Recently, Newt Gingrich caused a stir in the run-up to the Florida GOP primary by suggesting that, by 2020, a Gingrich Administration would set up a permanent base on the Moon. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it's a good idea ... Actually, never mind, that's a good discussion to have. There are several good reasons why we want to do that, eventually. But there are several equally good reasons that there's just no way in Hell we're going to get there from here by 2020.
One reason is radio astronomy. The biggest problem with radio astronomy is interference. We use radio for everything. We use it to talk to each other, to share pictures and music, to share information. We use it to find out how far airplanes are from one another, and to keep passenger airplanes from running into mountains. Our power lines leak radio frequency energy, even though we'd really rather they didn't. All of this makes radio astronomy, the science of exploring the universe by analyzing the radio frequency radiation coming at us from deep space, a very tricky discipline indeed. Wouldn't it be nice, if you could put a radio telescope somewhere that was shielded from all of Earth's radio frequency output?
Another reason is clean energy, albeit indirectly. If you were to put farms of solar power panels in geosynchronous orbit, you could beam clean energy down from space 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Building them is a fairly tall order, and it would be cheaper to haul the building materials up from the Moon than it would be to haul them up from the Earth.
You're free to disagree with me on this, of course, but I'm convinced that an outpost on the Moon is a good idea for our long-term future, not just as a nation but as a species. But it's vitally important that we do it right. And there's just no way to do it right in only nine or ten years. Let's make a quick outline of what needs to be done in order to get there from here.
First, you need a mature transportation infrastructure. The longest pole in this tent is efficient, reusable transportation to and from low Earth orbit for both crew and cargo. You're going to be moving a lot of cargo both up and down, so you need to be able to do it cheaply, and on a reliable, dependable schedule. You also need to be able to develop the technology for in-space refueling, so that you can store fuel and supplies at an orbital supply depot. You'd also like to have really efficient engines for space propulsion, so that you can be as miserly with that fuel as possible. Finally, you will need to develop closed-loop life support, so that your base can be as self-sufficient as possible. Now, where have we heard this before? (Hold on to that thought. We'll come back to it later.)
Given all of that, here's how you'd need to proceed:
(1) Stockpile some fuel and supplies in low Earth orbit.
(2) At the same time, haul up some parts, and assemble a couple of cislunar freighters.
(3) Load the freighters with fuel, supplies, and parts.
(4) Once they arrive in Lunar orbit, they will assemble a second fuel and supply depot.
(5) Once back in Earth orbit, load the freighters with fuel, supplies, parts, and a couple of lunar landers.
(6) Once back in Lunar orbit, the landers will take the parts down to the surface, and begin construction.
This way, you have a sustainable supply chain to keep the project going for as long as you need to. And there's no way to do this in only ten years. Oh sure, if we already had all of the enabling technologies, we could make it happen. But we don't. And therein lies the problem. Some of us learned the wrong lessons from Project Apollo.
Project Apollo left us with an awesome legacy. Six flags and twelve sets of footprints stand in eternal testimony to what we can do as a nation when we plant our feet, fix our eyes on the ball, and swing for the fences. But it also leaves a false impression that we can do anything -- literally anything -- with only nine years' notice. And that's not necessarily true.
We have a lot of hard work to do before we're ready to undertake the challenge of building a permanent outpost on the Moon. We've barely begun that work. If we undertake the "Flexible Path" option outlined in 2009's Augustine Commission report, we will have done the lion's share of the preparation by 2020. Then, and only then, can we realistically undertake the task.
Anyone who tells you different is either lying, crazy, or just delusional. Although in Gingrich's case, it may well be all of the above.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Election 2012: The Winter Of Our Discontent
OK, now we've had one caucus and two elections, and we've had three different candidates win them so far. It's been a wild ride so far, and there's no indication that things will settle down anytime soon. So, let's brush off our crystal ball, and see what it portends. As always, our numbers are courtesy of Intrade, and are current as of this Friday afternoon.
Democratic Party: Seriously, I need to stop doing this. But I am an engineer, and it offends me to leave anything out. Still: all of the important filing dates have passed, and no one worth mentioning has stepped up to try to unseat Barack Obama within his own party. Also, despite the pundits constantly trying to whip up a controversy, Obama's not going to dump Joe Biden as his Vice-Presidential nominee. It's going to be Obama/Biden for the Democrats this fall, unless a crate of bricks falls on either or both. (Which ain't gonna happen.) So I'm not even going to bother looking the numbers up. This one's a lock.
Republican Party: This has truly been a spectacle to behold. Three races, three different winners, with Florida on deck next week. This isn't over yet, not by a long shot. Still, Vegas does have one clear favorite.
Mitt Romney, 86.2%: His polls have been up and down more than a speed freak on a jet-powered pogo stick, but the wagering public still thinks very highly of Romney's chances to win the nomination. But I wonder if he's overpriced at this early date in the process. After all, he does have several serious problems as a candidate. For one, he seems very out of touch economically with the average Republican voter. For another, as I've said before, Obamacare is Romneycare with the serial numbers filed off. And, here's the thing that's really going to hurt him in the South, a lot of evangelical Christians aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christians. So, until the campaign swings through several Southern states, it's early days yet to anoint Romney as the inevitable nominee. All that said, he's got funding and organization, and plenty of it. Those will help him out. Especially since one or more of his opponents are liable to have spectacular melt-downs in coming months.
Newt Gingrich, 5.2%: Speaking of melt-downs ... Newt is fueled by emotion, primarily rage. Rage is a useful servant but a perilous master. More than that, without a friendly audience to bounce off of, his debating style is significantly hampered. He got a big bounce off his South Carolina win, and will probably get a significant bounce out of his next Southern win. It'll come. He's got a strong base of support down South. It looks like he's the winner of the "not-Romney" primary, although there are still a few minor contenders for that crown. But I don't think he'll win the nomination. Conservatives like him somewhat, but he's disorganized, prone to rage, and has a propensity for spouting off weird ideas. And speaking of weird ideas...
Ron Paul, 3.0%: Some die-hards are still plugging for the old guy. He had a brief surge a while back. But we all know that the NFL will open an expansion team in Ulan Bator before Dr. Paul comes within shouting distance of the nomination. Which is probably just as well: some of his ideas, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back on the Gold Standard, are just plain nuts.
Rick Santorum, 2.5%: After Iowa, I had predicted that Santorum would be the go-to candidate for the social conservatives. This ... hasn't quite turned out to be the case. Santorum looks like he's skipping Florida entirely, and is taking the weekend off. That's probably a prelude to punching out of the campaign entirely, if he fails to find traction in the Bible Belt. He'll probably stick around for Super Tuesday, but may not last much longer than that.
