In late 1988, I transferred from USS Reeves (CG-24) to USS Hepburn (FF-1055).  The Reeves was nearing the end of its deployment in the Persian Gulf and about to head back to home port at Yokosuka, Japan.  Of course, no US warship at the time passed that way without stopping in Subic Bay, RP (Republika ng Pilipinas) (a.k.a. “PI,” for Philippine Islands), for some R&R.  But dates are dates and I left the Reeves in Bahrain.  No PI for me.  My orders were to go enjoy some leave stateside, and (if I recall correctly) check in at a small Navy base on Cape Cod at a certain date to get final travel arrangements to wherever the Hepburn was going to be.

I had a great leave.  They flew me from Bahrain to Boston so I could visit family in New England.  That was a long flight, with a couple pit stops (Frankfurt and Rota, Spain, I believe).  When I picked up my travel orders, they said to be in New Orleans on a certain date, so I arranged travel to NO (on the Navy’s dime of course), via Florida to visit more friends and family there.  In fact, I saved ‘m a few bucks by taking a bus from Gainesville to NO so I could stop by Pensacola and visit a bud and his wife (Bill & Carol Corr, where are you!?).  I also got what remains my one and only evening on Bourbon Street.

The morning after enjoying Bourbon Street, I went to the airport and caught a TWA flight to St. Louis.  From St. Louis, I flew on Hawaiian Airlines to Ontario (thinking, “why the hell are we going to Canada?!”) and then on to Anchorage…  In Anchorage, we couldn’t take off again because ice was accumulating on the wings faster than the de-icing equipment could work.  So we were moved inside to spend a few hours in the empty airport and wait for dawn, when the sun could do it’s thing.  Finally, back on the plane…  Next stop, Tokyo.  After that, the final stop was supposed to be Manila.  The pilot said he was going fast to make up for the time we lost in Anchorage…  Funny that, as a couple hours later he decided he’d been going too fast and we’d need to add a stop in Okinawa so we could take on enough fuel to make it to Manila.

All tolled, my travel time from New Orleans to Manila was 30.5 hours.  I hadn’t slept the whole way.  And remember that I’d been partying on Bourbon Street the night before departure.  So.  At the Manila airport, I was shown to a bus that would take me to Subic Bay Naval Station, where the USS Hepburn was supposedly in port.  Add an hour or two for the bumpy bus ride and I am so looking forward to laying down in a Navy rack and sleeping for as long as possible!

I get to the Hepburn just before 10 PM.  It’s tied up roughly here (red circle):

The officer of the deck checks me in and says that hot water will be turned off in 15 minutes, so if I want a shower, haul butt.  I do.  Between the butt hauling and the hot shower — and my proximity to Magsaysay Drive (which, in its day, was at least as wild as Bourbon Street on a typical night!) — I soon found myself NOT collapsing in a rack for a long rest.  No, I was dressed and headed to town for a night of drunken debauchery, like any good sailor.

Off I went, on pure adrenaline.  First, a few beers in Olongapo (the city just outside the gates).  Then, on to Barrio Barretto (next town out).  There I am, walking down the street in BB…  And I hear…  I hear familiar voices.  They’re yelling, “Jones!?!  What the hell are you doing here!?!”

I was standing in front of a haunt of the guys from my old division on the Reeves.  And it was full of…  well, it was full of guys from my old division on the Reeves!  “No,” said I, “what the hell are you doing here?!”

Turns out the Reeves was still on its way home from the Persian Gulf.  And guess what.  They were tied up about here (blue circle):

I hadn’t seen the Reeves because of the buildings in between.

Now listen, I’m grateful things worked out how they did.  I got to visit family and friends in both New England and Florida.  I got to see New Orleans and eat at The Court of Two Sisters (which my grandmother had been raving about since 1942).  But the facts remain as follows:

I’d been in Subic Bay, on the Reeves, as we headed to the Persian Gulf months prior.  From there, we steamed across the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf.  Then, the US Navy flew me from Manama, Bahrain, to Germany, then Spain, across the Atlantic Ocean to Boston, then Jacksonville, New Orleans, St. Louis, Ontario (which it turns out is in California), Anchorage, Tokyo, Okinawa and finally Manila…  Completing, for me, a westward circumnavigation of the globe … !!

