actually, he is overly cautious. It's no coincidence the first bills he signed into law were the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, two populist favorites. Signing these bills was not an act of courage any more than attacking lobbyists or selecting Joe Biden as a running mate. In fact, Obama's entire agenda is cautious (sometimes to a fault, in the case of his housing and banking bailouts). Are the numbers in his proposed budget eye-popping? Yes. But eye-popping budgets are well within the Democratic mainstream now.
2. Obama is a great communicator. Cut away the soaring rhetoric in his speeches, and the resulting policy statements are often vague, lawyerly and confusing. He is not plain-spoken: He parses his language so much that a casual listener will miss important caveats. That's in part why he uses teleprompters for routine policy statements: He chooses his words carefully, relying heavily on ill-defined terms like "deficit reduction" (which means tax increases, rather than actual "savings") and "combat troops" (as opposed to "all troops in harm's way"). It also shows an inability to think on his feet, and perhaps a lack of any guiding philosophy. I swear to God, the man needs a teleprompter to put his daughters to bed. 3. Obamaland is a team of rivals. Obama earned the label "No-Drama Obama" for a reason. His closest advisers -- those who actually shape his thinking, strategy and policies -- are loyal and, by all accounts, like-minded. Obviously, they regularly disagree with each other, as any group of smart individuals does. But reading the (many) profiles of Obama aides written since the election, it's striking that there are no anecdotes of serious disputes inside Obamaland. Obama does try to bring political foes into the fold when it's convenient, but his team is primarily made up of political friends. Culled from the herd of independent minds. 4. Obama is smooth. Despite being deliberate, Obama is surprisingly gaffe-prone. Reporters on my e-mail lists last year know he consistently mispronounced, misnamed or altogether forgot where he was. (In one typical gaffe in Sioux Falls, S.D., he started his speech with an enthusiastic "Thank you, Sioux City!") His geographic gaffes are not just at routine rallies but at major events, including the Democratic National Convention and his first address to Congress. Any politician occasionally misspeaks, but the frequency of Obama's flubs is notable.
5. Obama has a good relationship with the media. Working with the hundreds of reporters who covered the Obama campaign last year, I was struck by how many of them would quietly complain about Obama's borderline disdain for the press. Sometimes it is readily visible -- like when he scolded a reporter for asking a question during a presidential visit to the White House briefing room. Other times it's more passive, like long gaps between press conferences, or it's reflected in his staff's attitude. That's what's going to do him in. One by one, as individual MSMers reach the point of having been dissed one time too many, they'll turn against him. Once it reaches critical mass, we hit the tipping point,...'Bama, look out!
Posted by: Mike ||
03/18/2009 08:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One by one, as individual MSMers reach the point of having been dissed one time too many, they'll turn against him.
Well, it's more about ego that the media [with a simple four year 'challenging' degree in journalism] believe they are the ruling class leaders and that Presidents should be bright enough to acknowledge their wisdom. We made you, we made you, know listen up. Heh.
Astounding as it may seem, MoDo's got her long knives out and she's carving Obama like a Christmas goose.
On St. Patrick's Day, the president spoke a bit of Gaelic, dyed the White House fountains green and talked about his distant relatives in the tiny Irish town of Moneygall, aptly named since money and gall are the two topics now consuming him. But Mr. Obama is still having trouble summoning a suitable flash of Irish temper at the gall of the corrupt money magicians who continue to make our greenbacks disappear into their bottomless well. He's got to lop off some heads.
As he watches the fury of ordinary Americans bubble up at those who continue to plunder our economy, he should keep in mind one of my dad's favorite Gaelic sayings: "Never bolt the door with a boiled carrot."
His lofty team of economic rivals is looking more like a team of small forwards and shooting guards. At the White House on Monday, the president read reporters some tough talk from the teleprompter about the chuckleheads at A.I.G., accusing them of "recklessness and greed." But it was his own boiled carrots who acted shocked at bonuses that they should have known were coming, and should have dismantled before handing A.I.G. another $30 billion two weeks ago. It is bad enough that the billions are being laundered through A.I.G. to the likes of bailout double-dippers Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America, not to mention foreign banks. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
03/18/2009 08:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Astounding indeed, but she's got her analysis and larger facts about financial matters appropriately wrong - just in case anyone was worried about her!
[G]enuine bipartisanship...assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority party will be constrained - by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate - to negotiate in good faith.
This argument, especially the notion of promoting good faith, was central to his star turn at the 2004 DNC, as well his presidential campaign.
Contrast this with the recent comment of press secretary Robert Gibbs, who dismissed the criticisms of former Vice-President Dick Cheney thusly: "I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal."
The term "cabal" was popularized as an acronym for the members of Charles II's Committee for Foreign Affairs, who were said to be running the state. Today, the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as, "a secret or private intrigue of a sinister character formed by a small body of persons; 'something less than conspiracy.'"
So, gone are the days of the vast right wing conspiracy. Presumably, electoral defeat has depleted its ranks - now, it is a mere cabal. Still, it is comforting to know that, though smaller in size, its aims are as sinister as ever.
Later in the presser, Mr. Gibbs conceded that his answer had been sarcastic. We might write this off if it were an isolated incident, but it is not. The White House is openly working to delegitimize Republican challenges to the President's proposals, effectively to argue that the GOP is not a loyal opposition. Recall that the White House endeavored to label Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican Party; that this "message war" to paint Republicans as "reflexively political" continues; that one of the first White House officials to mention Limbaugh was the President himself; and that the President has also misrepresented the Republican position on big issues like the stimulus.
