I often spend some time with a class talking about having a plan for bad things. Usually it comes when there's been one of those Virginia Tech or Fort Hood or University of Alabama news events. You know the ones I mean, the psycho-killer in a gun-free zone comes calling. So, read this for content:
I Thought None of Us Would Come Out Alive
The conference room is crowded for twelve people. That means everyone is close enough to reach out and touch. Shooter uncloaks and starts work. What happens?
Everyone cowers until shooter's gun jams. (Memo to self, before commencing jihad remember to clean and lube weapons.)
Brave Joe Ng, associate professor cowers in fear waiting for shooter to remember to "Tap, Rack, Shoot" and resume. A woman stands up and attacks the shooter. Nice work there, Joe.
The woman faces the shooter who points and fires but gun continues to malfunction. Woman then pushes shooter out of the room, apparently with the help of other academics, except for cowardly Joe Ng. They barricade the door and wait for shooter to deal with the delay and return to business.
Have a plan. Look for exits. Know lines of sight from windows and doorways. Size up your potential weapons, even if you are compliant with the ridiculous gun-free zone rules. What is near to hand that is pointed, heavy or swingable? Get your mind-set on every day when you face the world. You should know before the need that you will not be a victim today or tomorrow or ever.
Passively waiting to be dispatched is not my idea of how I'm going out.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
I Wanna Drive It
C'mon, admit it. If you've ever been to a hockey game you know you were fascinated by the Zamboni. There isn't a kid in America who hasn't had the dream of driving one. They're cool!
But, I couldn't make this up even in my most cynical moments:
Emergency Zamboni to Rescue Enviro-Whackos at Vangoober Olympics
Wouldn't you?
But, I couldn't make this up even in my most cynical moments:
Emergency Zamboni to Rescue Enviro-Whackos at Vangoober Olympics
Wouldn't you?
Don't Mess With Texas
Yes, we're in the midst of a bruising primary race for Governor in Texas. We've got conservative incumbent Rick Perry who is viewed as either too conservative or not rightist enough depending upon the perspective of the observer, going at it against Washington long-termer, Kay Hutchison who apparently doesn't like being in the minority in Washington as much as the alternative. Throw in accused "truther" Debra Medina and you get the possibility of self-destruction of a couple of secure Republican incumbents along with loads of fodder for the opposition in the general election.
This morning we get an example of the Texas attitude which might be a campaign ploy by Perry but assuredly is a common sense plea as well against an over-reaching federal bureaucracy:
Your Data Is Suspect, So Don't Destroy Our Economy
In the aftermath of the Climategate melt-down with multiple discreditings of the motives and methodology of the warming crowd, it seems like a reasonable issue to raise. Recall a few years ago the screams of the enviro-whackos about the "hole in the ozone layer" which was deteriorating the shield which protects us from the sun's UV rays and makes this a livable planet. Ozone apparently is an essential component of our life-sustaining environment.
But moderation in all things is appropriate. The real issue is carbon dioxide and the seemingly arbitrary establishment of CO2 as a pollutant. Cap-and-trade was the goal and it seems to be dead in the chilly water at this point. But that doesn't mean the Bamster's minions aren't still going to chase after the destruction of our economy through re-design of our energy structure.
We've got an economy in recession and the way out is growth. Stifling that economy with ill-advised, poorly justified, and technologically unfeasible regulations is not something to be supported. A challenge by Texas of the EPA mandates is both politically popular for Perry as well as environmentally and economically good policy.
Watch to see how this plays out.
This morning we get an example of the Texas attitude which might be a campaign ploy by Perry but assuredly is a common sense plea as well against an over-reaching federal bureaucracy:
Your Data Is Suspect, So Don't Destroy Our Economy
In the aftermath of the Climategate melt-down with multiple discreditings of the motives and methodology of the warming crowd, it seems like a reasonable issue to raise. Recall a few years ago the screams of the enviro-whackos about the "hole in the ozone layer" which was deteriorating the shield which protects us from the sun's UV rays and makes this a livable planet. Ozone apparently is an essential component of our life-sustaining environment.