The Rest: No one else is above 1%. Since our last check, we've lost Rick Perry, who endorsed Newt Gingrich. Perry goes back home to Texas, where he pretends to run the state while Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst does all the heavy lifting. In two years' time, we'll see if Rick Perry runs for another term as Governor or not. And in four years' time, we'll see if he reloads for another go at the brass ring in 2016. He just might. He's got four years to undo the damage this goat-rope of a campaign has done. Don't underestimate this man: his political skills are first-rate, he just wasn't ready for the national stage. He will be ready next time.
And the winner is... Intrade gives the Democrats the edge, 53.7% versus 44.3% for the Republicans. The economy is starting to look up, just a little, which makes it harder for a challenger to unseat an incumbent.
Bonus Feature! Our man Newt has big ideas. One of those big ideas is to award a prize for building a Moonbase. Normally, I'd be all over that like a cheap suit, but I don't think we can get there from here just right now. But, just so you can see what sort of swinging pad Newt has in mind, here's a fine bit of television from the 1970s. It's got Barbara Bain in a jumpsuit, so it can't be all bad.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
Democratic Party: Seriously, I need to stop doing this. But I am an engineer, and it offends me to leave anything out. Still: all of the important filing dates have passed, and no one worth mentioning has stepped up to try to unseat Barack Obama within his own party. Also, despite the pundits constantly trying to whip up a controversy, Obama's not going to dump Joe Biden as his Vice-Presidential nominee. It's going to be Obama/Biden for the Democrats this fall, unless a crate of bricks falls on either or both. (Which ain't gonna happen.) So I'm not even going to bother looking the numbers up. This one's a lock.
Republican Party: This has truly been a spectacle to behold. Three races, three different winners, with Florida on deck next week. This isn't over yet, not by a long shot. Still, Vegas does have one clear favorite.
Mitt Romney, 86.2%: His polls have been up and down more than a speed freak on a jet-powered pogo stick, but the wagering public still thinks very highly of Romney's chances to win the nomination. But I wonder if he's overpriced at this early date in the process. After all, he does have several serious problems as a candidate. For one, he seems very out of touch economically with the average Republican voter. For another, as I've said before, Obamacare is Romneycare with the serial numbers filed off. And, here's the thing that's really going to hurt him in the South, a lot of evangelical Christians aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christians. So, until the campaign swings through several Southern states, it's early days yet to anoint Romney as the inevitable nominee. All that said, he's got funding and organization, and plenty of it. Those will help him out. Especially since one or more of his opponents are liable to have spectacular melt-downs in coming months.
Newt Gingrich, 5.2%: Speaking of melt-downs ... Newt is fueled by emotion, primarily rage. Rage is a useful servant but a perilous master. More than that, without a friendly audience to bounce off of, his debating style is significantly hampered. He got a big bounce off his South Carolina win, and will probably get a significant bounce out of his next Southern win. It'll come. He's got a strong base of support down South. It looks like he's the winner of the "not-Romney" primary, although there are still a few minor contenders for that crown. But I don't think he'll win the nomination. Conservatives like him somewhat, but he's disorganized, prone to rage, and has a propensity for spouting off weird ideas. And speaking of weird ideas...
Ron Paul, 3.0%: Some die-hards are still plugging for the old guy. He had a brief surge a while back. But we all know that the NFL will open an expansion team in Ulan Bator before Dr. Paul comes within shouting distance of the nomination. Which is probably just as well: some of his ideas, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back on the Gold Standard, are just plain nuts.
Rick Santorum, 2.5%: After Iowa, I had predicted that Santorum would be the go-to candidate for the social conservatives. This ... hasn't quite turned out to be the case. Santorum looks like he's skipping Florida entirely, and is taking the weekend off. That's probably a prelude to punching out of the campaign entirely, if he fails to find traction in the Bible Belt. He'll probably stick around for Super Tuesday, but may not last much longer than that.
The Rest: No one else is above 1%. Since our last check, we've lost Rick Perry, who endorsed Newt Gingrich. Perry goes back home to Texas, where he pretends to run the state while Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst does all the heavy lifting. In two years' time, we'll see if Rick Perry runs for another term as Governor or not. And in four years' time, we'll see if he reloads for another go at the brass ring in 2016. He just might. He's got four years to undo the damage this goat-rope of a campaign has done. Don't underestimate this man: his political skills are first-rate, he just wasn't ready for the national stage. He will be ready next time.
And the winner is... Intrade gives the Democrats the edge, 53.7% versus 44.3% for the Republicans. The economy is starting to look up, just a little, which makes it harder for a challenger to unseat an incumbent.
Bonus Feature! Our man Newt has big ideas. One of those big ideas is to award a prize for building a Moonbase. Normally, I'd be all over that like a cheap suit, but I don't think we can get there from here just right now. But, just so you can see what sort of swinging pad Newt has in mind, here's a fine bit of television from the 1970s. It's got Barbara Bain in a jumpsuit, so it can't be all bad.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, January 06, 2012
Election 2012: Raucous Caucus
Well, that was certainly interesting.
The first official results of the 2012 election are in, and the first blood has been drawn. As it turns out, not even Iowa would vote for someone with Marty Feldman eyes, and thus endeth the Bachmann campaign. Incidentally, this is why I'm an engineer by trade, and not a professional pundit: I really thought her ground game and virtual "hometown" status would have meant more. But instead, she becomes an object lesson, along with Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich in the deadly peril of peaking too soon.
You know who didn't peak too soon, at least for Iowa? Rick Santorum. His was the great good fortune to rise in the polls just as Gingrich was sinking. His wave crested at precisely the right moment, and he rode it to a second-place finish, just behind Romney. The interesting thing is that each of the top three finishers represents one of the GOP's three major blocs, who aren't always on speaking terms with one another.
Back in 1980, there were also three blocs, just not the same three. You had the "old guard" Republicsns, you had the social conservatives, and you had the anti-Communists. There was some overlap. Enough, in fact, that Ronald Reagan was able to forge a durable alliance amongst them that lasted for ... well, long enough that the label "anti-Communist" would become dated. We recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet Union's demise.
Today, the first two blocs are still there, broadly speaking. The third has changed. Some call them libertarians, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that label. But as I said, the top three finishers in Iowa each tapped into one of those constituencies: Romney is the choice of the Old Guard, Santorum is the current flavor-of-the-month for the social conservatives, and Ron Paul has galvanized the libertarians.
