Sagepaper

People are wondering about international aid for us. Usually, we say, "We're fine, thank you." Now, many people polled think we have been generous enough with the world to merit some assistance in our hour of need. So far as I know, only Russia and Germany have offered to help so far.

I think a well-considered acceptance of foreign aid would make sense. I was amused, though, at one citizen who said he wouldn't be satisfied until South Korean troops were on the streets stopping looters. "Boots on the ground" is not the problem right now. They have more of that than they can cope with.

I did like one suggestion for a request to an ally who has not formally offered aid. The Netherlands could perhaps give us a really big boost with their expertise. The Dutch are top-of-the-world in the engineering of dikes, dams, levies, locks, and all sorts of other engineering to make water go where you want it, and not where you don't. If we called on the Netherlands, they might help us repair the levies we have lost. While they haven't made a public offer of aid, I'm sure they would be more than happy to help us out.

In a time like this, it probably seems inappropriate to be critical of heroes saving lives. In fact, I don't criticize them, but I do have one major complaint about the Coast Guard's search and rescue efforts.

They are trained to rescue individuals from all sorts of hazardous places. Sometimes, there are many individuals to rescue. They have rescued over a thousand individuals on Monday. I'm grateful and impressed.

The problem is that a population needs to be saved, not individuals. A reporter asked a Coast Guard officer how they decide who lives and who dies, since it will not be possible to rescue most of the remaining survivors. With a sorrowful burden in his voice, he said they go around looking for signs of life, and save the ones that come to their attention.

During that interview, the most sickening thing was the discussion of people who have been in unventilated attics long enough that they are running out of air and suffocating. They know this from ones they reached just in time. When they find a family in an unventilated attic, they do what they are trained to do. They chop a large hole in the roof, and begin bringing people out of the hole, carefully, and then securing them in some manner to a line on the helicopter. When they are safely in the chopper, they lower the line for the next person.

It takes a long time to rescue a family of four. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are many other families like the one above. Emergency workers know that people are still dying, and little can be done against this magnitude of cataclysm. They haven't started thinking outside the box, yet, though. Standard Operating Procedures are not fully applicable.

In the time it took to do a photo-op rescue at one house, many families could have been saved. Mind you, I am not accusing anyone there, journalists included, of trying to turn search and rescue into a photo-op. You can see from aerial photography that it is easy to tell roofs which have no ventilation from those that do.

I think the Coast Guard should lower a man onto a roof, have him chop a hole, then raise him and MOVE ON. Ventilate as many insufficient shelters as possible. That buys time. When they chop the holes, or at some later time, they can drop-off water and rations. That buys lots of time!

I know it is not normal for us to consider it acceptable for a family to remain in a half-flooded attic with scant provisions. Our normal, wealthy, inclination is to take them somewhere that they can shower, put on fresh clothes, and call their out-of-state relatives. This is not a normal situation. I do not consider it acceptable to do a full, civilized rescue airlift while families who have survived so much, for so long, suffocate.

I have emailed everyone I can think of about this. I hope someone knows someone, who knows someone. Rescue operations have been suspended during the dark. It is too dangerous to move around in pitch black with the entire utility infrastructure in chaos. It is my hope that, if this is a good idea, it could save people tomorrow. Many who were suffocating today might have already perished.

Water is rising in New Orleans. That means there are structures which are ventilated now, but won't be tomorrow. Some people now even have top floor windows open and are not yet in attics. I truly hope they will be able to save a higher percentage of survivors starting in the morning than was possible today.

If this sounds to you like an idea that might be worth the attention of some extremely busy people, please try to get the message through. I know I am not the only second-guesser in the country, and they don't have time to waste listening to every suggestion thought-up across this great and troubled land.

I have a lot of education about emergency management, at all scales. The real take-home message here is they must think outside the box. They are thinking at too low a scale. Some are thinking at too high a scale. You cannot save lives one grateful girl with a teddy-bear at a time. You cannot save lives if you are thinking about oil production.

Don't get me wrong on that. I certainly hope people are thinking about it. More to the point, we have just lost one of our high-value strategic cities. Because it is a port, it is a target accessible to some of our less well-equipped enemies. I fully expect that the Pentagon has a complete plan on the shelf for dealing with the loss of New Orleans. (They have complex plans for the loss of each strategic city, and for every combination of strategic cities.)