But moderation in all things is appropriate. The real issue is carbon dioxide and the seemingly arbitrary establishment of CO2 as a pollutant. Cap-and-trade was the goal and it seems to be dead in the chilly water at this point. But that doesn't mean the Bamster's minions aren't still going to chase after the destruction of our economy through re-design of our energy structure.
We've got an economy in recession and the way out is growth. Stifling that economy with ill-advised, poorly justified, and technologically unfeasible regulations is not something to be supported. A challenge by Texas of the EPA mandates is both politically popular for Perry as well as environmentally and economically good policy.
Watch to see how this plays out.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
She's Not Like Us
Apparently Richard Cohen of the Washington Post has a difficult time ignoring that which he emphatically states he finds insignificant. Isn't there a modicum of hypocrisy in that? If Sarah Palin is so vacuous, venal and insignificant, why does he spend so much time vilifying and demeaning her?
She's Nothing Now and Never Was
Somehow it all comes back to the idea that if you don't have an Ivy League accent, live in a metro brownstone, eschew private cars for taxis and sip lattes while discussing Camus and Sartre with your pinky raised, then you can't be intellectually grounded. Saying "you betcha!" will significantly outweigh any executive office credentials you might possess.
I'm not sure Sarah is the coming of the anti-Obama or even a prophet of the reformation of the republic. I do know, however, that she speaks a language that the folks in fly-over country can understand and it seems they are sympathetic to her observations.
If she is so meaningless in the political balance, why do they devote so much time to her?
She's Nothing Now and Never Was
Somehow it all comes back to the idea that if you don't have an Ivy League accent, live in a metro brownstone, eschew private cars for taxis and sip lattes while discussing Camus and Sartre with your pinky raised, then you can't be intellectually grounded. Saying "you betcha!" will significantly outweigh any executive office credentials you might possess.
I'm not sure Sarah is the coming of the anti-Obama or even a prophet of the reformation of the republic. I do know, however, that she speaks a language that the folks in fly-over country can understand and it seems they are sympathetic to her observations.
If she is so meaningless in the political balance, why do they devote so much time to her?
Fighter Pilot Coming Soon
“Fighter Pilot: Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds” by Robin Olds with Christina Olds and Ed Rasimus; St. Martin’s Press, New York NY, April 13, 2010. 384 pages.
Robin held the title for longer than most of us and will always personify what it means to be a Fighter Pilot. Most of us knew him from our reunions. Some served with him in the Wolf Pack. Some were close friends. Some served under his leadership, some benefitted from his support on staffs and in flying assignments. But did any of us really know Robin? Fortunately he was a prolific writer and he left us memories of his remarkable life in boxes, notebooks, desk drawers and tales told to friends and family over a lifetime. Fighter Pilot tells the story from Robin’s early experiences in a military home surrounded by the founders of modern aviations through his time at West Point and his flying training to his remarkable wartime experiences. The modern military pilot will be dumbstruck by the disorganization of a nation at war then dazzled by the air battles in Europe starting a few weeks before D-Day through the end. Stories of victories and losses, combat and friendships, bombings and the blitz will show readers aspects of the war they probably weren’t aware of.
Becoming a double ace and rising from new lieutenant wingman to squadron commander major in nine months of war would be enough for most lifetimes, but Robin had just begun. A quick assignment to purgatory as assistant football coach at West Point was a momentary bump on the way to the new jet squadron and the first jet demo team in P-80s. A whirlwind romance with a movie star, transition through F-86s, an exchange tour to become the first US exchange officer to command an RAF squadron, then through Landstuhl, the building of the Wheelus gunnery complex and the bowels of the Pentagon with a famous wife and two daughters; it’s all in this remarkable story which often reads like Tom Clancy fiction.
Robin’s writing formed the foundation, but the title calls it memoirs—plural not singular. Christina offers insights into the family and interviews with those who knew him well fill out the narrative which seamlessly weaves it all into a first-person story that is often beyond belief. We are all flawed at some level and Robin was no exception yet every life is a balance and few would disagree that the life of the Fighter Pilot related here is heavily weighted on the side of greatness. It’s a rip-roaring roller-coaster of a book available now on Amazon.com for pre-order.