But even more so than thirty years ago, the three factions aren't necessarily on speaking terms. There isn't as much overlap as there once was. Which means that this race is, among other things, a struggle for control of the party. To wit: which faction, or coalition of factions, is in charge?
Iowa settled nothing, but it exposed an interesting question. The lead, and the eventual nominee, will provide the answer. If Romney is the nominee, it means that the Old Guard has reasserted its authority, or at a minimum that it has forged a coalition, most likely with the social conservatives. If it's Santorum, or even Perry, it means that the social conservatives have seized control. A Ron Paul candidacy would mean the libertarians are in charge, but come on, we all know that Satan will drive to work in a snowplow before that happens.
The next few contests won't clarify much. I do expect that we'll see clear leaders emerge for each faction. We will also probably see a down-select to a two-way race by March ... Which is another way of saying, one of the three factions will basically be edged out.
One way or another, we'll find out what these Republicans are made of.
Remember, vote early, and vote often!
The first official results of the 2012 election are in, and the first blood has been drawn. As it turns out, not even Iowa would vote for someone with Marty Feldman eyes, and thus endeth the Bachmann campaign. Incidentally, this is why I'm an engineer by trade, and not a professional pundit: I really thought her ground game and virtual "hometown" status would have meant more. But instead, she becomes an object lesson, along with Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich in the deadly peril of peaking too soon.
You know who didn't peak too soon, at least for Iowa? Rick Santorum. His was the great good fortune to rise in the polls just as Gingrich was sinking. His wave crested at precisely the right moment, and he rode it to a second-place finish, just behind Romney. The interesting thing is that each of the top three finishers represents one of the GOP's three major blocs, who aren't always on speaking terms with one another.
Back in 1980, there were also three blocs, just not the same three. You had the "old guard" Republicsns, you had the social conservatives, and you had the anti-Communists. There was some overlap. Enough, in fact, that Ronald Reagan was able to forge a durable alliance amongst them that lasted for ... well, long enough that the label "anti-Communist" would become dated. We recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet Union's demise.
Today, the first two blocs are still there, broadly speaking. The third has changed. Some call them libertarians, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that label. But as I said, the top three finishers in Iowa each tapped into one of those constituencies: Romney is the choice of the Old Guard, Santorum is the current flavor-of-the-month for the social conservatives, and Ron Paul has galvanized the libertarians.
But even more so than thirty years ago, the three factions aren't necessarily on speaking terms. There isn't as much overlap as there once was. Which means that this race is, among other things, a struggle for control of the party. To wit: which faction, or coalition of factions, is in charge?
Iowa settled nothing, but it exposed an interesting question. The lead, and the eventual nominee, will provide the answer. If Romney is the nominee, it means that the Old Guard has reasserted its authority, or at a minimum that it has forged a coalition, most likely with the social conservatives. If it's Santorum, or even Perry, it means that the social conservatives have seized control. A Ron Paul candidacy would mean the libertarians are in charge, but come on, we all know that Satan will drive to work in a snowplow before that happens.
The next few contests won't clarify much. I do expect that we'll see clear leaders emerge for each faction. We will also probably see a down-select to a two-way race by March ... Which is another way of saying, one of the three factions will basically be edged out.
One way or another, we'll find out what these Republicans are made of.
Remember, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Video Del Fuego, Part LI
I saw this on Andrew Sullivan's site, and it was just too good to keep.
I have two dogs of my own, a Chiweenie (Dachshund/Chihuahua mix) and an Australian Shepherd (who we think is also part Labrador). I don't have any movies of them, although Duke (the Aussie) does periodically try to help me with my typing.
And I had some more serious ideas knocking around in my head, but none of them are jelling worth a damn just right now. So, more puppies:
These guys are just adorable. They'd hate it down here, though... We used to have a Sheltie/Husky mix, who we'd have to shave down to a "crew cut" in the summertime. She loved it when it got cold. And snowy. It's a damn shame she didn't live long enough to see last February's snowfall.
Speaking of snow:
Watching puppies did teach me something profound. I now know why God created us. Paradoxically, there's one thing that an omniscient being can never know, except vicariously. And that's the thrill of discovery.
Have a safe and happy New Year, everyone!
I have two dogs of my own, a Chiweenie (Dachshund/Chihuahua mix) and an Australian Shepherd (who we think is also part Labrador). I don't have any movies of them, although Duke (the Aussie) does periodically try to help me with my typing.
And I had some more serious ideas knocking around in my head, but none of them are jelling worth a damn just right now. So, more puppies:
These guys are just adorable. They'd hate it down here, though... We used to have a Sheltie/Husky mix, who we'd have to shave down to a "crew cut" in the summertime. She loved it when it got cold. And snowy. It's a damn shame she didn't live long enough to see last February's snowfall.
Speaking of snow:
Watching puppies did teach me something profound. I now know why God created us. Paradoxically, there's one thing that an omniscient being can never know, except vicariously. And that's the thrill of discovery.
Have a safe and happy New Year, everyone!
Friday, December 23, 2011
Video Del Fuego, Part L
Christmas time is upon us again, which gives us a chance to enjoy some fine music and fine memories. For me, no Christmas is quite complete without the music of Vince Guaraldi. For some reason, embedding has been disabled for this piece, but it's still well worth a listen.
Earl Three has a remix of that piece -- "Christmas is Coming" -- and it's pretty nice, too:
Another Christmas piece I'm fond of is "Christmas Wrapping" by The Waitresses:
And the Trans-Siberian Orchestra's rendition of Carol of the Bells:
And, lastly, a Christmas memory from 43 years ago:
As we close out another year, and look to a new one, I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cheers!
Earl Three has a remix of that piece -- "Christmas is Coming" -- and it's pretty nice, too:
Another Christmas piece I'm fond of is "Christmas Wrapping" by The Waitresses:
And the Trans-Siberian Orchestra's rendition of Carol of the Bells:
And, lastly, a Christmas memory from 43 years ago:
As we close out another year, and look to a new one, I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cheers!
Friday, December 16, 2011
Techniwockle Confoogalities
It's crunch time at the day gig. I should come up for air in a week or so.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Election 2012 Preview: Handicapping the Primaries, Part IV
One month and one day from today, the Iowa caucuses mark the official kickoff of the 2012 election season. The race has been going full-tilt for about six months now, but this will be the first time that actual voters will be able to weigh in on who they think should contest the Presidency in November, 2012. The time for prognosticating will be mostly over, and we'll actually have real results to chew on. So, for the last time before the voting starts, let's see how the wagering community sees it. (As before, all data from Intrade, current as of Friday afternoon.)
