Antlurz
03-22-2005, 02:58 PM
What's Going On? - The Border Con Game
by Glenn Spencer -- March 20, 2005
See Related Feature Item
On February 8, 2005, Bill O'Reilly of Fox news reported that President George W. Bush's new budget called for a 90% reduction in the number of Border Patrol Agents originally planned for in the intelligence overhaul bill signed in December 2004. O'Reilly asked, "What's going on?"
This is what is going on: George Bush is playing "Good cop, bad cop" with the U.S. Senate. Bush slashes the budget for agents, thus making him very unpopular with the public. But he doesn't care about that. He isn't running for office again. On the other hand the Senate does care about public opinion, so it jumps in and restores the original budget. The public shouts, "hurray, we won!"
Not so fast: You didn't win. You lost. According to Arizona Senator John Kyl, the Border Patrol is capable of training only 1,000 new agents each year. So, at best, the Border Patrol will see an increase of about ten percent in manpower by the end of next year. Does anyone really believe a ten percent increase in manpower will solve the border problem? It won't even make a noticeable difference.
The White House is involved in a massive border con game. The agent cut/Senate restore gambit was just one move is a series of carefully scripted steps to make the public think that the border problem is being taken seriously. It is not.
Critical Mass of Mexicans
The power elite game plan is to delay any real border enforcement long enough to make it seem futile. That is, they want to convince us that with so many Mexicans, a "critical mass", in our midst, trying to remove them would be all but impossible. Once that is achieved, the next logical step would be to open the border entirely, establishing a security perimeter at Mexico's southern border. That is the plan, and it has been the plan for years.
But why would our President and our Senate want to destroy the United States? There are many reasons, but essentially we are being sacrificed on the alter of globalism.
Want proof? Let's take the Border Patrol Agent controversy apart. Border Patrol Agents are tasked with the job of protecting our borders against illegal entry. But what happens when they apprehend someone who crossed illegally? If they are Mexican, they are returned to Mexico, only to try again. If they are other than Mexican (OTM) and not a known criminal or terrorist, they are released into the U.S. with a letter asking them to show up for a hearing. Few do.
Time Magazine reported that 4 million cross the border illegally each year. The Border Patrol catches one million, leaving three million who get in illegally. Clearly, that kind of failure rate is not going to be reduced significantly with a ten percent increase in manpower over the next year. The President knows this, and so does the Senate.
What a Model Would Tell Us
Years ago I worked as an Operations Research analyst. My specialty was the study of man/machine trade offs using Monte Carlo simulation models. This type of brute force computer model was used because the mathematical description of the problem, oftentimes involving queuing theory , were too complex to be solved in a conventional way.
My first big assignment was to see if a Navy guided missile destroyer could be redesigned using automation to reduce manpower requirements (A Total Ship Simulation Model for the DDG-2 Class Guided Missile Destroyer, Glenn Spencer and Hyman Kolkowitz, Personnel Research Division, Bureau of Naval Personnel, 1968). The computer model showed that, with electronic systems reliability at that time, automation helped to a point but, since the destroyer had to operate for a long period of time without outside assistance, more equipment meant more need for repair and more people with specialized training.
Let's take an example of man/machine trade off that is simpler than a guided missile destroyer. Let's look at a MacDonalds. The goal of the store is to maximize profit. That means to push as many high paying customers through as possible. One sure way of losing customers is make them wait in line . People will wait in line only so long before they leave (queuing theory people call it reneging).
If we developed a computer model of all of the activities of the store, we could then change some things to see what happens to the average waiting time of a customer ¬ and profit.
We could start by increasing the number of order takers. That might help, but we might find that the next bottleneck was the number of cash registers. After we increased those, we might find the problem to be cooking the hamburgers, or the fries, or putting them into a bag, or running out of bags, and so on.
We could even try out different strategies such as having one station take the order and another fill the order.
The important thing in the model would be the profit of the store. For example, we might find that that the store receives the greatest return on investment by simply increasing the heat of the oil in which the fries are cooked!
Now let's look at the Border Patrol. It is made up of people and machines. Some people patrol, some transport, some process and some supervise. Some are on vacation, some are sick and some are in training. Machines include vehicles for patrol, vehicles for transport, aerial vehicles, computers, cameras and so on,
Just like MacDonalds, the Border Patrol is not sure exactly how many customers (illegal aliens) are going to show up at any given time. And, just like MacDonalds, this makes it difficult to know just how many of each kind of resource (people or machines) are needed at any given time. This problem is generally described as the "allocation of resources under uncertainty."