Robin held the title for longer than most of us and will always personify what it means to be a Fighter Pilot. Most of us knew him from our reunions. Some served with him in the Wolf Pack. Some were close friends. Some served under his leadership, some benefitted from his support on staffs and in flying assignments. But did any of us really know Robin? Fortunately he was a prolific writer and he left us memories of his remarkable life in boxes, notebooks, desk drawers and tales told to friends and family over a lifetime. Fighter Pilot tells the story from Robin’s early experiences in a military home surrounded by the founders of modern aviations through his time at West Point and his flying training to his remarkable wartime experiences. The modern military pilot will be dumbstruck by the disorganization of a nation at war then dazzled by the air battles in Europe starting a few weeks before D-Day through the end. Stories of victories and losses, combat and friendships, bombings and the blitz will show readers aspects of the war they probably weren’t aware of.
Becoming a double ace and rising from new lieutenant wingman to squadron commander major in nine months of war would be enough for most lifetimes, but Robin had just begun. A quick assignment to purgatory as assistant football coach at West Point was a momentary bump on the way to the new jet squadron and the first jet demo team in P-80s. A whirlwind romance with a movie star, transition through F-86s, an exchange tour to become the first US exchange officer to command an RAF squadron, then through Landstuhl, the building of the Wheelus gunnery complex and the bowels of the Pentagon with a famous wife and two daughters; it’s all in this remarkable story which often reads like Tom Clancy fiction.
Robin’s writing formed the foundation, but the title calls it memoirs—plural not singular. Christina offers insights into the family and interviews with those who knew him well fill out the narrative which seamlessly weaves it all into a first-person story that is often beyond belief. We are all flawed at some level and Robin was no exception yet every life is a balance and few would disagree that the life of the Fighter Pilot related here is heavily weighted on the side of greatness. It’s a rip-roaring roller-coaster of a book available now on Amazon.com for pre-order.
The Plot Thickens
Evan Bayh announces his retirement from the US Senate. The shocking statement sends ripples through the Democratic Party. The inconvenient truth is that to get on the primary ballot to run for the now-vacant Senate seat, a candidate must collect 4500 signatures by midnight tonight. That's a scant twenty-four hours from the surprise announcement.
Few were ready to challenge Bayh for his seat but now the door is open. The problem is hitting the ground running. Petition signatures for a ballot slot can be very difficult. Getting people to sign isn't that tough. Meeting the bureacratic hurdles might be. The forms are specified in detail. The qualifications of petition carriers are often restrictive. The signatures must be registered voters in the party. The sheets must usually be notarized. Typically more than half of submitted signatures will be disallowed. Sometimes entire sheets will be thrown out for an incorrect date or similarly insignificant flaw. Nine congressional districts must be gathered with a minimum of 500 signatures from each. Tough job in 24 hours.
Only one Democrat has indicated she will give it a shot. That's Tamyra d'Ippolito. Now, we've got an evolving drama in which it is beginning to look like some collusion by the White House has taken place. Would you believe that the fingerprints of Rahm Emmanuel are on this?
d'Ippolito Scrambles But Hill Is Ready!
Isn't that amazing. He's currently out of the country, but it seems that he's gotten a lot of signatures just in case. What a great planner!
Baron Hill Might Be Ready
The spin in these articles is that Hill is a "blue dog". But, why then would the Bamster want to elevate one of the party mavericks that have been balking his programs to the US Senate? How would he keep him in line? Is it a quid pro quo; you get a Senate seat in return for staying in lock-step?
And what kind of a guy is Hill?
Few were ready to challenge Bayh for his seat but now the door is open. The problem is hitting the ground running. Petition signatures for a ballot slot can be very difficult. Getting people to sign isn't that tough. Meeting the bureacratic hurdles might be. The forms are specified in detail. The qualifications of petition carriers are often restrictive. The signatures must be registered voters in the party. The sheets must usually be notarized. Typically more than half of submitted signatures will be disallowed. Sometimes entire sheets will be thrown out for an incorrect date or similarly insignificant flaw. Nine congressional districts must be gathered with a minimum of 500 signatures from each. Tough job in 24 hours.