Democratic Party: I'm only including this because I'm a stickler for completeness. By now, it ought to be blindingly obvious that the Obama/Biden ticket will be up for re-election in November.
Barack Obama, 93.5%: In this case, "blindingly obvious" doesn't quite amount to 100% just yet. But that's because you have a few adventurous folks, who are taking a long-odds flier on...
Hillary Clinton, 6.1%: Can't blame 'em. At that price, you'll make over ten for one, if it happens. Which it won't. As I've said earlier, eligible sitting Presidents who want the job never lose renomination. It just doesn't happen.
Joe Biden, 0.6%: Now there's a long shot for you. But sorry, that's money you'll never see again. See above.
Republican Party: And here's where things start to get interesting. We've had several candidates surge, and crash, in succession. First Trump, then Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain. Now ... well, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Mitt Romney, 48.2%: Romney has held a fairly steady lead, but his lead is eroding. In the early debates, he really did look like the only adult in the room. Unfortunately, he also looks uncannily like a collaboration between MIT's artificial intelligence lab and their cybernetics department. That is, he looks like a human, talks like a human, but doesn't quite pull off the imitation convincingly. On top of that, a fairly sizable chunk of the Republican electorate has serious misgivings about his religion. This is, and isn't, a head-scratcher for me. On the one hand, I've had Mormon neighbors, and you just won't find any better. On the other, I've talked to Baptists who are convinced that Mormons aren't Christians. In this case, ultimately, the latter will trump the former. Maybe Romney can overcome this, but probably not.
Newt Gingrich, 36.0%: And here we have the "not-Romney" flavor of the month. This honestly surprised me. As late as July, Gingrich was down to 1%, and I'd counted him DOA. With my trusty 20-20 hindsight, I can see that he's taking a few cues from the John McCain playbook, who was similarly left for dead in the summer of 2007. Gingrich is a lot of things, stupid isn't one of them. Dude's got an earned doctorate in history. He wasn't quite good enough to earn tenure, which is why he entered politics, but he's no dullard. He's a thoroughly bad man, but not a dumb one. And he's cresting at just about the perfect time. A win or place in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, plus a win in South Carolina, sets him up nicely for February and March.
John Huntsman, 5.8%: This is about where he started back in March. He's been lower, and he's been higher, but his campaign really hasn't gotten a whole lot of traction. But I'm convinced that he's really positioning himself for 2016. Oh, he'd take the 2012 nomination if it came his way. But look at what he's saying. He's positioning himself as the man who was right, when the rest of the candidates had gone stone barking mad. Look for him to check out fairly early, and resurface sometime in 2014.
Ron Paul, 4.5%: Ron Paul, on the other hand, will give up the race when they strip it from his cold, dead hands. He'll tell you that he wants to be President. And he's probably sincere in that. But, part of the point is that the campaign trail is a bully pulpit for issues near and dear to his heart. And that's fine. I'll drink a toast to his health. I don't agree with him on most things, but society needs its professional heretics.
Rick Perry, 2.3%: Oh, dear. The voting age has been 18 since I started elementary school. He's had plenty of time to learn that little fact. But, evidently, not enough time. If the governorship of Texas were a real job, I'd be concerned. But it's not, so we're OK. Consider Governor Perry to be the comedy relief for this campaign season.
Michelle Bachmann, 1.4%: Bachmann is up about half a point from mid-October. I still think she might get a bit of a spike out of a strong showing in Iowa, which is still a non-trivial possibility. But no one outside of Iowa will vote for someone with Marty Feldman eyes. So, she'll probably punch out before March.
Herman Cain, 0.6%: By the time you read this, he will probably have withdrawn. I was sure that his candidacy would come unglued when the campaign swung into the South. I had no idea it would come unglued because of his ... vigorous extracirricular activities. Seems like there's one every year, doesn't it? And it's an equal-opportunity failing, too; it was Edwards last time around. Take a note, gentlemen: there are problems you will never have, if you stay faithful.
And the winner is... By party, the Democrats are ahead 50.9% to 46.5%. By individual, Barack Obama leads the pack at 50.8%. Two factors weigh somewhat in his favor. One, unemployment is on the way down. It's still not good, but it's below 9% for the first time in a long while. Going into the summer, the things to look for are unemployment rate, gas prices, and the general tenor of the foreign situation. While they don't look great, they're trending OK so far. Plus, Intrade is showing a 30% probability that some damn fool like Trump or Palin will mount a third-party bid. This probability goes up if Romney ends up with the Republican nomination.
As I've said before, I'd still put a couple of bucks on Obama/Biden for the win. The odds are tightening up, but if you can find any takers, go for it.
The primary season starts in earnest on January 3, 2012. Vote early, and vote often!
Democratic Party: I'm only including this because I'm a stickler for completeness. By now, it ought to be blindingly obvious that the Obama/Biden ticket will be up for re-election in November.
Barack Obama, 93.5%: In this case, "blindingly obvious" doesn't quite amount to 100% just yet. But that's because you have a few adventurous folks, who are taking a long-odds flier on...
Hillary Clinton, 6.1%: Can't blame 'em. At that price, you'll make over ten for one, if it happens. Which it won't. As I've said earlier, eligible sitting Presidents who want the job never lose renomination. It just doesn't happen.
Joe Biden, 0.6%: Now there's a long shot for you. But sorry, that's money you'll never see again. See above.
Republican Party: And here's where things start to get interesting. We've had several candidates surge, and crash, in succession. First Trump, then Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain. Now ... well, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Mitt Romney, 48.2%: Romney has held a fairly steady lead, but his lead is eroding. In the early debates, he really did look like the only adult in the room. Unfortunately, he also looks uncannily like a collaboration between MIT's artificial intelligence lab and their cybernetics department. That is, he looks like a human, talks like a human, but doesn't quite pull off the imitation convincingly. On top of that, a fairly sizable chunk of the Republican electorate has serious misgivings about his religion. This is, and isn't, a head-scratcher for me. On the one hand, I've had Mormon neighbors, and you just won't find any better. On the other, I've talked to Baptists who are convinced that Mormons aren't Christians. In this case, ultimately, the latter will trump the former. Maybe Romney can overcome this, but probably not.
