Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

June 7, 2004

Books update

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites — Bunker @ 6:39 pm

Just updated my reading list. As an engineer, I’ve used statistics many times and in many ways. Always with an eye toward learning something from data, or figuring out why something acted the way it did. With some trepidation, I picked up How to Lie With Statistics. I worry about being influenced badly by what the book has to offer, but Sarah assures me it will be a good read.

Engineers use statistics differently than others, watching for anomolies that may carry more information than the rest of the more consistent data. While most people instinctively throw out data that don’t conform, engineers want to know why a piece of information differs. We would hope all data play nice, but that seldom happens.

Then again, I may learn a new way to baffle people with BS!

June 2, 2004

Proud

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites — Bunker @ 6:23 pm

#2 son was my problem child in high school. He was an outstanding athlete, one of the best wrestlers in Missouri. He just didn’t put any effort into class work. Things have changed, and he’s now taking college classes.

He is a police officer. He has been involved in martial arts for about four years, and works out quite a bit. Last year, he was awarded his black belt in judo by Phil Porter, also known as O-Sensei. Porter has coached Olympic teams, and is the man in US Judo.

Last week, #2 got his black belt in ju-jitsu. It was an intense test, and the Master testing him ran him through the wringer, demanding proficiency in 65 throws. He is pretty tired in this photo, awaiting the tea ceremony:


worn (176K)

Here he is standing tall:


proud (218K)

I worry more about him in his job than I do for his two brothers fighting wars. Being a cop has unexpected dangers.

I’m pretty proud of my boys.

April 23, 2004

A Rival Magician

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites,Mark Twain,Politics — Bunker @ 6:38 pm

Mark Twain wrote about this Presidential election in 1889.

Sir Boss has just performed a miracle (using his practical scientific skills), yet the very next day everyone shuns him in favor of a “great new magician.” Sir Boss trips up the impostor with several simple tests, yet the fraud continues to hold his audience.

How quick some are to abandon what we know for what we hope, in spite of overwhelming evidence contrary to that hope.

Bush is Sir Boss. Kerry plies many incantations to no real effect, yet people still follow.

The extended entry link below contains Twain’s text.
(more…)

Pat Tillman

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:14 pm

Pat Tillman.

I don’t think I need to say much more than that. Birdie wanted me to write about his fellow Ranger, but I really have no more particulars to offer than most of the other sites reflecting on his death.

I have written about the sense of honor that basic military training instills in our young people. Pat had it before he went to training. It is what made him volunteer. It is what put him in harm’s way in a foreign land.

I had an affinity for Pat. My oldest is like him in many ways. Slice was a very good linebacker in high school, he was recruited by Division I schools to be a safety because of his size. He played Division III instead so he could stay at linebacker, and get the education to go to medical school. Instead, he became a Marine. He is also in Afghanistan.

My youngest is, like Pat, a Ranger. He is now back in the US after tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Pat’s death touches me a little more deeply because I feel I knew him through my boys.

According to AP, “Tillman carried a 3.84 grade point average through college and graduated with high honors in 3 1/2 academic years with a degree in marketing.” So much for the military being the refuge for losers.

Sometimes it takes something like this to bring people to their senses and make them realize this is not some imaginary war, and we need to get the job done right. Rick left a comment at LGF quoting a man who had a tremendous sense of these things, and the ability to verbalize the right feeling:

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
General George S. Patton

David has started a campaign to have the NFL retire #40 as baseball did with Jackie Robinson’s number.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue
National Football League, Inc.
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(212) 450-2000.

UPDATE: The Drill Sergeant has a wonderful piece on this.

Classic Courses

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites,Golf — Bunker @ 11:09 am

Judging golf courses as “classic” has become a bit of a fireside hobby. It is a marketing tool for resorts and daily fee courses around the world, so there is often some propagandizing that goes along with the effort. Golf Digest and Golf Magazine often publish articles citing the Top 100, Top 25, or Top Courses You Can Play. They?re tedious, in my view, and serve primarily to boost advertising revenue.

In The Classic Golf Course, Trevor Ledger puts in his perspective: history, harmony, and location. Of the three, I would substitute course strategy for location.

As an example of location, Ledger cites the Old Course at St. Andrews.

Take St Andrews Old Course for example; that exact layout could be reproduced anywhere in the world if enough money and expertise were available but would it be as popular? Would it be as ‘good’ a golf course? Would it be a new ‘Mecca’? Nay, nay and thrice nay. The replica would not have the Eden Estuary to provide the scenic backdrop and coastal weather systems.