Only one Democrat has indicated she will give it a shot. That's Tamyra d'Ippolito. Now, we've got an evolving drama in which it is beginning to look like some collusion by the White House has taken place. Would you believe that the fingerprints of Rahm Emmanuel are on this?
d'Ippolito Scrambles But Hill Is Ready!
Isn't that amazing. He's currently out of the country, but it seems that he's gotten a lot of signatures just in case. What a great planner!
Baron Hill Might Be Ready
The spin in these articles is that Hill is a "blue dog". But, why then would the Bamster want to elevate one of the party mavericks that have been balking his programs to the US Senate? How would he keep him in line? Is it a quid pro quo; you get a Senate seat in return for staying in lock-step?
And what kind of a guy is Hill?
Monday, February 15, 2010
And the Beat Goes On
Apparently the wiser of the rodents are beginning to sense the ship settling at the stern and are deciding that running down the rat lines before the decks are awash is the better choice. I think we are only seeing the beginning of this trend:
Surprise Announcement for Indiana
It begins to look like there may be hope for restoration of the republic. Dim, I'll agree, but at least a glimmer.
Surprise Announcement for Indiana
It begins to look like there may be hope for restoration of the republic. Dim, I'll agree, but at least a glimmer.
I Must Have Lost It
So, if I understand the situation here we need to change the economy, turn out the lights, stop using cars, tax our exhalations and revert to medieval methodologies for the good of the planet. If we don't do that we will all boil away in a few years. And we must do this why?
Oh, there's "consensus" among reputable scientists about the crisis? Al Gore has read the research, or at least someone told him about it.
Could we review the bidding to this point? Maybe have a look at the data to see how the predictions of disaster were made?
OOoopsie. I Can't Seem to Find It Anymore.
Are you kidding me? He's advocating changing the world and he lost the data?
Oh, there's "consensus" among reputable scientists about the crisis? Al Gore has read the research, or at least someone told him about it.
Could we review the bidding to this point? Maybe have a look at the data to see how the predictions of disaster were made?
OOoopsie. I Can't Seem to Find It Anymore.
Are you kidding me? He's advocating changing the world and he lost the data?
Simply Flaming
I've got no issues about fur. Man has used animals for food, shelter, apparel and more since the Stone Age. I eat meat, wear leather shoes, have a couple of leather jackets, have leather upholstery in my car and I nap in a leather recliner on most afternoons when I'm not busy. I don't have any fur, but if I recall correctly there were hairs all over the surface of that leather before it became furniture.
I've got no issues with gays. What they do has no impact on my life. I can honestly say at my increasingly past-ripe old age that I've never been approached by a gay person sexually. I could almost feel over-looked if I'd bothered to notice earlier in my life. I don't care if someone is gay. Most gay folks are below the radar and those who are flamboyant are so ludicrous that they pose no threats.
I've got no particular issues with figure skaters. The girls are sometimes cute and the prat-falls are sometimes stunning but the sport or entertainment is a take-it-or-leave-it situation for me. Frankly, Scarlett...
But, I do have a revulsion for folks who thrive on hey-look-at-me publicity. That's what this clearly is:
I Just Don't Feel Good About Myself Here
I mean really! This little puny poof-meister is all quakey because someone sent him a nasty-gram about his fuzzy-wuzzy outfit. He just doesn't feel safe in the Olympic village and simply doesn't want to impose a work load on those big handsome security people so he will find shelter elsewhere and commute to and from his event apparently under a well-worn army blanket.
Maybe he should notice that he is in Canada. If he checks out the natives who were so prominently featured in the opening ceremonies he would see that fur is not that big an issue locally.
It's way too much a manufactured hype event by a publicist.
I've got no issues with gays. What they do has no impact on my life. I can honestly say at my increasingly past-ripe old age that I've never been approached by a gay person sexually. I could almost feel over-looked if I'd bothered to notice earlier in my life. I don't care if someone is gay. Most gay folks are below the radar and those who are flamboyant are so ludicrous that they pose no threats.
I've got no particular issues with figure skaters. The girls are sometimes cute and the prat-falls are sometimes stunning but the sport or entertainment is a take-it-or-leave-it situation for me. Frankly, Scarlett...