Newt Gingrich, 36.0%: And here we have the "not-Romney" flavor of the month. This honestly surprised me. As late as July, Gingrich was down to 1%, and I'd counted him DOA. With my trusty 20-20 hindsight, I can see that he's taking a few cues from the John McCain playbook, who was similarly left for dead in the summer of 2007. Gingrich is a lot of things, stupid isn't one of them. Dude's got an earned doctorate in history. He wasn't quite good enough to earn tenure, which is why he entered politics, but he's no dullard. He's a thoroughly bad man, but not a dumb one. And he's cresting at just about the perfect time. A win or place in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, plus a win in South Carolina, sets him up nicely for February and March.
John Huntsman, 5.8%: This is about where he started back in March. He's been lower, and he's been higher, but his campaign really hasn't gotten a whole lot of traction. But I'm convinced that he's really positioning himself for 2016. Oh, he'd take the 2012 nomination if it came his way. But look at what he's saying. He's positioning himself as the man who was right, when the rest of the candidates had gone stone barking mad. Look for him to check out fairly early, and resurface sometime in 2014.
Ron Paul, 4.5%: Ron Paul, on the other hand, will give up the race when they strip it from his cold, dead hands. He'll tell you that he wants to be President. And he's probably sincere in that. But, part of the point is that the campaign trail is a bully pulpit for issues near and dear to his heart. And that's fine. I'll drink a toast to his health. I don't agree with him on most things, but society needs its professional heretics.
Rick Perry, 2.3%: Oh, dear. The voting age has been 18 since I started elementary school. He's had plenty of time to learn that little fact. But, evidently, not enough time. If the governorship of Texas were a real job, I'd be concerned. But it's not, so we're OK. Consider Governor Perry to be the comedy relief for this campaign season.
Michelle Bachmann, 1.4%: Bachmann is up about half a point from mid-October. I still think she might get a bit of a spike out of a strong showing in Iowa, which is still a non-trivial possibility. But no one outside of Iowa will vote for someone with Marty Feldman eyes. So, she'll probably punch out before March.
Herman Cain, 0.6%: By the time you read this, he will probably have withdrawn. I was sure that his candidacy would come unglued when the campaign swung into the South. I had no idea it would come unglued because of his ... vigorous extracirricular activities. Seems like there's one every year, doesn't it? And it's an equal-opportunity failing, too; it was Edwards last time around. Take a note, gentlemen: there are problems you will never have, if you stay faithful.
And the winner is... By party, the Democrats are ahead 50.9% to 46.5%. By individual, Barack Obama leads the pack at 50.8%. Two factors weigh somewhat in his favor. One, unemployment is on the way down. It's still not good, but it's below 9% for the first time in a long while. Going into the summer, the things to look for are unemployment rate, gas prices, and the general tenor of the foreign situation. While they don't look great, they're trending OK so far. Plus, Intrade is showing a 30% probability that some damn fool like Trump or Palin will mount a third-party bid. This probability goes up if Romney ends up with the Republican nomination.
As I've said before, I'd still put a couple of bucks on Obama/Biden for the win. The odds are tightening up, but if you can find any takers, go for it.
The primary season starts in earnest on January 3, 2012. Vote early, and vote often!
Friday, November 25, 2011
The Future Is ...
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed." -- William Gibson
I've said before that predictions aren't something I ought to do very often, because I normally don't do them very well. And when we're talking about things like who's going to win an upcoming election, or which players will do well this season, that's a good rule of thumb. But today, I'm going to talk about technological trends. The future holds both wonders and horrors, and most of both are already with us in some form or another. Specifically, I'm going to be talking about the implications of a piece of modern technology that many of us already carry with us on a daily basis: smart phones.
This is part of what Gibson was talking about: the future is already here, it's just not uniformly distributed. The modern cellular telephone is still called a telephone, when in reality it's a palm-sized computer that has a telephone function. It can also send and receive text messages, e-mail, and function as a web browser. It can hold a small library of books, movies, and music. And it can function as a calculator, stopwatch, camera for both still and moving images. And a map. Never forget the map. We are raising a generation that has no clear idea of what it means to be involuntarily lost. In their mental universe, we've always been able to reach up into space and pull down our exact location.
However, that's just a drop in the bucket. The bottleneck, the thing that keeps these devices from being more pervasive than they already are, is the interface. There's a limit to what can be done with a few square inches of screen space.
We are about to transcend those limits. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin are designing an optical display that can fit within a contact lens. This means that future smartphones will be able to paint their displays directly upon your field of vision. The implications of this are immense.
You've heard of "virtual reality." This isn't it. This is something I've heard called "augmented reality." It's your world, with more information. That's both a good thing, and a bad thing. First, the good.
Right off, let's take a look at that turn-by-turn navigation feature that you hardly ever use while you're driving. Augmented Reality makes this far more useful. Instead of a tiny map that you cannot use safely while driving, you get a green line pasted on your field of view, telling you in no uncertain terms where you need to turn in order to get where it is you want to go. Merely asking, "How do I get home from here?" results in a path popping out in front of you, leading the way. And since you'll probably be able to use your fingers as a pointer, you can frame questions about anything you can point at. Asking "What is that?" can tell you anything from what species of bird that is, to what kind of airplane, to where that specific flight came from and where it's going. (Most UFO sightings will be disposed of within seconds.) You'll be able to see weather alerts, if you want to. It's already just about true that any of us with an internet connection can find the answer to just about any question whose answer is known, in the future that answer is available by voice query, and can be immediately displayed in front of your eyes, anytime, day or night.
But, it's not without disadvantages.
A horrifying new dimension of message spam opens up, when a hacker can hijack your visual display to force you to see anything they want you to see. Going by the contents of my spam bucket, most of this will be advertising for products you shouldn't mention in a family publication. Some of it will consist of more innocuous advertisements, say, a blurb about coffee when you walk past a Starbuck's. Others will be pranks played on you by ... friends. And we all have at least one friend like that, with a wildly inappropriate sense of humor. Worst of all, closing your eyes may not even block it out, depending on exactly how these things work. Personal data security will be of paramount importance, unless you like the idea of being bombarded with horrifying images on a fairly constant basis.
Further, an entirely new etiquette will have to be developed to account for this. We're already heading down that road, establishing when it is and isn't appropriate to use cell phones. However, things change when you no longer have to be looking at the device to interact with it. The guy who looks like he's politely paying attention may be doing nothing of the sort. He might be watching Casablanca. He might be playing Call of Duty. Unless you can tap the data stream, you have no way of knowing. I have no idea how we'll sort that out. But we'll have to figure it out once we get there.
And we will get there. The advantages so far outweigh the drawbacks that we won't be able to avoid it. There are parts I'm really looking forward to, and parts that I'm dreading, but on the whole it's a huge opportunity. Opportunity for what, we just don't know yet.
But it'll be fun to find out.
