Author Archives: eehines

Abandoning Proportional Retaliation

Posted on by
Reply

Israel hit a Houthi leadership conference and succeeded in killing a dozen or more of the Houthis’ top leaders, including their “prime minister” and “foreign minister” while injuring several other attendees. In the Wall Street Journal article describing the attack and its implications, the news writers noted that

Until Thursday’s strike, Israeli retaliation for Houthi attacks had largely been limited to infrastructure like ports and power stations.

Then they quoted Oded Ailam, ex-Mossad official and currently of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs:

Israel has abandoned the old formulas of proportional retaliation[.]

As it should. The old formulas had nothing to do with proportionality, for all that their users insisted so. Those old formulas centered on tit-for-tat responses, which did nothing to deter future attacks, but did succeed, very effectively, at running up casualties, especially civilian, on both sides as a result of repeated and escalating tit-for-tat exchanges of retaliations.

There’s nothing at all proportional in a strategy that increases casualty rates rather than reduces them.

True proportionality is much more than retaliating in the moment after an in-the-moment attack. Proportionality done correctly, which includes serious consideration of the morality of the response, takes a longer view and considers how a current retaliation would impact future attacks by an enemy and so impact the civilian casualties associated with those future attacks as aggregated to the damage done—civilian as well as military—by a proximate retaliation. A truly proportional retaliation would mitigate, if not preempt, those future attacks by being sufficiently heavy and not immorally tit-for-tat.

Oil Producers in a Difficult Spot?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the central thrust of a couple of news writers in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. Their lede:

Big Oil has a tough balancing act: help further President Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda and stick to its climate goals at the same time.

And

The escalating assault on climate initiatives puts large drillers such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum in an awkward posture. They have pledged to curb their emissions—and unveiled plans to spend billions of dollars on low-carbon technologies such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and biofuels.

This whole idea of a “tough balancing act” is utter nonsense. The Trump administration simply is moving to take the shackles off American energy production.

Nor is there anything at all in the Trump administration’s assault rolling back of climate initiatives that make no economic or climate sense that prevents those and other businesses from continuing those pledges. On the contrary, in the present and improving environment, “Big Oil,” natural gas producers, coal miners, wind and solar energy producers—all of them—are better able to make their production decisions, including those concerning their emissions, based on sound business decision-making and not in response to government pressures to produce only certain types of energy.

A Random Question

Posted on by
Reply

I have one, triggered by a settlement between the Federal DoJ and Kentucky regarding the latter’s granting of in-state college/university tuition rates to illegal aliens living in the State. The settlement has Kentucky rescinding that grant.

Thus:

The first clause of the first article of the 14th Amendment says this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The second sentence of that clause says this in pertinent part:

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What does this suggest about a State’s colleges’ and universities’ use of resident—citizen of the State and of these United States—vs non-resident—but still citizen of these United States—tuition?

Ya Think?

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News headline says it:

UN-backed Gaza City famine determination may be flawed by reliance on incomplete data

This fleshing out:

While the world is bombarded with heart-wrenching images—many of them fake or staged—of starving children, a review of the data shows that the IPC appears to have relied on incomplete survey results for the month of July to make its claim [of famine].

It also turns out that the UN’s IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) used carefully selected “sample” data from Gaza with which to manufacture its claim.

The IPC relied on a sample of 7,519 subjects in the Gaza Governorate to calculate the malnutrition rates.

However:

Nutrition Cluster published the full health data from the Gaza Governorate in July, which showed a sample size of 15,749 subjects.

This dishonesty was exacerbated by the intrinsically dishonest press’ bruiting about those inaccurate, incomplete, and openly falsified “data” as though they were factual and told the whole story.

Israel and its IDF is fighting a three-front war, not just the terrorists in Gaza.

Correct Move

Posted on by
Reply

A DoJ paralegal flipped off a National Guard soldier while the paralegal was enroute to her office work. Then she bragged about it to a DoJ security guard on her way into the building. When word got to Attorney General Pam Bondi, her response was prompt and direct. Bondi’s memo to the paralegal said, in part:

Based on your inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately[.]

This has two correct moves in the same sentence. The first is the prompt termination of the misbehaving paralegal. The second is especially important: the paralegal is not going to be reassigned somewhere else in the Federal government; she’s barred from Federal employment altogether.

The woman might have gotten away with her reprehensible behavior, even though she would have deserved to be fired, had she not bragged about it. The lack of judgment she showed by bragging about her misbehavior, though, conclusively demonstrates she’s unfit for Federal employment regardless of any specific act of misbehavior.

Bondi’s memo can be read here.