But, I do have a revulsion for folks who thrive on hey-look-at-me publicity. That's what this clearly is:
I Just Don't Feel Good About Myself Here
I mean really! This little puny poof-meister is all quakey because someone sent him a nasty-gram about his fuzzy-wuzzy outfit. He just doesn't feel safe in the Olympic village and simply doesn't want to impose a work load on those big handsome security people so he will find shelter elsewhere and commute to and from his event apparently under a well-worn army blanket.
Maybe he should notice that he is in Canada. If he checks out the natives who were so prominently featured in the opening ceremonies he would see that fur is not that big an issue locally.
It's way too much a manufactured hype event by a publicist.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Global Jihad Continues
Last year it was Paris and other cities in France. We've seen it as well in England. Now we've got this in Italy:
A Crying Need for Immigration Reforms
Even the most egalitarian one-worlders must stop for a moment and ask themselves, is assimilation possible or likely? Can we continue to ignore the free flow of people of a significantly dissonant culture across our borders? Do they honestly wish to abide by a rule of law in a civilized world? Can co-existance be possible?
The evidence at first glance seems to say no.
A Crying Need for Immigration Reforms
Even the most egalitarian one-worlders must stop for a moment and ask themselves, is assimilation possible or likely? Can we continue to ignore the free flow of people of a significantly dissonant culture across our borders? Do they honestly wish to abide by a rule of law in a civilized world? Can co-existance be possible?
The evidence at first glance seems to say no.
Skill & Cunning Beats Young & Aggressive
During the days instructing new instructor pilots at Fighter Lead-In Training in New Mexico, the young guys would enter the new class fresh out of four or five years in their first operational fighter assignment. They'd been driving Vipers and Ego-jets, pulling 9Gs and powering their way out of trouble with engines that pushed more than their jet weighed.
We were teaching them to instruct the next generation in the nuances of air-to-air. We didn't have a greater-than-one-to-one thrust jet. We didn't have sustained nine G available. What we had was a lightweight airplane with good speed and visibility plus the knowledge of three dimensions and "God's G" to help us around corners. No all-aspect shots either. Strictly guns and tail-aspect heaters.
Occasionally we would get a motivational sortie for instructors only and then we would get a couple of jets and go out and size each other up. The young guys always felt they'd been denied a good fight if they got paired up with a fat old guy like me or Larry Pope or John Miller or Stubby Ritter.
Strangely enough though, the film came back with a different story. How did those old guys manage? Maybe there was some of this:
We were teaching them to instruct the next generation in the nuances of air-to-air. We didn't have a greater-than-one-to-one thrust jet. We didn't have sustained nine G available. What we had was a lightweight airplane with good speed and visibility plus the knowledge of three dimensions and "God's G" to help us around corners. No all-aspect shots either. Strictly guns and tail-aspect heaters.
Occasionally we would get a motivational sortie for instructors only and then we would get a couple of jets and go out and size each other up. The young guys always felt they'd been denied a good fight if they got paired up with a fat old guy like me or Larry Pope or John Miller or Stubby Ritter.
Strangely enough though, the film came back with a different story. How did those old guys manage? Maybe there was some of this:
Guilty Behind a Reasonable Doubt
I'm a safe driver. Once I was a faster driver and a bit more aggressive. Now I'm at that cusp between competent traveler and semi-senile dawdler. I don't rush or press and generally am immune to road rage. I will bitch about those who tail-gate, fail to signal turns, balk traffic in the left hand lane, and run red-lights.
That's why I was surprised yesterday when I got an apparent Valentine from the Plano Police Department. I nearly threw it in the trash because it had a discount postage stamp on it, only 38 cents rather than 44. It looked like it might be some sort of solicitation. It wasn't. It was a citation.
I got a ticket. I immediately denied it. I don't go to the Dallas metroplex that often. It couldn't be me. I'd check the details. Date, December 10. Was I in town then? Maybe. License was distinctive; my Silver Star plates which Texas graciously gives me each year for free. Who was impersonating me? Corner of Legacy Drive and N. Dallas Parkway. I could see myself there. The offense? Running a red light!