If I were asked to develop a computer simulation model of the Border Patrol I would first ask what the computer should use as a "figure of merit." That is, when do I know if the system is performing well? With a MacDonalds, the principle figure of merit would be profit. With the Border Patrol, it would be something else.
Historically the Border Patrol has used number of apprehensions as its primary figure of merit. The problem is that management claims success if the figure goes up, and it claims success if the figure goes down. A win-win situation.
A better measure would be the number of people who enter the U.S. illegally by crossing our borders. We could then set a goal of, say 20,000 and then play with the computer model to see what combination of man and machines does best in reaching the goal.
When developing a computer simulation model of something like the Border Patrol that has to operate twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, we learn that it takes a lot more people to make the system work than we thought.
If we have an eight-hour shift, it takes three shifts to make up a day. Assuming all shifts are equally manned, a nine thousand person southern border Border Patrol is suddenly three thousand.
Not all agents are available for patrol. Some are supervisors, some others are specialists of one sort or another and still others are on vacation, sick leave, training, etc. The computer model might find, for example, that, on average, only 2,000 agents are available for patrol.
The computer model works by simulating what happens when illegal aliens crosses the border. It does this by generating a series of "events" using the Monte Carlo random sampling method. For example, it might show a group of fifteen people crossing the border ten miles West of the Naco Border Patrol station six minutes after midnight, January 1, 2006. Another group of 11 at 12 minutes past 2 miles East of Douglas. Still another group of twenty at 16 minutes past 4 miles East of Nogales, and so on throughout the day ¬ and the year.
Each group of border crossers is 'stepped' though the model until they are detected and apprehended ¬ or not. Detection probabilities are set based on the presents of agents, and the capability of sensors, cameras, UAVs, etc.
Once detected the model attempts to assign agents to make the apprehension. If agents are available, they are assigned. If they are not available, the illegals go into a queue ¬ waiting to be apprehended.
Not all agents are available for all jobs. Agents in Texas can't be assigned to apprehend California border crossers. In fact, agents from one Border Patrol station such as Douglas are not available to apprehend illegals in the area assigned to the Naco station. Thus it is easy for the personnel at a given station to be overwhelmed when personnel in an adjacent station are idle.
The computer can simulate years of Border Patrol operations in seconds. It can show what happens if certain variables are changed. For example, if detection probability is improved to, say, ninety percent, the model might find that the personnel are simply not available to make the apprehensions.
Of course, human smugglers know the limitations of the Border Patrol in this regard and take advantage of it by saturating certain areas with people to tie up resources so others can make it through. Since those who are caught are merely inconvenienced, they do not mind.
The model could also be used to study different strategies. For example, building a barrier along the border may well be much more cost-effective than bringing in the National Guard if all the Guard does is follow the practice of catch and release.
(There are powerful tools now on the market to study this kind of problem, and there are powerful companies who are expert at using them. One is called CACI. It has 9500 employees and is located in the Washington, D.C. area. )
Designed to Fail
There is no question that such a computer model would show that increasing the number of Border Patrol Agents by ten percent without changing the overall strategy of border enforcement would do little to stem the flood of illegal aliens. But then, President Bush does not want to stem the flow. He and his underlings have designed a system to fail in a way that the American people do not know why. That is why they do not want to build a model of the sort described above. To do so would require that they adopt a figure of merit ¬ a public statement of the goal of the Border Patrol. They do not want to do this because they know "if you can't measure it, you can't improve it."
One of the reasons I worked to develop the unmanned aerial vehicle is that it provided a means by which the Border Patrol could be evaluated. It wouldn't take many UAVs flying in the Tucson sector to do a statistical survey of border crossers. With the proper experimental design, the UAVS could estimate the number of people crossing the border with a high degree of statistical confidence. This number could then be compared to the number of apprehensions that were made in the same period so that a "grade" could be assigned.
Recently the government halted the use of UAVs pending an "evaluation." I am convinced that they grounded the UAVs because they realized where there use might lead, i.e., an objective means of evaluation.