I agree that the location in this instance adds something, but that single attribute is completely overshadowed by his two other parameters. In fact, it is more closely aligned with harmony, as location could be any shoreline locale that offered similar aesthetics. It is classic partly due to the harmony with existing terrain.

History is essential. A course must stand up to play over decades, showing a challenging and different face with changing conditions and players. I?ve played Pasatiempo in Santa Cruz, California, recently, and can agree with Ledger and Tom Doak on many points regarding this Alister MacKenzie design:

Mackenzie had intimate knowledge of the ground at Pasatiempo in California, loving it so much that he built his last home there in 1932 and his ashes were spread across it in 1934. Doak himself is refreshing in his admission of awe at the subtlety that Mackenzie employed, finishing his review with: “True to Mackenzie form, it plays much longer than the 6,400 yards on the scorecard; I wish I knew how he managed to do that.”

It plays long because MacKenzie understood the terrain he built the course on, and used it to “lengthen” the course. One example is the third hole, a par 3. It is 217 yards long, all uphill. You must hit the green or the rough around it, else you find your ball rolling back down the approach about 30 yards. The left front of the green has a bunker, so a high fade is in danger of landing in sand. It all seems so logically simple, yet required solid understanding of local wind and rain patterns to build.

That, to me, highlights what is classic. Pasatiempo, Augusta National, Pinehurst #2, the Old Course, and Pebble Beach all have endured. But that endurance requires ability to change. Each was considered a work in progress for years. Augusta National still is. That is based not on changes necessary for golf, but changes necessary for Tour golf.

Classic courses all challenge the golfer with different shots. Nothing is more tedious than playing a course with a driver and a sand wedge all the way around. This is emphasized in many newer courses on the par 3 holes. Most new courses have four, five, or six sets of tee boxes to accommodate golfers of all skill levels. But four par-3s on any given course will all measure about the same distance from the back tees?something close to 200 yards. Every one. On a calm day, they all require the same club off the tee.

My home course is far from being a classic, but the architecture certainly has the potential. We have several risk-reward holes, some par-5s that can be reached in two (with out of bounds and other trouble as risk), and a variety of par-4s. If played down the fairway, as designed, it can yield some low scores. Go at it from the wrong direction, double bogies ensue. But even so, there are a few clubs in my bag that never come into play unless I do something stupid.

Golf is a mental game above all. There are certainly physical skills involved, but the mental is overpowering. A classic course is one where you are challenged to keep your mind focused on the shot at hand. A classic course offers distractions in the form of scenery, predominant winds, deceptive slopes, and optical illusions. It offers some risk and reward options. It must challenge your mind, but be a pleasure to play even when your score isn?t as good as it might be. History plays a big role in that aspect. When I played Pebble Beach, I shot 103. But I enjoyed every one of those strokes. I insisted on playing across the cliffs on #8, and put two balls in the ocean. But it was something that I had to do for myself?make it across to the green like Nicklaus or Palmer.

Shinnecossett in Groton, Connecticut, is a classic. It isn?t well-known, but it is still a classic. Donald Ross designed it, which gives it instant credibility. But is has been in operation for more than a century. And it offers a challenge along with scenery. It is typical Ross, with domed greens, hidden bunkers, and false fronts. Its holes are varied, yet all come together as a whole. It isn?t long, but can play that way if you stray.

This appreciation and knowledge of the bare canvas from which a golf course develops is seemingly passed on to the golfer who plays it. Perhaps this is that indefinable ‘something’ which marks a course as a classic, the subconscious knowledge that the course is at one with the land whence it came.

A course that flows gently through the landscape while providing a full range of challenges is the goal of every quality architect.

April 22, 2004

UN Survival

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites,International — Bunker @ 7:55 am

I did a quick Google search on UN dues, and found that the US pays 25% of the general UN budget, along with 30% of the peacekeeping budget. Other countries feel this is appropriate because we have 29% of the world?s GDP.

The American people and our economy represent 29% of the world?s GDP, not our government. Yet we still have but a single vote in the General Assembly, and a permanent seat on the Security Council.

The dues structure is based on GDP percentage, but I could find no information on who else pays what. All counties are equal, except in paying for that equality.

I propose two things for continuing the organization: Every country represented at the UN must pay an equal percentage, and move the headquarters to Baghdad.