During and following revolutions, peaceful or otherwise, there is usually a big question mark hanging over the heads of members of the former ruling party. This has been a very sticky situation for Rwanda. Earlier, we faced the problem of which ex-Nazi's to keep, and which to execute.

Typically, the debate has been solved by a cut-off at some level of bureaucracy. Above the line, employees are considered to have been willing criminals. Below the line, people are considered to have been innocent employees making a living. Sometimes, there is a gray zone in which each former party member is evaluated individually.

The Sunni's in Iraq are correct in their predictions of what would happen to Iraq if former Baathists are excluded from government. This would not be your average brain-drain; it would be a decapitation. Who would you rather have at the desk in a public library: a knowledgeable, trained former Baathist, or a Shiite with his heart in the right place, but not his books? What about infrastructure? Will you deny a former Baathist electrical worker employment for which he is trained, and whose skills are needed? Or will you let Shiites and Kurds learn the hard way by getting electrocuted trying to maintain the power grid?

Exclusion of all former Baathists is an injustice to many trained and educated, harmless, citizens. Even more seriously, it would be a blow to the nation's human resources which could cripple Iraq for a few generations. There is a problem, however, with keeping Baathists around.

This situation is like many post-colonial self-governance situations. An ethnic minority was in power, behaved ruthlessly, and is now in the hands of a wrathful majority. I do not know how Baathists behaved. In some post-colonial dictatorships, the ruling minority individually degraded and harmed those "under" them.

I think it would be unacceptably tedious to try to determine the "guilt" of each former Baathist. A background check for everyone seeking government employment would be nice, but the records will not be a reliable indicator of character and conduct. I think what they need is a set of stringent laws which will satisfy the Kurds and Shiites -- as applied to them as well -- to prevent abuse of power in government. Then, cull Saddam and the people with whom he ate dinner, and a few other known monsters. After that, give a general amnesty. You could even make it a limited amnesty -- everyone except murderers or torcherers.

They will find who needs to be fired fairly quickly that way. The alternative is to take a decade or two deciding who to rehire and who to sentence for crimes. The Arusha trials of Rwandans are an example. The decade or two might be nice for Iraqis, but that is too long for them to cling to our apron strings.

In Rwanda, the situation was very different. The detested ruling minority went into exile, and that lasted long enough for there to be a diaspora. When the Tutsis regained power, many of the exiled returned, so they had a fairly good pool of human resources with which to rebuild.

In Iraq, the liberated Shiites and Kurds cannot make it on their own. They must have the Sunnis. Otherwise, they will have to spend their oil money having foreign contractors come in and do things for them. After this many years of various wars and sanctions, the oil money is needed for higher priority projects.

I took my dog, Zack, outside a couple of days ago. Despite its being his first trip out for the day, he just flopped down on the sidewalk in the sun. So, I figured I'd wait for him; he seldom decides to sun himself.

While I was waiting, I heard a splat off to the left. I looked and saw a mighty wad of bird lyme. I went back to watching Zack, but then felt a menacing presence. I looked at the bird lyme again, I had thought it might have been a critter before I saw that it was a dropping. I couldn't tell what it was, but that was the source of the bad attitude.

I looked more closely. The attitude intensified as I drew nearer. It was a small white toad. I've never seen a small white toad before. It was under trees overhead, but not under the roof at all. I wondered if it were injured from the splat. That might give it an attitude problem. I asked it to show me its tongue, so I would know if it were alive. It said it didn't know if it could. I told it to try. For the first time since I had been watching it, it flicked its tongue out. I told it that was good. I went back to lean on the rail while Zack sunned himself.

I watched the toad, though. I saw a brief, weak shimmer, like heat from pavement, but not as dramatic. I thought it might be my eyes, but that would have been a new trick for them. Then the odor hit. The white toad had just given-off stink. It did this again every two to three minutes for a while.

I know that many animals, including primates, signal primal things with odors. Most human smells are subliminal, but sexual arousal and terror are discernible smells. I wondered if the odor had been present earlier, when I decided the toad had an attitude problem. It wasn't scared or defensive, though. It was hateful, mixed with predatory impulses.

Zack moved up to the porch to sun himself. The toad never moved. I studied its appearance more closely. It was white, but with faint, warty spots on it. I figured the small amount of coloration present ruled-out its being an albino.

