Freedom of Navigation

For John, BLUF:  Think taxes.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is an obscure point, made by Mr Timothy Choi, of the Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC), "Why the US Navy’s first South China Sea FONOP wasn’t a FONOP".

FONOP you ask?  That would be Freedom of Navigation Operation.  Freedom of Navigation means ships are free to roam where they will, unmolested (outside recognized territorial waters).  Without this principle of customary international law nations would push their national waters out hundreds of miles and carve out economic zones even further.  Soon ships could not go from Point "A" to Point "B" without special permission.  The only reason this is important to anyone except sailors is that without Freedom of Navigation nations might feel free to impose duties, taxes, on cargo in transit through "their waters".  While this would actually be a good thing for America, it would be bad for individual Americas, as the prices in Walmart and the local Hyundai dealer would go up sharply—to cover the cost of the duties imposed by nations whose claimed waters are transited. The United States Navy conducts FONOP missions to assert the idea of Freedom of Navigation.  This is a good thing.  However, there is also the term "Innocent Passage", which does not assert the same claim.

In this case, it is Subi Reef, upon which the Chinese have built an airfield.  We (the US) said we are going to do a Freedom of Navigation Operation, asserting our claim that the Island does not belong to China.  Now the Administration says it was merely Innocent Passage, a different thing.  If we say it is "innocent passage" we are, it would seem, conceding sovereignty over this island to China.

Remember, the only reason you care is it will cause the cost of goods sold in the US to go up.

Check the place of manufacture on the things you buy.  Wallmart.  Target.  Home Depot.  Auto dealership.

Regards  —  Cliff

Globe on Boston Archdiocese Sex Abuse Scandal

For John, BLUF:  Part of the solution is teaching young boys to speak up.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Yesterday Columnist Adrian Walker (The Boston Globe) wrote "Keeping the spotlight on the Catholic Church".

Let us stipulate up front that sex abuse, especially of young boys, is something none of us wants to see and it is probably an abomination before God.♠  Isn't that what kicks off the story in the Book of Maccabees?

To Mr Walker's question, "How much abuse do you think still exists in the Archdiocese of Boston?" I respond, unlike the Archdiocese spokesperson, Mr Terry Donilon, "some".  Here is Mr Donilon's response, quoted by Mr Walker:

We think we have the safest entity in the entire Commonwealth.  Now, I’m not saying someone couldn’t still come forward with a claim from 30 years ago.  That could happen.  But we believe there is zero abuse going on.  None.

Mr Walker concludes his column with:

By its nature, sexual abuse is not the kind of problem that is ever “solved;” it will take constant vigilance to keep at bay the tragedies “Spotlight” captures.  I want to believe that Donilon is right about the lack of abuse in Boston.  But the sad reality is that there will never be a safe time to declare victory.

I agree, given its ancient roots and its widespread practice, that sexual abuse and especially child sexual abuse will never be solved.  That leaves me with three issues:

1. How much of this kind of thing going on elsewhere, like in the Globe?  That is, are children safe with all Globe employees?  This is not just about the Catholic Church.  It is about every walk of life.
2. There appears to have been an upsurge in this sort of thing within the Catholic Church in the last six decades, more or less.  Why has that not become a legitimate issue for discussion?  Why is no one, diocesan member or Globe Spotlight Reporter working this angle?
3. Are we all wrong here, on this, and NAMBLA is right?  I say outright that this is wrong, but we have seen other strongly held views on sex thrown out the window, so what guarantee is there that there is a limit, that Progressivism stops at some point?★

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Abomination:  "a thing that causes disgust or hatred".
★  Just in case I wasn't clear enough, I see it as an abomination.

Election Day

For John, BLUF:  About 1030, about number 234.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I voted!

Regards  —  Cliff

What Brought Down The Russian Tourist Airliner

For John, BLUF:  At this point it is all speculation, and someone will guess right.  Luck.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

On City Life this AM someone asked what brought down the Russian Airliner.  There are strong indications the aircraft broke up in flight and fell to earth.  That part seems pretty sure.