There are currently 191 member states, 19 of which (Afghanistan, Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, and Tajikistan) are in arrears in dues payment. One of these, Iraq, has been a focus of the UN for the last 12 years. Paying bribes rather than dues, Iraq continued to ignore UN resolutions.

If all 191 members except Iraq and the five permanent members of the Security Council paid an equal share, they would each support the UN with 1/2-percent of the budget. That covers 92.5%. The five permanent members would each pay 1-1/2-percent, and Iraq, host of the new headquarters, would pay nothing, but furnish a building and utilities.

GDP as a measure of ability to pay is irrelevant. Name one single country where the government leaders suffer for lack of funds, regardless of how poor that country is. If the leaders of a country want representation at the UN, they pay the dues. This means some will not, and their share will have to be borne by someone else. But they don?t get a seat in the UN. Again, I believe the five permanent members should share this extra cost. It will be minimal, as fewer delegations to support means lower administrative costs.

Housing the UN in Baghdad should also reduce operating costs. Delegations would be smaller, as fewer diplomats would be as interested in serving there as they are in New York. It would also put the UN dead center of the primary issues before it. The positives keep adding up! Baghdad?s economy would grow with the increase in foreign money coming to town, and entrepreneurship would skyrocket as businessmen in Iraq jostled for position. Baghdad might even become a cultural center for the Middle East.

I would prefer to see the UN eliminated completely. But if it must survive, I would like to see significant changes such as these.

Oil-For-Food

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites,International — Bunker @ 5:27 am

I intended to begin tracking the scandal which was the UN Oil-For-Food Program. But on doing a simple Google search, I found there are many people out there much better equipped to do the leg work on the issue. ABC News is beginning to look hard at the program, and Claudia Rosett has an in-depth piece in Commentary. There are also several blogs keeping tabs: Friends of Saddam is devoted to the issue, and Roger Simon keeps up to date. I will continue to follow these sites and update here as I see fit.

What is of interest to me in this whole thing is the misguided concept of the UN as a world governing body. It is nowhere close to what we, as Americans, would ever view as a representative government, although there are Americans who would like it to be so.

The problem is that most of the world is governed or ruled by political “elites.” These are people who have built political connections and close relationships through generations. Even our own Federal Government was set up with these people in mind. The Senate was to be populated with our own American elite class of politicians. The Constitution sets out selection of senators by the legislatures of each State. This changed only by Amendment. Balance was to be provided by the establishment of the House of Representatives, whose members would be elected by citizens in each state.

With the growth of our population, even our Congressmen are elected from among party activists rather than from the general populace, although the occasional Mr. Smith makes his way to Washington. Running for office requires the freedom to quit your job for the campaign duration, and contacts with people who can donate bucks. Think “lawyers”.

In most of the world, however, the idea of a Mr. Smith even thinking of a run for office is absurd. Tony Blair wasn’t elected Prime Minister by the people of Britain, he was elected by his party, who have the majority of seats in Parliament. He serves at the pleasure of his party. The same is true in almost all parliamentary governments. Other nations don’t even bother with elections except in closed-door discussions. Their political leadership come from a very select group. And the UN reflects that. Ever hear of Kofi Annan before he became the Secretary General? He was working within the bureaucracy of the UN much like his son is now–you know, one of those accused of skimming Oil-For-Food money?

I have yet to find a single way in which the UN has ever accomplished anything. There have been successes under the UN flag, but each of those has been the result of devoted attention by a single or pair of nations, often the US, Australia, Canada, or UK. More often, we end up with Rwanda or the decades-long peace-keeping duty like that in Cyprus.

I am for the dissolution of the UN. If this is the straw that breaks this particular back, I applaud the Oil-For-Food scandal. It may be the only way for the world to honor the Iraqis who died under Saddam Hussein.

UPDATE: There are a couple of more avenues for reading up on this. But there is a money quote from the lead crook I picked up at InstaPundit:

Before Sevan’s recent mysterious disappearance into the nether world, facilitated by boss Annan, who shrewdly packed him off on long leave before retirement, Sevan nonchalantly admitted, ” that as much as 10 percent” of the programme’s revenues may have been “ripped off,” telling a TV channel: “Even if 10 percent of the revenue was stolen, 90 percent got to the people it was intended for. Why does nobody report that?” he asked peevishly.

There you have it. “I deserve my cut.” Cast an eye on Scott Burgess’ view from London, and another from CBC News.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress