Author Archive: W. S. Topp

Mother’s Day 2018

Posted on by

In observance of Mother’s Day, we’d like to commend the female cardinal who is zealously guarding her nest right outside our kitchen window.

Over the past few weeks we have watched spellbound as the cardinal pair carefully built a nest just a few feet from our window.  Admittedly, the nest doesn’t look like much.  Apparently, cardinals aren’t the Frank Lloyd Wrights of the avian world.  But it works, and now there are a couple of eggs in there.

Female cardinal on nest.

With eggs to defend, Mrs. Cardinal hardly ever leaves the nest.  And when she does go out, she is back in a few minutes.  Mr. Cardinal also stays close, and he stops by the nest every now and then to see how things are going.

As with everything else, there are two ways to look at this.  One, while Mr. Cardinal is hard at work doing important cardinal stuff, Mrs. Cardinal is home all day sitting around the house.

Or, Mrs. Cardinal is hard at work taking care of the house and the kids all day and night while Mr. Cardinal is out with his bird-brained friends.

Since it’s Mother’s Day, we’ll give Mrs. Cardinal credit for keeping everything running smooth at home.

“All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother.”

                                                                – Abraham Lincoln

(Lincoln quote: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/mothersday )

May 13, 2018

A Box of Chocolates

Posted on by

Like a Foggy Bottom Forrest Gump, American diplomat Joseph C. Grew inadvertently found himself at the very center of two of the most consequential foreign policy efforts in the nation’s history.  From 1912 to 1917, Grew served in the United States embassy in Germany as the U.S. struggled vainly to stay out of the First World War. Twenty years later, as U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Grew was a key participant in America’s increasingly desperate attempts to avoid war with Japan.

In the end, of course, German intransigence and Japanese militarism overcame America’s diplomatic exertions, and the nation found itself embroiled in both world wars.

While other American officials served through both pre-war periods, Grew’s presence at the embassies in Berlin and Tokyo in the final days before war is remarkable.

From the start of the First World War in August 1914 until the U.S. declaration of war in 1917, the American government worked tirelessly to keep the U.S. out of the European conflict.  The American public had no desire to enter the war, the U.S. military was completely unprepared, and U.S. vital interests were not obviously threatened. President Woodrow Wilson hoped that by staying out of the conflict America could mediate negotiations that would bring the conflict to a close, achieving peace without victory for all parties, demonstrating the futility of war and leading to an era of collective security maintained by an international organization of nations.

But despite determined American diplomacy, the momentum of events inexorably drew the U.S. into the conflict. Initial U.S. resentment at Britain’s naval blockade was overshadowed by U.S. anger at Germany’s continued use of unrestricted submarine warfare and later by the Zimmerman telegram, which revealed German efforts to enlist Mexico in the war against America.  As a senior aide to Ambassador James W. Gerard, Grew participated in talks with the German Emperor and had a front row seat to the unsuccessful U.S. effort to avoid combat.

Twenty years later, as U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Grew again found himself struggling to keep America out of war.  Again, he saw the slow breakdown of the international order and the rise of a militarized, predatory state.  Isolationist, unprepared, and frightened by the rise of Nazi Germany, the United States government sought vainly to avoid or at least postpone conflict with Japan.  Through countless meetings, dinners, conversations, and encounters with Japanese citizens, military officers, and political leaders, Grew sadly witnessed the unstoppable slide to war. From his long experience in the country, Grew understood the motivations and capabilities of Japan. As early as January 1941, he warned the U.S. government that in case of trouble with the United States, Japan planned to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

May 4, 2018

Share this post or die..

Posted on by

Here we go again. Another social media post challenging us to prove our worthiness by supporting someone else’s favorite cause.

“Who has the courage to share this”

“How many likes can this person get?”

“Which of my friends will post this.”

“If you agree, then share this.”

And my personal favorite: “If you don’t REPOST this, you are the problem.”

Well, I might be the problem, but it isn’t because I failed to repost some uncredited, undated, unsubstantiated social media blast.

To folks inclined to threaten co-inhabitants of the social media universe, here’s a suggestion: If you want people to repost your information, present it in a logical, truthful, and convincing manner.  Credit your sources, support your argument with facts, and refrain from threats or insults. It probably won’t change people’s minds, since no one spends time on social media because they want to actually think, but it will make the internet a nicer place.

May 2, 2018

Ulysses S. Grant and the Ku Klux Klan

Posted on by

He didn’t free the slaves, but he offered them a glimpse of a better future.

Ulysses S. Grant, who served as president from 1869-1877, is best known as the Union general who finally defeated Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, effectively ending the Civil War. Grant is also acclaimed for his earlier victories at Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga. Grant’s presidency has not been highly regarded, as his two terms were marred by corruption among appointed officials and a faltering economy.

But his reputation is rising.  Grant has always been recognized for his personal honesty, and historians today are increasingly crediting Grant with courage and moral resolve for his efforts to protect the rights of freedmen – freed slaves.

Grant took office following the highly contentious administration of Andrew Johnson. By Grant’s inauguration seven of the eleven Southern states which had formed the Confederacy had been re-admitted to the union and the four remaining states would be re-admitted in 1870. But while southern states rejoined the union, they fiercely resisted efforts by Republicans, both northern and southern, to grant the rights of citizenship to the freed slaves.

Upon taking office Grant began receiving a steady stream of letters begging for federal help in protecting southern blacks and white Republicans from the nightriders of the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations.  Southern Republicans reported that a “reign of terror” was spreading across the south, with blacks and whites being murdered with impunity.

Northern Democrats joined Southern Democrats in opposing any federal action to protect the rights of freedmen, and, of course, the newly formed state governments were dominated by whites who were happy to use intimidation and violence to preserve the pre-war social order.  Meanwhile, Northern Republicans were exhausted by the unending sectional strife and were increasingly content to ignore Southern depredations.

Grant quickly recognized that the governments of the southern states were unwilling to protect blacks and southern Republicans, but he did not believe that current federal law gave him the authority to intervene.  So, he sought and received additional powers through legislation, including the 1871 “Act to Enforce the Provisions of the 14th Amendment,” popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act.

The Act gave the federal government the power to prosecute state officials for civil rights violations in federal courts and to suspend habeus corpus when state authorities were unable or unwilling to protect civil rights.

Passage of the law gave Grant the tools, but he still needed to supply the moral and political will to use that power. That he did so is to his everlasting credit. Grant suspended habeus corpus in nine counties of South Carolina and dispatched federal troops and marshals. Federal forces identified and arrested hundreds of KKK terrorists, while many others fled the state.  Grant’s actions broke the power of the Klan and other violent groups in South Carolina and the demonstration of federal power and resolve crippled Klan efforts across the south. Political violence in South Carolina and throughout the south declined dramatically.

But while overt violence was reduced, preserving white supremacy remained the highest priority of local governments throughout the south, and they eventually succeeded in disenfranchising black voters and imposing a brutal regime of legal segregation. Black Americans in the former Confederacy wouldn’t regain the basic rights of citizenship until the federal government again stepped forward in the 1960’s.

Grant’s impact was recognized by many of his contemporaries, including Frederick Douglas, who wrote, “To [Grant] more than any other man the negro owes his enfranchisement and the Indian a humane policy. In the matter of the protection of the freedman from violence his moral courage surpassed that of his party; hence his place as its head was given to timid men, and the country was allowed to drift, instead of stemming the current with stalwart arms.”

Douglas quote:  http://thepresidentsatbigmo.blogspot.com/2007/10/number-18-ulysses-s-grant.html

Grant photo: Library of Congress / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ulysses_S._Grant_1870-1880.jpg

April 27, 2018

Emergency Management is a Local Responsibility

Posted on by

During recent testimony, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Brock Long told Congress that state and local communities must do a better job of preparing for disaster response and must stop looking to FEMA as a first responder.

Since FEMA was created in 1979, the agency has consistently described its role as a coordinating agency, bringing together all federal agencies in support of state and local governments, who are responsible for disaster and emergency response. The National Response Framework, issued by FEMA in 2008 and updated in 2013, describes a tiered system for disaster response, in which the primary responsibility for response and recovery operations is vested in municipal or county governments.  When local resources are insufficient, assistance is provided by neighboring jurisdictions through mutual aid, or by the state. When state resources are insufficient, state officials can request assistance from FEMA.

Emergency managers understand this.  But over time, as FEMA has become heavily involved in high-profile disasters, the public – and many non-emergency management local officials – have begun to view disaster response as a federal responsibility.

So, Mr. Long is certainly correct in pointing out to lawmakers that FEMA is neither structured, resourced, prepared, nor equipped to serve as a first responder during disasters or large-scale emergencies.

Most local officials do understand their critical role, but many find it difficult to devote resources to preparation for worst-case scenarios that likely will never occur.  Most local safety forces are already stretched thin just handling the day-to-day calls for service that they receive.  There is little time for disaster response training and little funding for specialized disaster relief equipment.  One result is that federal grant funding, which increased significantly after the 9/11 attacks, has become the main source of emergency management funding for many local emergency management agencies.

In an era of increasing federal deficits, this is an unsustainable practice. While Emergency Management Performance Grant funding has remained steady, funding for the Homeland Security Grant Program has declined form $861 million in 2009 to $402 million in 2017.

And Administrator Long is correct, state and local emergency management agencies will need to live with reduced funding or identify local sources.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-fema/fema-chief-questions-agencys-role-urges-more-local-response-idUSKBN1DU2KT

http://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/managing-crisis/Who-Should-Pay-for-070113.html

December 16, 2017

Safer Schools or a Safer Nation?

Posted on by

If we are interested in having a productive conversation about mass shootings in America – and I don’t for one moment believe that we are – the first thing we need to do is agree on what the actual problem is.

Right now, in the wake of the Parkland high school murders, there are two competing ideas.  One side believes that the problem is school safety, while the other side thinks the problem is safety in schools, churches, nightclubs, concerts, university classrooms, and everywhere else in America.

The difference in these views is significant.  If all you want to address is school shootings, then hardening schools might make sense. Even a crackpot idea like arming teachers might be worth discussing. On the other hand, if your goal is to make every place in America safer from mass casualty attacks from terrorists, disgruntled ex-employees, angry ex-spouses, and mentally disturbed ex-students, then hardening schools and arming teachers are ineffective options, and your discussion must be much more wide-ranging.

In general, the most effective voices for action – led by Parkland survivors –  are focusing their efforts on school safety. Unfortunately, school safety is just one element of a much more complicated problem, which includes shootings in churches, nightclubs, university classrooms, country-western concerts, army bases, county offices, and everywhere else.

 

April 26, 2018

Killing Syrians

Posted on by

Let me get this straight: President Assad should be removed from office because he is killing so many Syrians. To punish him for killing Syrians, we propose to conduct missile/air strikes to kill Syrians. But to avoid killing Syrians (and Russians), we’ve given them about a week’s notice.

So, I wonder, what is the magic number of Syrians we need to kill to stop Assad from killing Syrians?

But killing Syrians is OK, as long as you (or we) use conventional munitions.  It is only not OK if you use chemical weapons.

Well, that clears it up.

Certainly, there is no good answer concerning chemical weapons, and it would be very helpful if there were some effective way to punish the people responsible for ordering and executing chemical attacks.  I just wish that we had options other than one-time air strikes, which don’t exactly have an unblemished record of success.

I am hard pressed to think of a single instance in which a single air strike (or a limited air campaign) actually accomplished some useful political or military goal.  Even if they are launched ostensibly as punishment for a specific act, isn’t their goal to influence future behavior?  Or are we just killing people because we can?  When did limited strikes actually change a regime’s behavior? Lebanon in 1983? Libya in 1986 (El Dorado Canyon)?  Iraq in 1996 (Desert Strike), 1998 (Desert Fox) and countless minor strikes in support of the no-fly zones from 1991-2003? Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998?  Kosovo in 1999? Syria in 2017?

Did Libya stop sponsoring terrorism?  Did Saddam Hussein calm down?  Did al-Qaeda give up their goal of attacking the United States? Did Syria stop using chemical weapons? Someone could argue that the air campaign in Kosovo succeeded in altering Serbia’s behavior, but it took 78 days, the loss of Russian support, and an increasingly credible threat of a ground invasion.