The President of the United States and his power elite are in a race. Can they reach their critical mass of Mexicans before the people figure out what they are up to?
http://www.americanpatrol.com/05-FE...ME/ConGame.html
by Glenn Spencer -- March 20, 2005
See Related Feature Item
On February 8, 2005, Bill O'Reilly of Fox news reported that President George W. Bush's new budget called for a 90% reduction in the number of Border Patrol Agents originally planned for in the intelligence overhaul bill signed in December 2004. O'Reilly asked, "What's going on?"
This is what is going on: George Bush is playing "Good cop, bad cop" with the U.S. Senate. Bush slashes the budget for agents, thus making him very unpopular with the public. But he doesn't care about that. He isn't running for office again. On the other hand the Senate does care about public opinion, so it jumps in and restores the original budget. The public shouts, "hurray, we won!"
Not so fast: You didn't win. You lost. According to Arizona Senator John Kyl, the Border Patrol is capable of training only 1,000 new agents each year. So, at best, the Border Patrol will see an increase of about ten percent in manpower by the end of next year. Does anyone really believe a ten percent increase in manpower will solve the border problem? It won't even make a noticeable difference.
The White House is involved in a massive border con game. The agent cut/Senate restore gambit was just one move is a series of carefully scripted steps to make the public think that the border problem is being taken seriously. It is not.
Critical Mass of Mexicans
The power elite game plan is to delay any real border enforcement long enough to make it seem futile. That is, they want to convince us that with so many Mexicans, a "critical mass", in our midst, trying to remove them would be all but impossible. Once that is achieved, the next logical step would be to open the border entirely, establishing a security perimeter at Mexico's southern border. That is the plan, and it has been the plan for years.
But why would our President and our Senate want to destroy the United States? There are many reasons, but essentially we are being sacrificed on the alter of globalism.
Want proof? Let's take the Border Patrol Agent controversy apart. Border Patrol Agents are tasked with the job of protecting our borders against illegal entry. But what happens when they apprehend someone who crossed illegally? If they are Mexican, they are returned to Mexico, only to try again. If they are other than Mexican (OTM) and not a known criminal or terrorist, they are released into the U.S. with a letter asking them to show up for a hearing. Few do.
Time Magazine reported that 4 million cross the border illegally each year. The Border Patrol catches one million, leaving three million who get in illegally. Clearly, that kind of failure rate is not going to be reduced significantly with a ten percent increase in manpower over the next year. The President knows this, and so does the Senate.
What a Model Would Tell Us
Years ago I worked as an Operations Research analyst. My specialty was the study of man/machine trade offs using Monte Carlo simulation models. This type of brute force computer model was used because the mathematical description of the problem, oftentimes involving queuing theory , were too complex to be solved in a conventional way.
My first big assignment was to see if a Navy guided missile destroyer could be redesigned using automation to reduce manpower requirements (A Total Ship Simulation Model for the DDG-2 Class Guided Missile Destroyer, Glenn Spencer and Hyman Kolkowitz, Personnel Research Division, Bureau of Naval Personnel, 1968). The computer model showed that, with electronic systems reliability at that time, automation helped to a point but, since the destroyer had to operate for a long period of time without outside assistance, more equipment meant more need for repair and more people with specialized training.
Let's take an example of man/machine trade off that is simpler than a guided missile destroyer. Let's look at a MacDonalds. The goal of the store is to maximize profit. That means to push as many high paying customers through as possible. One sure way of losing customers is make them wait in line . People will wait in line only so long before they leave (queuing theory people call it reneging).
If we developed a computer model of all of the activities of the store, we could then change some things to see what happens to the average waiting time of a customer ¬ and profit.
We could start by increasing the number of order takers. That might help, but we might find that the next bottleneck was the number of cash registers. After we increased those, we might find the problem to be cooking the hamburgers, or the fries, or putting them into a bag, or running out of bags, and so on.
We could even try out different strategies such as having one station take the order and another fill the order.
The important thing in the model would be the profit of the store. For example, we might find that that the store receives the greatest return on investment by simply increasing the heat of the oil in which the fries are cooked!
Now let's look at the Border Patrol. It is made up of people and machines. Some people patrol, some transport, some process and some supervise. Some are on vacation, some are sick and some are in training. Machines include vehicles for patrol, vehicles for transport, aerial vehicles, computers, cameras and so on,
Just like MacDonalds, the Border Patrol is not sure exactly how many customers (illegal aliens) are going to show up at any given time. And, just like MacDonalds, this makes it difficult to know just how many of each kind of resource (people or machines) are needed at any given time. This problem is generally described as the "allocation of resources under uncertainty."
