Night Vision

by Chris James

The British 1941 de Haviland Mosquito was arguably the finest example of a fighter bomber anywhere in WW II.  It could outfly (e.g. out-climb) even the vaunted Messerschmitt 109 fighter.  The reason for its outstanding performance was that it was mostly made from lightweight laminated wood.  To which was added twin, mightily powerful, Rolls Royce Merlin engines - the same as those used in the Spitfire.  It could carry up to 2000 lbs. worth of bombs, i.e. 20 one hundred pounders.  Not shabby.  It was so precise in its speed, flight and bombing capability that it pioneered pin-point, low-level bombing.  Among its many successes, the removal - by bombing - of the walls of the Amiens prison in France enabled numerous incarcerated resistance fighters to escape unharmed.

By the middle of the war, British scientists had miniaturized ponderous radar equipment down to the level that it could be fitted into the Mosquito and other fighter bombers.  Since Mosquitoes were used as escorts on bombing raids, then, at night, using their radar, they could shoot down defending German fighters at will.

With spiraling losses of its precious fighters, the Germans were very perplexed at this - for them, very unpleasant - turn of events.  Obviously, the British wanted to put them off the scent.  So they concocted a cheekily devious plan to do so.  A leading pilot in the Mosquito squadrons was Group Captain John Cunningham, made popular through the media.  As poster-boy, he was used in a phony scheme to explain the Mosquito's night fighting successes.  At the center of the plan was the lowly carrot (sans stick).

During the war, the well-intentioned British government accumulated food stocks to ameliorate food shortages and potential starvation.  Root vegetables, because of their longer term storability, were prime candidates.  However, what the government overlooked was that just about everybody in the U.K. at that time was growing vegetables on every square inch of available land, public or private.  The result was that the British government was stuck with a large over-supply of - in this instance - carrots.

          Some smarty pants, somewhere in the bureaucracy, came up with the idea that the improved performance of the Mosquito in night time operations over Germany could be sold as being due to the consumption of the humble carrot by the flight crews.   The carrot: Wholly responsible for stunning improvements in night vision.  This fictitious explanation, together with Group Captain Cunningham's fictitious passion for carrots, were "outed" in the national press.  "Cat's Eyes Cunningham" became the main cog in the propaganda machine, and improving night vision via carrot became an instant article of faith among the citizenry.  The resulting public clamor for carrots created a tsunami-sized demand that was dutifully met in large part by the government's mountainous carrot stock, serving to eliminate that problem entirely.

          Eventually, of course, the Germans discovered what was really going on.  But, by the time that they did, it was too late to do them much good.  So, the next time those orange colored shavings are scattered in your salad, take an historical moment to remember what the world owes this unassuming little root vegetable.

It Won't Be an Easy Fix

by John Stevenson

In late December 2017, an unarmed man was shot dead in the doorway of his Wichita home by police.  There had been a 911 call from a man claiming to have shot and killed his father.  The caller claimed he was holding a gun on his mother and sister, and had doused the house with gasoline. 

The call had been made by a man in Los Angeles, allegedly because of a dispute with a Wichita resident over a video game.  It was a hoax call, designed to send a SWAT team to the home of his video-gaming opponent as a prank.  He got the address wrong, and the police arrived instead at a neighboring home where they killed the homeowner---who they thought had murdered his father and was about to torch the house with his mother and sister inside.

I had never before heard the term “swatting,” which means to make a hoax call for emergency services (police, fire, SWAT) to harass the resident at an address where there is no emergency.  It has become common enough that in 2008 the FBI labeled it “swatting.”

Swatting is emblematic of behaviors which have arisen in the past couple of decades and which are particularly cruel, often random, often anonymous, and show a shocking disregard for the lives or dignity of others.  Here are some examples.

Laser attacks which seek to temporarily blind airline pilots on takeoff or landing.  On one day in 2009 a dozen planes were attacked at Sea-Tac Airport.

Freeway overpass attacks, where bricks or large rocks are dropped onto windshields of cars below.

Sniper attacks on multiple randomly chosen victims---the D.C. sniper in 2002; Ohio in 2003; West Virginia also 2003; and Phoenix 2015.

Disruption of military funerals by Westboro Baptist Church, ongoing since 2005.

The Knockout Game, in which an unsuspecting stranger is sucker-punched.  A nearby accomplice of the assailant films the assault and the video appears on the internet.  This seems to have started in 2009.

Bumfights, in which teenagers goad homeless people into fighting or performing stunts for cash or alcohol.  There is a series of videos, starting in 2002.

There are other examples.  But what do these behaviors tell us?

These behaviors are characterized by cruelty, randomness, or disregard for the personal worth of others.  Such attacks appear to have become more prevalent.  They have certainly become more brazen.  In fact, filming your anti-social behavior for all to see seems like the very definition of brazen.