Military attacks are a pretty blunt tool, the exact consequences are unknowable, but frequently turn out to be counterproductive. Although I have no access to the information they have in the White House, I seriously doubt that there is some so-far undisclosed number of Syrians that we can kill that will force Assad to stop killing Syrians.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/trump-missiles-tweet/index.html

April 11, 2018

At the Game

Posted on by

On our way to the game, and then, at the ballpark. 32 degrees at game time, but in the sun it felt like 34. One difference from summertime games, in the fifth inning, instead of the grounds crew dragging the infield, they used the Zamboni. But the Tribe won, 3-1.

Hardy Tribe Fans Heading to the Game

At the Game

April 8, 2018

Information Management Issues in a County EOC

Posted on by

During any activation, the most critical function performed at an EOC is information management. Planning, coordinating, requesting resources, documenting operations, keeping decision makers informed and other activities all rely on an accurate understanding of the situation, and that understanding can only be achieved if the right information is collected, analyzed, and understood.

In fact, during emergencies or disasters, emergency mangers could really be called information managers, since the primary function of the EOC is to develop and share an accurate common operational picture (COP).

To create an accurate COP, every EOC needs an effective information management system which can collect information from a variety of sources, ensure that it gets to the right persons in the EOC, document vital information, and analyze and display critical information is user-friendly ways. An efficient information management system will enable emergency managers to quickly determine the geographic scope of the incident, identify any injuries or damage, understand the potential impact on critical infrastructure, estimate the need for evacuation or sheltering, and identify the need for additional resources.

But efficiently processing incoming information takes time and planning.  While technology can help in collecting, sorting, and displaying information, the increasing use of communications technologies can significantly increase the amount of information that flows into an EOC. Having too much information can prevent careful analysis of data and can make it harder to recognize critical information.

Here are ten things to keep in mind while designing and implementing an information management system for your EOC.

  1. The first reports of any disaster or emergency will probably be wrong. Keep in mind that responders will need some time to accurately asses the situation.  Do not pass early information to policymakers, other agencies, or the public without emphasizing that this data is preliminary and has not been confirmed.
  2. You need an information management plan. Managing the flood of incoming information is a complex and challenging task that is the foundation for everything else that goes on in the EOC.  You aren’t going to be able to manage the flow unless you have planned and prepared to do so. At a minimum you need to know what specific information you need, who can provide it, how often you need it, how you can contact them 24/7, how it will be provided, who in the EOC will be responsible for obtaining the information, how it can be confirmed,  who will analyze it, how it will be displayed, and how it will be shared. Your information management plan, whether it is an appendix to an existing plan (EOP, EOC Operations Plan, etc.) or is organized as a stand-alone plan, should be shared with every agency that has a role in providing or receiving information from the EOC.
  3. Frequently exercise and update your information management plan. Because information management is critical to everything that is done in the EOC, it is especially important to ensure that your information management plan is up-to-date and that everyone who will use it is prepared to do so. Special care must be taken to keep contact information for various associated agencies current.
  4. You need a way to display critical information in real time. Everyone in the EOC should be able to access the current situation at any time. The EOC manager especially needs to have immediate access to the latest reports from the Incident Commander, responding agencies, supporting agencies, and other information sources.  Accurate injury and fatality information, critical infrastructure status, transportation system impacts, hospital capacity status, and shelter status are among the critical information items that should be updated and displayed in real time. Information can be displayed on an automated information system dashboard, on whiteboards, on wall-mounted monitors, on projection screens, or on specially designed status boards.
  5. Reduce the number of ways information can be transmitted to the EOC. As much as possible, develop information processes that reduce the ways information can be transmitted to the EOC. The fewer information channels you have to monitor, the more effective your information management system will be. Identify preferred channels for information sharing with supporting agencies.  Possible channels include shared incident management systems (WebEOC, etc.), designated chat rooms, designated e-mail addresses, and special telephone numbers. Planning for critical information to be transmitted to the EOC through a small number of pre-designated channels can
  6. Limit the amount of information that is transmitted to the EOC. Determine the type and amount of information you need from the various reporting agencies and ask them to report only the details that you need.  If possible, ask them to report summarized information rather than raw data.  Limiting the amount of incoming information that EOC staff members need to evaluate will make their jobs easier.  If you need additional details, you can always reach back to the reporting agencies.
  7. Push out critical information. Don’t wait for someone to ask. Be proactive, push out significant information rather than waiting for other agencies to request it. Keep policy-makers and any agencies that are providing resources fully informed of the current situation. Keep in mind that decision-makers need to understand emerging patterns rather than extreme details.
  8. Assign a team or a capable individual to maintain the Common Operational Picture (COP). Their main duties will be to collect, evaluate, analyze and consolidate information into an accurate and coherent picture of the current situation.  The team should have no other significant responsibilities, so they can respond quickly to changes in the situation.
  9. Plan for untrained personnel in your EOC. Expect that some people in your EOC from supporting agencies will be unfamiliar with EOC processes and have a plan to provide immediate assistance to help them understand their role and the EOC information processes.  No matter how often you exercise your EOC support staff, some agencies will be forced to send untrained personnel to the EOC because trained are unavailable. If possible, assign an EOC staff member to assist supporting agency representatives who are having trouble.
  10. Prepare a briefing template for briefing senior policymakers and other agencies. Prepare a briefing template to speed the process of preparing and presenting short-notice briefings to decision-makers and resource providers. Identify the most critical items of information that decision-makers need and be prepared to present it at any time upon request.