In this Boston Globe article is a picture of the tail section of the Airbus A321-200 that came apart over Sinai.  "Cause of jetliner crash remains uncertain".

But what caused the breakup in flight?

• Highly Unlikely:  It is possible that it was hit by a missile.  It was over the Sinai, which is controlled by Egyptian Rebels.  But, no man portable surface to air missile did this and the chances the rebels have a real surface to air missile are very slim.
• Highly Unlikely:  The pilot performing some whifferdill that causes the aircraft to exceed its structural limits.  Maybe because he was mad at the airline, or his wife.  The likelihood is low because the flight controls may not have the authority to maneuver the aircraft outside of tested and approved flight limits.
• Low Probability:  The aircraft is over a decade old and a defect in design or manufacture, aided and accommodated by poor maintenance practices, could have caused some of the skin to rip off, causing major structural failure.  That would bring the aircraft down.
• Medium Probability:  A bomb could have caused this, but whose bomb?
• Small Possibility:  A disgruntled airline employee, looking for revenge.
• Some Possibility:  A person rejected in love, striking back.
• Some Possibility:  A person looking to ice an inheritance.
• Good Possibility:  A Russian home-grown insurgency found an opportunity to strike back.
• Strong Possibility:  Daesh, upset with Russian intervention in Syria, strikes back.
• Possible, But Highly Unlikely:  Something we haven't yet thought of.

At this point we just don't know.

Regards  —  Cliff

Putin the Savior of Minorities

For John, BLUF:  Incoherent foreign policy?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Boston Globe and Assistant Editor John L. Allen Jr. we have "The risks of letting Putin posture as Charlemagne in Syria".

The lede:

It’s a well-known Achilles heel of Western foreign policy to undervalue the strategic importance of religion, and perhaps nowhere is that more clear at the moment than in assessments of Russia’s intervention in Syria and Iraq.

It is for sure an Achilles heel, but I am dubious about it being well-known.

Regarding the Russian intervention in Syria,

A growing swath of the Christian minority in the Middle East, who are among the primary targets of ISIS, can’t help but respond with gratitude.  Last year, the Global Post website quoted a Syrian Christian woman as summing up the sentiment: “Thank God for Russia!”

Before President Obama declared that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go, President Assad was the one protecting minorities of all shades in Syria.  He was brutal, but he was protecting minorities from larger menacing groups.  Then he became "the bad guy" and we went after him.  And there was no one left to protect the minorities.  We know that Daesh♠ will not.  They are into beheading minorities.  Now Russia steps in and becomes the protector, the good guys.  Remember when we were the good guys?

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  To some that would be ISIL or ISIS or IS.

Excess Defined

For John, BLUF:  Did you know this one?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Terms not widely known in Lowell.

I used this one in a meeting on Friday last:

Gild the Lilly

Total blank around the table.

Defined here.

Regards  —  Cliff

Happy All Saints Day

For John, BLUF:  Through Jesus Christ.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Today is All Saints' Day, followed by All Souls' Day, on 2 November.

Sometimes known as All Hallows Day.  Thus giving us All Hallows Eve, or Halloween, the day before.

Not everywhere on 1 November.  In the Eastern Church (like our Greek Orthodox neighbors) it is celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost.

From Wikipedia:

In Catholic theology, the day commemorates all those who have attained the beatific vision in Heaven. It is a national holiday in many historically Catholic countries. In the Catholic Church and many Anglican churches, the next day specifically commemorates the departed faithful who have not yet been purified and reached Heaven. Christians who celebrate All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day do so in the fundamental belief that there is a prayerful spiritual bond between those in heaven (the "Church triumphant"), and the living (the "Church militant").

Happy All Saints Day, all you members of the Church Militant.

Regards  —  Cliff