…instead of handing me my seabag and pointing (yellow line = possible alternate travel itinerary):

Excelsior!

theshaggyshow (3 weeks ago)
he said we are a democracy… he is wrong… we are a REPUBLIC…

Bartleby1701 (1 week ago)
Yes! Which is a FORM of DEMOCRACY pinhead! I’m very glad you so well educated that you know the “difference”. We are all SO impressed! However, people who DON’T feel the need to point out useless and meaningless distinctions for whatever reason? We all just use the word democracy and know that smart? people know that that is synonymous with republic these days…. otherwise – since there ARE no pure democracies anywhere in the world – one couldn’t use the word at all. Duh, genius.

hsj469 (6 minutes ago)  (me)
There are hundreds of pure democracies in New England small towns, like the one I grew up in (Boscawen, NH), with more in Europe.

Regardless, I don’t believe it’s mere intellectual posturing to point out the true nature of our federal government. The masses hear “democracy” and assume that means the majority gets to decide what is right in this country. I think it’s sad (and dangerous) that so many Americans think that’s how it works.

Too many actually believe that if the majority of people support criminalization of homosexuality, for example, that’s how it should be. They don’t understand the dangers of the tyranny of majority, a threat to freedom which the founding fathers guarded against by adopting a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. So I think it’s very important to call out the distinction and to help people understand that might (or majority) does not make right in the US — our system strives for higher justice.

I was on the USS Reeves CG-24 in the Persian (a.k.a “Arabian”) Gulf in 1987 and ‘88. We operated with HMS Broadsword, and I fondly recall the wonderful voice of Broadsword’s female radio talker. I’m sure all of us who heard the voice remember it well; as the US Navy did not have women on combat ships then, hers was the only female voice we heard for months. Whoever you were, know that you made the lives of several American sailors just a little bit better in that hot, dusty hell.

Good a time as any to document my incredulity/annoyance at the US government’s attempt to re-name a body of water known to the world for millennia as the “Persian Gulf”. Because we were there on the Earnest Will operation largely at the request of Saudi Arabia, the DoD played a silly political game and referred to it officially as the “Arabian Gulf” — even if no one else did — as if it belonged to our Arab “friends” historically, rather than their Persian enemies. We even re-labeled nautical charts! More detail than anyone could ever want on the PG naming “dispute” can be found here. I always considered this arrogant and pointless.

In their attempts to promote ratification of the United States Constitution, Federalists Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote a series of numbered essays knows as the Federalist Papers. Published between October, 1787, and August, 1788, these essays expound various points of political theory and assert that the constitutional republic is the best form of government. The effects of dissension and the potential tyranny of majority faction were of particular concern at the time. “Federalist Ten” elaborately defends the contention that a large republic is the best way to control the effects of faction. In today’s environment of instantaneous nationwide communication, however, there are new considerations which the Federalists did not have to address.

The essay begins by stating that a good government must control the “violence,” or the unjust use of power, by factions. Plans which control faction are said to be valued by friends of popular government, since faction is the source of its destruction. The Articles of Confederation, in force at the time, are noted as not adequately protecting the Union against such threats. Two possible cures for faction are offered: 1) remove its causes, and 2) control its effects. The first is discounted as being incompatible both with principles of liberty and with human nature. The second is therefore examined in the remainder of the essay.

Minority factions are identified as non threatening, since their ability to implement their agenda is restricted by the “republican principle”. (Although I believe that this would be the case in a pure democracy also, and regardless of the size of the Union.) It is majority faction which is the focus of “Federalist Ten,” because “the form of popular government … enables (a majority faction) to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison and his peers are concerned with the central dilemma of government, the interests of the individual versus the interests of the collective. How do we ensure both “the public good and private rights against the danger of (majority) faction?”

A small pure democracy, Madison argues, provides no cure against the tyranny of majority faction. Its will and whim can be directly reigned down upon the minority interest. Therefore, pure democracy is said to be “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property” and pure democracies have “been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” A republic, however, prevents oppression by majority faction by filtering public views through representatives who are less likely to “sacrifice (justice) to temporary or partial considerations.” Further, a large republic, having more representatives, prevents “cabal” (a small group of plotters). Also in a large republic, each representative having a greater number of constituents than in a small, “the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried” are likely to be ineffective. It is also pointed out that a large republic contains more interests, which lessens the likelihood that any one might gain a majority. The number of representatives must be carefully determined to ensure both their familiarity with “local circumstances and lesser interests” and that they are not “unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.”

Madison therefore concludes that a republic, in particular a large republic with both state and federal legislatures, as outlined in the Constitution, offers the greatest protection against faction and the perfect balance of interests of representatives.

Technological developments since “Federalist Ten” was written have resulted in a different environment for the consideration of these matters. Firstly, the possibility of a large democracy is ignored in Madison’s argument, probably because the mechanism for such did not exist in 1787. Today, nationwide instantaneous communication has made a system of national pure democracy technically possible. By extending Madison’s argument that a larger Union diffuses factional interests, one might be tempted to consider that such a system of government is a viable option in the modern world. However, that same nationwide instantaneous communication which makes a national pure democracy possible also extends to the larger arena the ability of factional interests to gain a majority easily via media influence. Therefore, Madison’s argument against pure democracy remains sound more than two hundred years later.

Also, modern communication technology has introduced new problems for the republican form of government that Madison did not need to consider. For example, ensuring a large constituency no longer prevents “vicious” campaign tactics, since a candidate for office is able to speak to every citizen in a district simultaneously through television. It is more difficult for voters to “center on men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters,” since the candidates’ manipulative arms can reach directly into the homes of the voters and obscure the objective reasoning which prevailed in the more isolated times of Madison.

Further, the large republic today faces the same threat of majority faction as the small democracy discussed in “Federalist Ten.” With high speed communication and elaborate media posturings, an oppressive agenda can gain national majority support as easily as it might have at a New England town meeting in 1787. And, since representatives are no longer isolated by time and distance from the transient passions of their constituents, majority faction is more likely to accomplish legislation contrary to both the public good and the rights of the individual.

In conclusion, “Federalist Ten” eloquently defends the constitutional republic as the most proper form of government for those who wish to prevent the destruction of liberty by majority faction. Much of the Federalists’ rhetoric remains valid today, particularly the argument against pure democracy and the desire to protect both the rights of minorities and the common welfare from the passions of majority faction. Modern communication, however, has introduced new problems which the Federalists did not face. Our large republic, which has functioned since 1788 under the structure of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton helped write, is continually threatened by majority faction, through the media. Technology has shrunk our Union even as its population and borders have expanded. Perhaps it is time to consider additional measures to ensure that liberty is protected from the tyranny of majority rule.

Read Federalist No. 10 at the Library of Congress!

I heard the phrase “the Great Firewall of China” this week on an NPR report about US technology companies doing business in China. It refers to the government-imposed Internet filters between China and the rest of the world. I had not heard the term before, which surprised me. From my perspective, it is disturbingly apropos and more than just clever word play.

For about 2.5 years at Novell, I was PM over Novell BorderManager, their software firewall product. The most popular feature of BorderManager among its twenty thousand plus customers was Internet Access Control. That is, the ability to require authentication by a user going from a managed desktop out to the public Internet, to log all Web activity of each user and to restrict access to certain content based on who the user is. For example, a supply clerk might only be able to get to supplier Web sites to place orders, but not to CNN.com or anywhere else. This type of functionality is a huge business. It’s been important for almost as long as public use of the Internet has been allowed. Novell was (still is) one of several dozen companies (including Microsoft, Cisco, Check Point, SurfControl and many more) playing in this market category, which represents a few billion dollars a year in spending.