So much for promoting good faith. Instead, the White House has fallen into the kinds of partisan habits the President once decried: overwrought rhetoric, misrepresentation of the other side, and ad hominem attack.
I am not the first to point this out. Most recently, the Washington Post ran a front page story on the tension between Obama's governance and his inaugural address, which disavowed, "the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." When asked to comment on this, the President's Chief of Staff resorted to recriminations: "The truth is that 98 percent of [Obama's] speeches are about the future, and 2 percent are about inheritance, whereas I think for Republicans it's 2 percent about the future, and 98 percent hope that the people have amnesia."
Bipartisanship is easier said than done. Ultimately, partisan rivalry is generated by competing visions of the public good. Sometimes, the competition is more intense than other times. For whatever reason, this is a fiercely partisan era.
Of course, it's been worse. Harry Truman was a good man who today is admired by historians and beloved by the public. But his tenure was marked by heated partisanship, in part for reasons beyond his control. Demobilization after World War II created problems on the home front. The dropping of the Iron Curtain meant trouble overseas and suspicion at home. Republicans - shut out of power for Roosevelt's tenure - were anxious to assert themselves.
But that does not mean we're victims of fate. Truman's rancorous tenure was followed by Dwight Eisenhower's. Ike enjoyed 60%+ approval for his term. Partisan tensions eased. Forty years ago, historians wrote him off as a lightweight who let his advisers make the decisions - but since then they have revised their views, and Eisenhower is now thought to have had a deft hand in managing the government. So, the President can make a difference.
Many thought Barack Obama would at least try. His writing reflects an understanding of "genuine bipartisanship." His campaign implied he wanted to give it a go. Yet his press secretary suggests that his opponents are in a shadowy cabal. This is right out of Hillary Clinton's playbook, the candidate who was offering "more of the same," which we could "no longer afford."
I am worried. Not because I am enamored of bipartisanship. I like Ike - but I like "Give 'em Hell" Harry, too. I have no problem with the sharp elbows approach, even coming from the White House. I am worried because I thought partisan reconciliation was an animating force of Obama's candidacy, a big reason why he thought he - rather than one of the 306 million other Americans - should be President. I am worried that, amidst a credit crisis, two wars, and a lack of confidence in our nation's institutions, we have installed as President a man apparently willing to abandon a foundational premise of his candidacy not three months into his tenure. The erosion continues. Barely 60 days into the new administration and the depth of pessimism in the OP-ed and commentary writers deepens daily. So Obama is going to go on Jay Leno on Thursday. By then, the AIG story will be further developed including the fact that Obama signed the stimulus bill [which no-one read] confirming the payments. Jday just has to ask him a simple question. Why is he so outraged now, given that he signed the bill in a big ceremony at Denver proclaiming it was going to save the economy. Thinking members of the press have to be rolling around on the floor by now at the amateurishness - the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 ||
03/18/2009 01:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thinking members of the press have to be rolling around on the floor by now
Truly the moral of so many fairy tale: be careful what you wish for, lest you get it. Of course, a great many of them will retire in the next few years to concentrate their thinking on other things, as their employers cut back and shut down. A great tragedy, as so many fairy tales are, underneath the witches and goblin kings and beautifully fey fairie kings.
Looks a lot like a smoking gun? Surely Dodds can't talk his way out of this one?
Last week, in an obscure subcommittee hearing, a senior Treasury official professed ignorance when asked by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D, Md.) about $165 million that AIG paid in employee retention bonuses as it was raking in billions in TARP funds from Uncle Sam. The story had not yet made the rounds on the news.
But it was not long before everyone was railing against them. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.) suggested a 100 percent tax on them. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) suggested in jest that AIG execs commit hara-kiri. Even President Obama got into the act, affecting outrage over them before delivering yesterday's speech on small businesses.
But why is Obama so outraged and surprised? Today we learn that he signed the very bill that quite clearly made those bonuses legal the $787 billion stimulus package he had traveled around the nation promoting. The bill includes restrictions on executive compensation, but creates an exception for bonuses contractually obligated before February 11 of this year. The provision, and the exception, were inserted into the bill by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd (D, Conn.), who has received more than $100,000 from AIG employees in the last 20 years, had written and inserted the relevant provision, with the relevant loophole. How can he, the president, or anyone else who voted for the stimulus, suddenly act surprised? Don't tell us they didn't read the bill.
House Republicans are already calling for a return of the money, and holding a press conference. Here is the statement from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R, Va.) from this afternoon.
Today, news reports reveal that a last minute provision in the stimulus bill inserted by Democrats protected bonuses like those received by AIG executives. Taxpayers deserve better than this from their government, and this is just the latest reason why legislation must be transparent for all Americans to see before it is recklessly signed into law.
UPDATE: Here is the loophole, from the section of the stimulus package that deals with compensation rules for TARP recipients:
The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
Frankly, it's hard to imagine how the government could prevent such contracts from being honored. But the presence of this loophole, in black and white, certainly gives the lie to all of this phony outrage by the senator who created the loophole, by the president who signed it into law, and by everyone else who voted for the stimulus package. Is this too subtle for the thundering herd to understand?
Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 ||
03/18/2009 00:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From Bloomberg: Democrats Tacit Bonuses Approval May Undercut Rage The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley said in a statement today. There was no transparency" The rip-off is what is transparent.
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.