If I were asked to develop a computer simulation model of the Border Patrol I would first ask what the computer should use as a "figure of merit." That is, when do I know if the system is performing well? With a MacDonalds, the principle figure of merit would be profit. With the Border Patrol, it would be something else.
Historically the Border Patrol has used number of apprehensions as its primary figure of merit. The problem is that management claims success if the figure goes up, and it claims success if the figure goes down. A win-win situation.
A better measure would be the number of people who enter the U.S. illegally by crossing our borders. We could then set a goal of, say 20,000 and then play with the computer model to see what combination of man and machines does best in reaching the goal.
When developing a computer simulation model of something like the Border Patrol that has to operate twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, we learn that it takes a lot more people to make the system work than we thought.
If we have an eight-hour shift, it takes three shifts to make up a day. Assuming all shifts are equally manned, a nine thousand person southern border Border Patrol is suddenly three thousand.
Not all agents are available for patrol. Some are supervisors, some others are specialists of one sort or another and still others are on vacation, sick leave, training, etc. The computer model might find, for example, that, on average, only 2,000 agents are available for patrol.
The computer model works by simulating what happens when illegal aliens crosses the border. It does this by generating a series of "events" using the Monte Carlo random sampling method. For example, it might show a group of fifteen people crossing the border ten miles West of the Naco Border Patrol station six minutes after midnight, January 1, 2006. Another group of 11 at 12 minutes past 2 miles East of Douglas. Still another group of twenty at 16 minutes past 4 miles East of Nogales, and so on throughout the day ¬ and the year.
Each group of border crossers is 'stepped' though the model until they are detected and apprehended ¬ or not. Detection probabilities are set based on the presents of agents, and the capability of sensors, cameras, UAVs, etc.
Once detected the model attempts to assign agents to make the apprehension. If agents are available, they are assigned. If they are not available, the illegals go into a queue ¬ waiting to be apprehended.
Not all agents are available for all jobs. Agents in Texas can't be assigned to apprehend California border crossers. In fact, agents from one Border Patrol station such as Douglas are not available to apprehend illegals in the area assigned to the Naco station. Thus it is easy for the personnel at a given station to be overwhelmed when personnel in an adjacent station are idle.
The computer can simulate years of Border Patrol operations in seconds. It can show what happens if certain variables are changed. For example, if detection probability is improved to, say, ninety percent, the model might find that the personnel are simply not available to make the apprehensions.
Of course, human smugglers know the limitations of the Border Patrol in this regard and take advantage of it by saturating certain areas with people to tie up resources so others can make it through. Since those who are caught are merely inconvenienced, they do not mind.
The model could also be used to study different strategies. For example, building a barrier along the border may well be much more cost-effective than bringing in the National Guard if all the Guard does is follow the practice of catch and release.
(There are powerful tools now on the market to study this kind of problem, and there are powerful companies who are expert at using them. One is called CACI. It has 9500 employees and is located in the Washington, D.C. area. )
Designed to Fail
There is no question that such a computer model would show that increasing the number of Border Patrol Agents by ten percent without changing the overall strategy of border enforcement would do little to stem the flood of illegal aliens. But then, President Bush does not want to stem the flow. He and his underlings have designed a system to fail in a way that the American people do not know why. That is why they do not want to build a model of the sort described above. To do so would require that they adopt a figure of merit ¬ a public statement of the goal of the Border Patrol. They do not want to do this because they know "if you can't measure it, you can't improve it."
One of the reasons I worked to develop the unmanned aerial vehicle is that it provided a means by which the Border Patrol could be evaluated. It wouldn't take many UAVs flying in the Tucson sector to do a statistical survey of border crossers. With the proper experimental design, the UAVS could estimate the number of people crossing the border with a high degree of statistical confidence. This number could then be compared to the number of apprehensions that were made in the same period so that a "grade" could be assigned.
Recently the government halted the use of UAVs pending an "evaluation." I am convinced that they grounded the UAVs because they realized where there use might lead, i.e., an objective means of evaluation.
The President of the United States and his power elite are in a race. Can they reach their critical mass of Mexicans before the people figure out what they are up to?
http://www.americanpatrol.com/05-FE...ME/ConGame.html