Naahh. No way. But, wait. There is a clear and distinct color picture of the rear deck of my car with my license plate. It's me! But, I must have stopped. The brake lights are clearly illuminated. I can't be running a red light.
The fine print says that more pictures and a video are available online. Ain't technology wonderful? Let's see what I did.
There's the intersection and the traffic light. Here I come into the frame from the bottom. I'm entering the right turn lane and slowing with my turn-signal on. Good driving, Ed. The light changes to yellow. The nose of my car dips slightly indicating my gesture at a stop. The light goes red, I turn the corner, three seconds later the first cars crossing the intersection follow me.
It was safe. It was prudent. It was slow. No one was endangered or intimidated.
But, the light was red. I didn't come to a complete stop. There was only a totally unemotional technological gadget to witness the crime so no judgment could be applied.
I've got to say it was a cheap shot. But, I've also got to admit that I'm guilty as charged.
That's why I was surprised yesterday when I got an apparent Valentine from the Plano Police Department. I nearly threw it in the trash because it had a discount postage stamp on it, only 38 cents rather than 44. It looked like it might be some sort of solicitation. It wasn't. It was a citation.
I got a ticket. I immediately denied it. I don't go to the Dallas metroplex that often. It couldn't be me. I'd check the details. Date, December 10. Was I in town then? Maybe. License was distinctive; my Silver Star plates which Texas graciously gives me each year for free. Who was impersonating me? Corner of Legacy Drive and N. Dallas Parkway. I could see myself there. The offense? Running a red light!
Naahh. No way. But, wait. There is a clear and distinct color picture of the rear deck of my car with my license plate. It's me! But, I must have stopped. The brake lights are clearly illuminated. I can't be running a red light.
The fine print says that more pictures and a video are available online. Ain't technology wonderful? Let's see what I did.
There's the intersection and the traffic light. Here I come into the frame from the bottom. I'm entering the right turn lane and slowing with my turn-signal on. Good driving, Ed. The light changes to yellow. The nose of my car dips slightly indicating my gesture at a stop. The light goes red, I turn the corner, three seconds later the first cars crossing the intersection follow me.
It was safe. It was prudent. It was slow. No one was endangered or intimidated.
But, the light was red. I didn't come to a complete stop. There was only a totally unemotional technological gadget to witness the crime so no judgment could be applied.
I've got to say it was a cheap shot. But, I've also got to admit that I'm guilty as charged.
No Laughing Matter
The delivery is irreverent, but the logic is irrefutable:
h/t to Chicago Ray for that one.
h/t to Chicago Ray for that one.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Another Interesting Angle
We've got the Harvard educated professor of biology at the University of Alabama-Huntsville who apparently was a bit disgruntled about a denial of tenure so she came to a faculty meeting and discussed it intensely. She killed three of her colleagues and wounded three others with a handgun. Incredibly the school's standard gun-free policy of denial of concealed carry on campus for licensed law-abiding citizens didn't stop her. Who could have anticipated that?
Now we've got this tidbit:
Twenty Years Ago an Incident
That's remarkable. Most people, even Harvard graduates, can go through their entire life without shooting anyone. This woman seems to have a proclivity for a more proactive approach in times of conflict.
I particularly like this aspect of the story:
Excuse me? Accidental shootings are characterized by ONE shot. Three shots is not an accident.
Why do I expect more shoes to drop on this?
Now we've got this tidbit:
Twenty Years Ago an Incident
That's remarkable. Most people, even Harvard graduates, can go through their entire life without shooting anyone. This woman seems to have a proclivity for a more proactive approach in times of conflict.
I particularly like this aspect of the story:
Amy Bishop shot her brother in the chest in 1986, Braintree police Chief Paul Frazier said at a news conference. She fired at least three shots, hitting her brother once and hitting her bedroom wall, before police took her into custody at gunpoint, he said.
The shooting of the brother, Seth Bishop, was logged as an accident, but detailed records of the shooting have disappeared, he said.
Excuse me? Accidental shootings are characterized by ONE shot. Three shots is not an accident.
Why do I expect more shoes to drop on this?