Eventually, Zack was ready to go in the house, despite not having relieved himself. He veered toward the toad to give it a sniff, which I prevented. Once inside, I took care of his routine and pondered the hostile toad.

I had wondered about a variety of possibilities for its splat and for its bird lyme appearance. I had mostly figured a bird must have dropped it from one end or the other. I remembered that there were such things as tree frogs, though. Perhaps there were tree toads.

I took a half glass of water out and sloshed most of it across the boards to him, and poured some on him. He wasn't too grateful, but it did seem to be the right thing to do. I watched him through the window. The water on his board was absorbed by the wood, although there was water pooled on the next board.

I took another half glass of water out to him. I sloshed it again, but was a bit impatient with his attitude. When I dumped the remainder on his skin, I did so from higher up. That had enough force, it caused him to move, demonstrating that all four of his limbs were functional. I also saw suction cups on its hind toes.

I went back in the house, and watched. I couldn't see the tongue at that distance, but I saw a small rhythmic movement at the edge of the water, suggesting it was drinking. I had done all I knew to do for the toad, so I went upstairs to get on the Internet and find out what it was.

The closest thing to what it might be is a gray tree frog. The variants in color extend to the white that I saw. The warty back was within the realm of possibilities, but not in conjunction with the rows of spots. Rows of spots were within bounds, however, although they usually merged into stripes. The size was off, but it might have been young. On the other hand, it was fat like a toad, so it's diet was not going toward making it a longer frog. It did not look like any of the copious photo examples.

Finally, I turned-up something on a search for a white tree toad. An arborist of forty years in New England encountered one. He had never seen anything like it in those decades. His description exactly matched my toad. He had written to the top expert on amphibians in the nation, and the answer was posted on the net. The expert said it must have been a gray tree frog.

So, did I see a common gray tree frog with an attitude problem? Or am I the second person to identify a rare, white tree toad? Unfortunately, I did not think to photograph it. It seemed to have been refreshed by the water, as it was gone when I went back to look again. It never occurred to me that it could be a controversial sighting. I'm sure an arborist of forty years has seen plenty of the common gray tree frogs.

Fortunately, I was able to rule out one ugly possibility: a cuban frog. From Cuba, these are aggressive predators (could explain the attitude). Their coloration range includes white with gray spots. They can be differentiated from other species only by hidden markings or their song. Except for a lower lip coloration, which my toad did not have.

These frogs are destabilizing the ecology from Florida on up to Savannah. They are enough of a problem that authorities are nervously watching their advance. If you think you have one, you are to kill it and send it to them for identification. If you don't want to send it into a lab, in the name of conservation, kill it at once and look for more. One such frog ate all the frogs in a Florida lady's backyard, emptied her goldfish pool of all its fish, and hung around looking for more stuff. She called the Department of Natural Resources, and was surprised by their advice. They told her to catch the frog in a container, euthanize it in her freezer, preserve it in alcohol, and send it in for identification. She wasn't happy with the answer, but complied.

So, that is my not well-solved mystery. Of the possibilities on the web, gray tree frog is the best fit. The prominent suction cups argue more for a frog than for a toad. I don't know about the attitude, though. It was worse than the bat's. It was worse than many insects.

There are, evidently, two types of gray tree frog, distinguishable only by their songs. One has twice as many chromosomes as the other. Perhaps the half-as-many-chromosomes variant is more primitive and has a nastier personality.

I have generally found frogs to be friendly. They can be easily spooked, but seem playful when they don't feel threatened. Even catching one doesn't usually evoke menacing hostility, just frenzied panic.

Toads have seemed to me a bit more reserved. If they can remain hidden, that is their preference, which makes sense -- they are not as nimble as frogs. Approaching toads, I have sensed apprehension and worry, mostly. They have to decide whether to keep still and unnoticed, or break their cover and run for their lives.

I have gotten a wee bit of attitude from a couple of really large toads. Nothing like the white toad, though. Little splotch of white gave me the evil-eye!

President Bush has already met with this woman. It is very rare for a citizen to get a few minutes with the President. He has paid quite enough attention to her. As I understand it, he listened earnestly, and made a remark or two clarifying his position on the war. Those who have flocked to join Sheehan just want vicarious attention, in my opinion.