The technology used by the Chinese government to restrict information access by their population is not inherently evil. The first time I touched an Internet Access Control product was in 1996. A customer of mine then, a structural engineering firm, was excited at the prospect of being able to give their employees instant, on-demand access to a wide range of resources that would help them do their jobs, without opening the floodgates to (at the time just thousands of) Web sites that could interfere with their jobs (and/or bring legal liability on the company). Also, I helped a number of K-12 school systems get connected to the Internet for the first time, a proposition that would have been impossible without some level of content control. There should be no question that Internet Access Control has legitimate and beneficial uses (especially when applied with restraint). I built most of my pre-Altiris career on the premise that private owners of computer networks have the right (and responsibility) to control how those networks are used.

But China, of course, is a very different story. Back to Novell…

Novell is a global company and has had sales and marketing activities in China for years (and now development as well). When the Chinese government was first talking about how to control information access on the Internet, we were made aware (along with everyone else in the industry) of the opportunity to potentially sell a billion+ user licenses of BorderManager. Now, normally in the software business you’d think, “holy crap — a billion licenses! At $40/user MSRP, even minus discounts, that’s… (mental wheels spin, adrenaline rushes)” We even knew of a prospective partner right here in Utah with a solution for one of the biggest challenges to effective filtering in China — the lack of any pre-existing technology optimized for the Chinese language and character sets. The partner’s self-learning filtering engine, sitting on top of Novell’s ultra high-capacity Web proxy/cache and access control mechanism could have made the perfect combination for the Chinese government to… to… to do what?!?! (adrenaline level recedes, heavy sigh, move on to next voice mail message… )

OK, maybe we didn’t dismiss the opportunity quite that quickly. But not many cycles were spent on it, that’s for sure. It was too obvious that this was a use of the technology no one at Novell wanted to be associated with. Protecting and focusing Internet use for students and workers, to facilitate learning, industry and commerce, and other productive human undertakings — people who could go home to their personal machines, or to public libraries, to exercise their personal freedom — that was one thing. Aiding in the oppression of the world’s largest population — that was another.

[By the way, a plug here for my employer of six years (plus another three and a half before that as a partner): One of the many things I liked about working for Novell was knowing that we were "one of the good guys". They followed Goggle's motto years before Google existed: "You can make money without doing evil". Sometimes to a fault. A willingness to be a little more brutal when necessary might have helped them hold their market share.]

So I (and plenty of other people; it was no secret) was aware this situation was coming. I don’t know who provides the filtering technology being used in China now. I figure it ended up being developed “in house,” since none of the commercial Internet Access Control vendors can afford the PR hit. But I just don’t know. A couple years ago, it would have been an important fact for me. However, PM’s don’t have a lot of bandwidth to keep tabs on their previous market categories. I moved on from Firewall/VPN to PKI authentication and now software management, and I don’t look back much.

Still, hearing the phrase “the Great Firewall of China” gave me a chill; the firewall could have been my product, if I and others in the right positions within Novell had been willing to do evil.

The current controversy isn’t about who’s providing the core technology that lets Beijing do what it does; it’s about Western tech companies that have chosen to do business within the system, in compliance with local law. It’s very interesting to me that Google is at the forefront of the controversy, not just because of their corporate philosophy but also because their CEO (Dr. Eric Schmidt) was CEO of Novell when I started there in 1999. You can read their very elegant and articulate summary of the matter here.

Are they aiding and abetting a repressive regime? Or are they making the Sinonet just a little bit better for the populace than it might be without a Western presence, subtly subverting the government and making change more likely, sooner? I’d like to believe the latter, but in learning how to work within the system — especially if profits keep meeting or exceeding expectations — there’s a risk that Western companies will become complacent and complicit.

Only time will tell what’s best, but I do actually trust the motivations and judgment of the leadership of many of these companies, especially Google.