I've said before that predictions aren't something I ought to do very often, because I normally don't do them very well. And when we're talking about things like who's going to win an upcoming election, or which players will do well this season, that's a good rule of thumb. But today, I'm going to talk about technological trends. The future holds both wonders and horrors, and most of both are already with us in some form or another. Specifically, I'm going to be talking about the implications of a piece of modern technology that many of us already carry with us on a daily basis: smart phones.
This is part of what Gibson was talking about: the future is already here, it's just not uniformly distributed. The modern cellular telephone is still called a telephone, when in reality it's a palm-sized computer that has a telephone function. It can also send and receive text messages, e-mail, and function as a web browser. It can hold a small library of books, movies, and music. And it can function as a calculator, stopwatch, camera for both still and moving images. And a map. Never forget the map. We are raising a generation that has no clear idea of what it means to be involuntarily lost. In their mental universe, we've always been able to reach up into space and pull down our exact location.
However, that's just a drop in the bucket. The bottleneck, the thing that keeps these devices from being more pervasive than they already are, is the interface. There's a limit to what can be done with a few square inches of screen space.
We are about to transcend those limits. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin are designing an optical display that can fit within a contact lens. This means that future smartphones will be able to paint their displays directly upon your field of vision. The implications of this are immense.
You've heard of "virtual reality." This isn't it. This is something I've heard called "augmented reality." It's your world, with more information. That's both a good thing, and a bad thing. First, the good.
Right off, let's take a look at that turn-by-turn navigation feature that you hardly ever use while you're driving. Augmented Reality makes this far more useful. Instead of a tiny map that you cannot use safely while driving, you get a green line pasted on your field of view, telling you in no uncertain terms where you need to turn in order to get where it is you want to go. Merely asking, "How do I get home from here?" results in a path popping out in front of you, leading the way. And since you'll probably be able to use your fingers as a pointer, you can frame questions about anything you can point at. Asking "What is that?" can tell you anything from what species of bird that is, to what kind of airplane, to where that specific flight came from and where it's going. (Most UFO sightings will be disposed of within seconds.) You'll be able to see weather alerts, if you want to. It's already just about true that any of us with an internet connection can find the answer to just about any question whose answer is known, in the future that answer is available by voice query, and can be immediately displayed in front of your eyes, anytime, day or night.
But, it's not without disadvantages.
A horrifying new dimension of message spam opens up, when a hacker can hijack your visual display to force you to see anything they want you to see. Going by the contents of my spam bucket, most of this will be advertising for products you shouldn't mention in a family publication. Some of it will consist of more innocuous advertisements, say, a blurb about coffee when you walk past a Starbuck's. Others will be pranks played on you by ... friends. And we all have at least one friend like that, with a wildly inappropriate sense of humor. Worst of all, closing your eyes may not even block it out, depending on exactly how these things work. Personal data security will be of paramount importance, unless you like the idea of being bombarded with horrifying images on a fairly constant basis.
Further, an entirely new etiquette will have to be developed to account for this. We're already heading down that road, establishing when it is and isn't appropriate to use cell phones. However, things change when you no longer have to be looking at the device to interact with it. The guy who looks like he's politely paying attention may be doing nothing of the sort. He might be watching Casablanca. He might be playing Call of Duty. Unless you can tap the data stream, you have no way of knowing. I have no idea how we'll sort that out. But we'll have to figure it out once we get there.
And we will get there. The advantages so far outweigh the drawbacks that we won't be able to avoid it. There are parts I'm really looking forward to, and parts that I'm dreading, but on the whole it's a huge opportunity. Opportunity for what, we just don't know yet.
But it'll be fun to find out.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Video Del Fuego, Part XLIX
On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students (possibly with the backing of the revolutionary government, possibly not) took over the United States Embassy in Tehran. The Americans were held hostage for 444 days, until January 20, 1981. During their captivity, there were at least two plans made for a rescue. One is well known, the other less so.
The one that just about everyone's heard of is Operation Eagle Claw. Eagle Claw was a complex operation, involving eight RH-53 helicopters and four C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, three of which were carrying fuel for the return trip. It required close cooperation between elements from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. It also required a bit of luck with weather. The close cooperation worked tolerably well enough. The weather ... didn't. Eagle Claw ended in disaster when one of the helicopters collided with one of the tankers while they were preparing to abort the mission anyway, because they didn't have enough mechanically-fit helicopters to complete the mission.
But that wasn't the end of the matter. They had one more trick up their sleeve. One of the problems with Operation Eagle Claw was that it relied on too much coordination. They decided to simplify matters by using only one aircraft, staging the mission out of the continental United States, using multiple in-air re-fuelings on the way to Iran, and meeting up with a nearby aircraft carrier. The aircraft they chose was a C-130 Hercules, and they would land inside a soccer stadium close by the American Embassy.
"Now hold on a second," I hear you saying. "You can't actually do that." Well, not with a stock C-130, you can't. But this one? It's been modified. Ladies and gentlemen, behold Operation Credible Sport:
Yes, someone looked at a C-130 airframe and said, "You know what this thing needs? Rockets. A whole bunch of rockets." One set of rockets to soak up the high rate of descent. Another set of rockets to slow the beast down once you're on the deck. And a third set of rockets, to kick your butt back up skyward when it's time to leave. Oh yeah, this would have gotten the job done.
Except that, on the last test flight, some damn fool hit the switches out of sequence. Believe it or not, everyone made it out of there. With that much explodium on board, you'd better believe they had a fire truck close by.
But for that, the hostages might have been home by early November. As it was, on November 2, the Iranian parliament accepted an Algerian mediation plan, and a few days after that, Jimmy Carter lost his re-election bid. The plan was shelved after that.
And by the way: landing a C-130 on a carrier was the least crazy part of this plan. It had been done before, in 1963.
The one that just about everyone's heard of is Operation Eagle Claw. Eagle Claw was a complex operation, involving eight RH-53 helicopters and four C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, three of which were carrying fuel for the return trip. It required close cooperation between elements from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. It also required a bit of luck with weather. The close cooperation worked tolerably well enough. The weather ... didn't. Eagle Claw ended in disaster when one of the helicopters collided with one of the tankers while they were preparing to abort the mission anyway, because they didn't have enough mechanically-fit helicopters to complete the mission.
But that wasn't the end of the matter. They had one more trick up their sleeve. One of the problems with Operation Eagle Claw was that it relied on too much coordination. They decided to simplify matters by using only one aircraft, staging the mission out of the continental United States, using multiple in-air re-fuelings on the way to Iran, and meeting up with a nearby aircraft carrier. The aircraft they chose was a C-130 Hercules, and they would land inside a soccer stadium close by the American Embassy.