The neighbor who fired his shotgun said he was supportive at first. He believes it is every American's right to protest. The numbers have swelled, though, and snarled "traffic" on a remote rural road. Additionally, there are more and more Port-A-Potties being moved in for sanitation.

I think there is a better solution than firing a shotgun, although it would be more expensive. I think the neighbor should rent one of those spotlights used by car dealerships and shine it all night, every night on the tents of the protestors. I'd kick in a donation on the rental.

If they want to be in the spotlight, so be it!

Well, I certainly am in favor of allowing pocket-knives and razors back on flights. After United Flight 93, passengers have shown a greater willingness to gang-up on trouble makers on planes. I think it only makes sense to allow them some small arms to do so. After United 93, I would not count on taking a plane with a box-cutter; not even if I had a couple of haunchos with me. A cabin--full of people, however, could be formidable with everyone wielding a three-inch knife.

Regarding the exemptions proposed, I agree that the listed officials probably do not pose a threat to the aircraft, and you could skip screening them. For elected officials, I worry that they will lose touch with the on-going reality lived by their constituents. Elected officials already have some transportation perks, like no speed limits, for official business. An airplane takes-off altogether, though. Even if the officials breeze past security, they will still have to wait for everyone else before the plane takes-off. You could argue that a fast pass through security could give them more time to do important work, but technology and rules have it set-up to where they can really get about as much done in line as not.

The one elite group that seems ridiculous to me is those holding high-level security clearances. Now, these people have had their characters screened as well as humanly possible. It is extremely unlikely that any of these people would harm the US or its citizens. In fact, it might be a comfort if one had deadly weapons on them, as they are the sort who would defend Americans with their lives. I am absolutely opposed to exempting them from screening. For most people who have high security clearances, their level of clearance is itself classified. You don't want terrorist observers hanging out in airports and identifying non-elected officials who by-pass airport security. They could create a hit-list from such observation. They might not know who the person is, what their area of expertise might be, or who they work for, but they would know these people were important, and have some knowledge of classified material.

Kidnapping them might yield some useful information, or not. They might grab an optics person working on a material to allow a greater lens than Hubble's to be put into orbit -- not much use to a terrorist. Or, they could just kill people on the hit-list, creating a brain-drain. We might not care if the optics lady spilled her guts to Bin Laden, but it could really hurt not to get her back. I think every precaution should be taken to ensure the privacy of those who hold high-level security clearances. We need them, and their lives are on the line.

Here's a post I made on an AOL board as I was trying to get caught-up on news and issues. I must admit, it makes me nervous to write something like this online, where I have no expectation of privacy or anonymity. I feel like a chicken for feeling nervous about it, too. Here's what I wrote in response to a post saying all marijuana users were druggie losers destroying their bodies and their lives:

Not all proponents of changes to marijuana laws are "druggies," as you define them. I smoked marijuana as a teenager, and stopped when I married. That has been more than 15 years ago. I am certainly not weak. Marijuana did not prevent me from entering college at the age of fifteen, and succeeding. I am like the vast majority of people with whom I enjoyed copious quantities of marijuana. I am not a felon. We pretty much all quit when the War on Drugs resulted in the reclassification of marijuana from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The fact that I don't use any illegal drugs does not mean I have "recovered" from something horrible. I simply made a decision about what kind of citizen I wanted to be. I decided I would follow Abe Lincoln's path of abiding by the law, while working to change it.

Unfortunately, unconstitutional powers were given to the "Drug Czar." I do not feel safe exercising my first amendment rights for the cause of decriminalizing marijuana. I think the polls clearly show that I am not the only advocate for changing the laws regarding marijuana who has been silenced by the threat of severe, violent, property-depriving reprisals for simply expressing a pro-marijuana opinion. If more than 70% of Americans want a change to the marijuana laws, where are the letter drives? the marches? the get-out-the-vote drives? Where are the questions for the candidate debates? Why is no one even willing to run for office, anywhere, on a pro-marijuana platform?

America does not need a "Czar" of any kind. It is completely antithetical to who and what we are.

I thought someone was trying to hack me. Unfortunately, there is a hardware problem that includes the hard-drive. I must shut down immediately to prevent further damage. I don't know when the guru geek can get here, or how long it will take. It will probably be shipped somewhere for warranty work. Sorry.