 

Masses of teenagers invade a commuter train to assault and rob the passengers.  Or they invade and loot a high-end store or even an entire mall.  I’ll bet they didn’t do that when you were a kid.

The source of these behavioral changes may originate in the disintegration of family structure, or in chaotic and dysfunctional schools, or in the steadily waning number of Americans who regularly attend church.  In addition, the military draft provided a great civilizer of young men---but the draft is an institution now half a century gone from American life.

Regardless of the root cause or group of causes, these behaviors point to a societal change that will be very difficult to correct.  

Presumed Guilty

by John Stevenson

The tsunami of “sexual harassment” charges, denials, confessions, resignations, and summary executions has dominated the news lately and is not likely to die out soon.  It is very troubling the way this is being handled by those in authority over the accused, by his peers, and by the media.

High profile cases in the firestorm include politicians, media figures, and Hollywood hot-shots.  But the common denominator of the accused harassers is not their occupation or political persuasion---or that they are strikingly handsome and impeccably well-mannered like Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken.  Instead, what the accused have in common is that they are rich or famous or powerful---or some combination of those qualities.

So why do I dissent from the mad dash from accusation to execution?

First of all, there seems to be no real definition of “sexual harassment.” The U.S. EEOC provides a definition, but it is of no practical use in assessing the situations that have been in the news. Here’s a dictionary definition: uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature especially by a person in authority toward a subordinate (such as an employee or student).  From that, it seems that the victim gets to define sexual harassment by deciding what is uninvited or unwelcome. 

Is it harassment to ask for someone’s phone number?  To ask her for a date?  To compliment her appearance?  To take her arm while crossing the street?  To pinch her butt while you are both drinking at a party?  To steal a kiss?  To tell a risqué joke?  What about repeated occurrences as opposed to a single incident?  And so on….

There’s obviously a wide range of behavior, from a verbal compliment to forcible rape.  Some of which almost everyone would agree is criminal, and some of which almost everyone would agree is benign.  To lump these under the sexual harassment umbrella seems wrong.  It elevates the benign to a punishable offense and at the same time diminishes the recognition of truly heinous behavior including rape.

My second problem is that there is no process for adjudication of accusations.  Or, where there is a process, it is bypassed in the rush to punish.

If the alleged acts were criminal, and reported timely, then the judicial system could be used to resolve the accusation. But for the most part, the acts involved are either not criminal at all or else lack sufficient evidence for prosecution. 

So what’s left is a non-judicial process such as investigation by an ethics panel.  But even that remedy is ignored---as with the accusations against Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Al Franken.  Both were pushed into agreeing to resign their positions without recourse to the existing ethics panels of the House or Senate.

Why is the rush to punish over-ruling the application of investigatory procedures?  Well, it’s because the peers of the accused (and society at large, for that matter) are afraid to be “on the wrong side” of the Me Too movement.  The demand that the accusers must be believed and the fear of being branded as sexist or misogynist has overwhelmed almost all those who dare to question the lynch mob approach.  (I would have called it a kangaroo court approach, but decided that was unfair to kangaroo courts.)  Thus the accusation alone requires punishment.  No investigation required.

To be fair, there are some dissenting voices but they are generally not among the peers of an accused.  Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson speaks about this almost nightly, and Paris-based freelance journalist Claire Berlinski has written an excellent article “The Warlock Hunt” which you can find on line.  And Sen. Joe Manchin has spoken forcefully that his colleague Franken should have received a fair hearing.  But such public dissenters are few.

My third issue is that most of the accusations describe long-ago events.  These are particularly hard to defend against (which I guess does not matter since the accusation alone mandates summary execution without investigation).  Some of the accused have claimed no memory of the events and, with a decades-old incident, there’s even a chance this might be true. 

A fourth problem is that what one person understood to be consensual may not have been so in the mind of the other.  Or if it was consensual, that consent may have dissolved over time—or on “the cold gray dawn of the morning after.”  Consent may indeed be in the eye of the beholder, such as described in Donald Trump’s 2005 Access Hollywood tape, in which he said “I don't even wait…when you're a star, they let you do it…”   Does that describe consent or not?  I suppose you could interpret and argue it either way. 

The fifth and final concern I will raise here is that punishment is arbitrary---determined on-the-fly by the accused’s employer or peers in their haste to outrun the lynch mob.  How could it be otherwise when there is no agreed upon and ranked list of offenses?  

No, I am not advocating in favor of sexual harassers.  What I do favor is defining sexual harassment adequately, adjudicating accusations timely and fairly, and tailoring the punishment to the offense.  But most importantly, the now-in-vogue presumption of guilt---that all accusations are true---should be replaced by a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

That’s my dissenting opinion.