http://www.armadausa.com/News.aspx

Mar 26, 2018

Mass Shootings are a System Failure

Posted on by

Some folks questioned the sincerity or motivations of participants at the ‘March for Our Lives’ events. I didn’t see the event the way they did.

I was at the march and I wouldn’t characterize it as a “gun grab.” More than anything else, the speakers expressed frustration at Congress for not being willing to take action that might reduce the threat of gun violence in schools.

As far as people being denied an opportunity to speak, I have no knowledge of that, although it sounds bogus and I would be skeptical of it until I confirmed where the information came from. There’s a lot of bad info out there on all sides.

At the event in Cleveland, no speaker that I heard advocated “banning guns.” I did hear suggestions for more effective background checks, maybe banning sales to persons under 21, and re-imposing the now-expired ban on AR-15-type weapons. Several speakers did discuss other steps that could lead to meaningful change.

I think some of the frustration that the marchers (and others) feel stems from hearing the argument that since no single action can be guaranteed to stop all future shootings, we should therefore do nothing. It would be like going to the doctor and being told that you have cancer, but while there are several possible treatments that might be effective, no single treatment is guaranteed to work completely, so we’re not going to do anything.

My own opinion is that we need to address mass shootings in the same way we address other disasters. When a plane crashes, or a bridge fails, we conduct a comprehensive investigation to identify the root cause. Invariably, we find that the disaster was the result of multiple failures. Mass shootings are the same. They happen when the complex system we have developed to prevent extreme anti-social behavior fails at multiple points.

When discussing possible causes of disasters, please note that there is a significant difference between “contributing cause” and “cause.” Contributing causes contribute to the outcome, but they do not by themselves determine the outcome.

If a long chain of events has occurred where multiple opportunities to intervene have been missed or ignored, and as a result a troubled person finally decides to head back to his old high school and shoot the place up, a contributing cause will certainly be the availability of firearms. If he can’t get a gun, he can’t shoot up the school. That is irrefutable. A firearm didn’t cause the event, it didn’t motivate the person to act, it didn’t shoot people on its own, but it did make the ultimate disaster possible, so it was one of a number of contributing causes.

And yes, he could use a knife or a bomb, and in those cases the contributing factor would be the availability of bomb-making materials and the availability of edged weapons, but this discussion is about gun violence.

My point is that these incidents are the result of a long chain of events, of which firearms availability is just one, and certainly not the main one. Nobody shoots up their high school simply because they had access to a firearm. Mental health and school security are also contributing factors and should certainly be addressed in any comprehensive attempt to reduce the incidence of school shootings. There are many other potential contributing factors as well.

These events are thankfully rare because we do have systems in place to identify extremely troubled individuals and to intervene. It is only when these systems fail – often at multiple points – that we get these horrific shootings.

There is no simple solution to shootings in schools, churches, nightclubs, movie theaters, concert venues, office buildings, and other places. Focusing on a single factor, like the availability of firearms, is a dead end that won’t take us where we want to go. But denying the possibility that some reform of our current gun laws can be part of the solution is equally wrongheaded. We’re never going to be able to stop all shootings, but perhaps a coordinated effort to address many of the contributing causes can reduce the number of incidents. If it takes us fifty years to cut the rate in half, we will have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

March 26, 2018