"Now hold on a second," I hear you saying. "You can't actually do that." Well, not with a stock C-130, you can't. But this one? It's been modified. Ladies and gentlemen, behold Operation Credible Sport:
Yes, someone looked at a C-130 airframe and said, "You know what this thing needs? Rockets. A whole bunch of rockets." One set of rockets to soak up the high rate of descent. Another set of rockets to slow the beast down once you're on the deck. And a third set of rockets, to kick your butt back up skyward when it's time to leave. Oh yeah, this would have gotten the job done.
Except that, on the last test flight, some damn fool hit the switches out of sequence. Believe it or not, everyone made it out of there. With that much explodium on board, you'd better believe they had a fire truck close by.
But for that, the hostages might have been home by early November. As it was, on November 2, the Iranian parliament accepted an Algerian mediation plan, and a few days after that, Jimmy Carter lost his re-election bid. The plan was shelved after that.
And by the way: landing a C-130 on a carrier was the least crazy part of this plan. It had been done before, in 1963.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Sesquicentennial, Part XVIII: Foreign Affairs
--FIRST -PREV NEXT-
In the modern era, we're accustomed to fast-moving, quick-paced conflicts. The interval between the initial invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad in 2003 could be measured in weeks. The interval between the beginnings of unrest in Libya and the death of Quaddafi could be measured in only months. This, you have to understand, is a fairly new development, especially in American military history. Specifically, it was a response to what happened in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. One of our take-aways from that conflict is that we wouldn't have time to gear up for any future conflict ... and the new watch-words became "come as you are" and "win the first fight." We appear to have more or less learned the lesson.
But in 1861, we were still over a century away from that revelation. The fall of 1861 moved very, very slowly. This was a deliberate pause on both sides. One of the things clear to everyone after the Battle of Bull Run was that no one was really ready for any of this. Everyone needed time to raise, equip, and train fresh troops. A whole lot of fresh troops.
The Union wasn't having a tremendously difficult time doing any of this. To raise and outfit an army, you need a supply of manpower, ready cash to buy weapons and ammunition, more ready cash to expend ammunition in training, and skilled men to lead and direct the training of your new troops. The Union ran down its list: Manpower? Check. Cash? Check. More cash? Check. Skilled men? Well, sort of. But still check.
The Union was beginning to shake out its pre-War old guard. Some of the retirements, if somewhat unfair, were also necessary. Lieutenant General Winfield Scott, the Army's commanding general, was an old man, and not in the best of health to begin with. If he were younger and more vigorous, he'd probably be the man for the job; but young and vigorous he most assuredly was not. His retirement was expected, and surprised no one. As his replacement, Lincoln selected the brightest of his rising stars: General George McClellan. His earlier success was one of the few bright spots for the Union so far. And if there's anything a former railroad engineer knew, it was organization. And it does have to be said: that fall and that winter, General McClellan molded the broken, dispirited soldiers that slouched around Washington into a tight, disciplined unit: the Army of the Potomac. And he strengthened the defenses surrounding Washington to the point that the Federal capital was now the most heavily-fortified city on Earth. Whatever else you may have to say about General McClellan, you must give him credit for laying the groundwork and forging the tools. He was, in many ways, a perfectly splendid officer.
Down South, a similar story was playing out. The Confederates had the same four needs for army-building. And they ran down the same checklist: Manpower? Check ... for now. Cash? Check, with the same proviso. More cash? Well, we may have to get back to you on that one. Skilled men? Oh yes, plenty! But, without arms and ammunition, what can they do?
The Union blockade was beginning to pinch the Confederacy's coffers. They had virtually no native industry of their own. They knew this going in. Their big plan all along was to gain enough support abroad, from foreign merchants who needed their cotton, so that they could use a powerful foreign fleet to force the Union blockade aside. At which point, they could buy all the arms they needed from the English and French. But ... that consummation was still a long, long way from being concluded.
England, you see, wasn't exactly eager to leap into a military alliance with the Confederacy.
Oh, there's one reason why they might. It'd poke a sharp stick in the Yankees' eyes, and no mistake. London might well be up for that. But, there were two issues lurking in the background that cloud those waters. First, as we said before, war with the Union would mean war with the US Navy. It's a war England would probably win, but it would cost. England wasn't eager to pay that cost. And secondly, the Confederacy was explicitly a slave power. There was an organization in London, the Anti-Slavery Society, headed by a German immigrant named Albert. Ordinarily that would have meant little. But, since Albert's wife was Victoria, by Grace of God Queen of England, Scotland, and all the rest; it mattered a great deal indeed. What the Sovereign wants, the Sovereign tends to get; and Prime Minister Palmerston was going to have to have an outstanding reason if he was going to go before her and ask her to support a slave-holding Power.
The Union damn near gave it to him.
William Yancey, the current Confederate representative in London, was sick and unable to fulfill his duties. So, President Davis had to appoint a couple of replacements: John Slidell of Louisiana and James Mason of Georgia. Their job was to get as much support, official and unofficial, as they possibly could. A direct ship to England couldn't be had, so they made their way out to where they could catch a ship for England. Originally, they made for the Bahamas, but they'd missed an England-bound ship by mere days. Then they heard that an English mail ship would be leaving Cuba soon. So, they sailed for Cuba, and got a ride on the RMS Trent. At that point, they thought they were safely England-bound.
It's more or less at this point that the USS San Jacinto intervenes, and stops the Trent for a cargo inspection. And by "cargo", I mean Messrs. Mason and Slidell, since the captain of the San Jacinto had heard while he was laid up in Cuba following an Atlantic patrol that two Confederate ministers were England-bound on the Trent. (Did anyone bother keeping secrets back then?)
Now, strictly speaking, Captain Wilkes had no legal right to stop the Trent. This seizure was a violation of international law. But, Captain Wilkes took it upon himself to detain the Trent and its passengers, so as to disrupt the Confederacy's diplomatic efforts. It apparently escaped Captain Wilkes' calculations that such an action might well enrage England, and provoke them to enter the War on the Confederacy's side.
This mess would take several months to unwind, over the winter of 1861-1862. Several times, things looked like they might flare up into open war. But, owing to skillful diplomacy by President Lincoln and his ambassador in London, Charles F. Adams, no such war took place. England did embark on a naval construction program. They did strengthen their garrison in Canada. But, after an admission of wrongdoing that wasn't really an admission, Mason and Slidell were released from custody and allowed to board a Royal Navy ship in Provincetown, Massachusetts. So, Captain Wilkes merely delayed the two men for six months or so.
In the end, very little changed. The Confederacy wasn't going to get the recognition it wanted, not yet anyway. But, they did win one key concession from the British: recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent party. While this meant nothing as far as Her Majesty's Government was concerned, it meant that Confederate ships could use British ports to re-provision, and they could contract with private suppliers for arms and munitions.
Half a loaf was better than none. The Confederacy would have as much arms as it could buy and smuggle through the Union blockade. That would allow them to field an army. For how long, no one knew yet. President Davis hoped it would be long enough.
In the modern era, we're accustomed to fast-moving, quick-paced conflicts. The interval between the initial invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad in 2003 could be measured in weeks. The interval between the beginnings of unrest in Libya and the death of Quaddafi could be measured in only months. This, you have to understand, is a fairly new development, especially in American military history. Specifically, it was a response to what happened in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. One of our take-aways from that conflict is that we wouldn't have time to gear up for any future conflict ... and the new watch-words became "come as you are" and "win the first fight." We appear to have more or less learned the lesson.
But in 1861, we were still over a century away from that revelation. The fall of 1861 moved very, very slowly. This was a deliberate pause on both sides. One of the things clear to everyone after the Battle of Bull Run was that no one was really ready for any of this. Everyone needed time to raise, equip, and train fresh troops. A whole lot of fresh troops.
The Union wasn't having a tremendously difficult time doing any of this. To raise and outfit an army, you need a supply of manpower, ready cash to buy weapons and ammunition, more ready cash to expend ammunition in training, and skilled men to lead and direct the training of your new troops. The Union ran down its list: Manpower? Check. Cash? Check. More cash? Check. Skilled men? Well, sort of. But still check.
The Union was beginning to shake out its pre-War old guard. Some of the retirements, if somewhat unfair, were also necessary. Lieutenant General Winfield Scott, the Army's commanding general, was an old man, and not in the best of health to begin with. If he were younger and more vigorous, he'd probably be the man for the job; but young and vigorous he most assuredly was not. His retirement was expected, and surprised no one. As his replacement, Lincoln selected the brightest of his rising stars: General George McClellan. His earlier success was one of the few bright spots for the Union so far. And if there's anything a former railroad engineer knew, it was organization. And it does have to be said: that fall and that winter, General McClellan molded the broken, dispirited soldiers that slouched around Washington into a tight, disciplined unit: the Army of the Potomac. And he strengthened the defenses surrounding Washington to the point that the Federal capital was now the most heavily-fortified city on Earth. Whatever else you may have to say about General McClellan, you must give him credit for laying the groundwork and forging the tools. He was, in many ways, a perfectly splendid officer.
Down South, a similar story was playing out. The Confederates had the same four needs for army-building. And they ran down the same checklist: Manpower? Check ... for now. Cash? Check, with the same proviso. More cash? Well, we may have to get back to you on that one. Skilled men? Oh yes, plenty! But, without arms and ammunition, what can they do?
The Union blockade was beginning to pinch the Confederacy's coffers. They had virtually no native industry of their own. They knew this going in. Their big plan all along was to gain enough support abroad, from foreign merchants who needed their cotton, so that they could use a powerful foreign fleet to force the Union blockade aside. At which point, they could buy all the arms they needed from the English and French. But ... that consummation was still a long, long way from being concluded.
England, you see, wasn't exactly eager to leap into a military alliance with the Confederacy.
Oh, there's one reason why they might. It'd poke a sharp stick in the Yankees' eyes, and no mistake. London might well be up for that. But, there were two issues lurking in the background that cloud those waters. First, as we said before, war with the Union would mean war with the US Navy. It's a war England would probably win, but it would cost. England wasn't eager to pay that cost. And secondly, the Confederacy was explicitly a slave power. There was an organization in London, the Anti-Slavery Society, headed by a German immigrant named Albert. Ordinarily that would have meant little. But, since Albert's wife was Victoria, by Grace of God Queen of England, Scotland, and all the rest; it mattered a great deal indeed. What the Sovereign wants, the Sovereign tends to get; and Prime Minister Palmerston was going to have to have an outstanding reason if he was going to go before her and ask her to support a slave-holding Power.
The Union damn near gave it to him.
William Yancey, the current Confederate representative in London, was sick and unable to fulfill his duties. So, President Davis had to appoint a couple of replacements: John Slidell of Louisiana and James Mason of Georgia. Their job was to get as much support, official and unofficial, as they possibly could. A direct ship to England couldn't be had, so they made their way out to where they could catch a ship for England. Originally, they made for the Bahamas, but they'd missed an England-bound ship by mere days. Then they heard that an English mail ship would be leaving Cuba soon. So, they sailed for Cuba, and got a ride on the RMS Trent. At that point, they thought they were safely England-bound.
It's more or less at this point that the USS San Jacinto intervenes, and stops the Trent for a cargo inspection. And by "cargo", I mean Messrs. Mason and Slidell, since the captain of the San Jacinto had heard while he was laid up in Cuba following an Atlantic patrol that two Confederate ministers were England-bound on the Trent. (Did anyone bother keeping secrets back then?)
Now, strictly speaking, Captain Wilkes had no legal right to stop the Trent. This seizure was a violation of international law. But, Captain Wilkes took it upon himself to detain the Trent and its passengers, so as to disrupt the Confederacy's diplomatic efforts. It apparently escaped Captain Wilkes' calculations that such an action might well enrage England, and provoke them to enter the War on the Confederacy's side.
This mess would take several months to unwind, over the winter of 1861-1862. Several times, things looked like they might flare up into open war. But, owing to skillful diplomacy by President Lincoln and his ambassador in London, Charles F. Adams, no such war took place. England did embark on a naval construction program. They did strengthen their garrison in Canada. But, after an admission of wrongdoing that wasn't really an admission, Mason and Slidell were released from custody and allowed to board a Royal Navy ship in Provincetown, Massachusetts. So, Captain Wilkes merely delayed the two men for six months or so.
In the end, very little changed. The Confederacy wasn't going to get the recognition it wanted, not yet anyway. But, they did win one key concession from the British: recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent party. While this meant nothing as far as Her Majesty's Government was concerned, it meant that Confederate ships could use British ports to re-provision, and they could contract with private suppliers for arms and munitions.
Half a loaf was better than none. The Confederacy would have as much arms as it could buy and smuggle through the Union blockade. That would allow them to field an army. For how long, no one knew yet. President Davis hoped it would be long enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