Bureaucratic Doubletalk
The Olympic fiasco has started. I watched about ninety minutes of opening ceremony last night and then was simply overwhelmed by the political correctness of the whole mess. The events are in Canada. They are in the province of BRITISH Columbia. They are right next door to Victoria BC which was named after you-know-who. They are 2000 miles from Quebec and those nut-jobs of Montreal.
So, riddle me this: why were all announcements made in French first and then English?
The Olympics are an international event, of course. And multi-language announcement is common. But the event is taking place in an English speaking region. And, while French is a perfectly acceptable second language, did anyone notice that there were more participants from Asian nations than France? Why no Japanese or Chinese? Why no Russian or eastern European? Why no African languages? And why not announce in the host nation language first?
Then there was the colorful head-nod to the native tribes of the Pacific Northwest. OK, I get it. You need some local color and culture. OK. That will pass.
The march-in looked pathetic. Country after country entered with their contingent of one, two or four athletes surrounded by a bloated coterie of coaches, masseures, equipment handlers, agents and clothing marketers. OK, I understand that snow sports aren't high on the African nations agendas, but where is the standard?
Yesterday was marred by a death on the luge track during practice. The fastest track in the history of the sport might have proven too fast. But here's the lightning fast response of the management:
Not The Track's Fault. Double Up and Prove It.
That is a lot like saying that the long fall didn't kill the jumper. It was the sudden stop.
That sort of doubletalk could qualify for a position as Robert Gibb's replacement in the White House pressroom.
If the track conditions and design were not causative, then why would they want to raise the wall and "change the ice profile"?
Sorry, but that is CYA in the first degree.
Then there was more:
Hold Your Torch, The Pillar is Late
In a typical nod to inclusiveness and the modern principles of "no losers in any game", they couldn't pick a single lighter for the cauldron but chose to have a committee honored in the role. Would have been weak but acceptable until the fourth hoist for a lighter failed to materialize on cue. OOoops!
And the eco-freaks outside the venue helped to add that last soupcon of political theater with a bit of trash tossing and traffic blocking to attempt to delay the torch relay.
They wouldn't have pulled that crap in Beijing or Moscow you can bet!
So, riddle me this: why were all announcements made in French first and then English?
The Olympics are an international event, of course. And multi-language announcement is common. But the event is taking place in an English speaking region. And, while French is a perfectly acceptable second language, did anyone notice that there were more participants from Asian nations than France? Why no Japanese or Chinese? Why no Russian or eastern European? Why no African languages? And why not announce in the host nation language first?
Then there was the colorful head-nod to the native tribes of the Pacific Northwest. OK, I get it. You need some local color and culture. OK. That will pass.
The march-in looked pathetic. Country after country entered with their contingent of one, two or four athletes surrounded by a bloated coterie of coaches, masseures, equipment handlers, agents and clothing marketers. OK, I understand that snow sports aren't high on the African nations agendas, but where is the standard?
Yesterday was marred by a death on the luge track during practice. The fastest track in the history of the sport might have proven too fast. But here's the lightning fast response of the management:
Not The Track's Fault. Double Up and Prove It.
That is a lot like saying that the long fall didn't kill the jumper. It was the sudden stop.
Olympic officials decided late Friday night against any major changes in the track or any delays in competition and even doubled up on the schedule in the wake of the horrifying accident that claimed the life of a 21-year-old luger from the republic of Georgia.
They said they would raise the wall where the slider flew off the track and make an unspecified "change in the ice profile" -- but only as a preventative measure "to avoid that such an extremely exceptional accident could occur again."
That sort of doubletalk could qualify for a position as Robert Gibb's replacement in the White House pressroom.
If the track conditions and design were not causative, then why would they want to raise the wall and "change the ice profile"?
Sorry, but that is CYA in the first degree.
Then there was more:
Hold Your Torch, The Pillar is Late
In a typical nod to inclusiveness and the modern principles of "no losers in any game", they couldn't pick a single lighter for the cauldron but chose to have a committee honored in the role. Would have been weak but acceptable until the fourth hoist for a lighter failed to materialize on cue. OOoops!
And the eco-freaks outside the venue helped to add that last soupcon of political theater with a bit of trash tossing and traffic blocking to attempt to delay the torch relay.
They wouldn't have pulled that crap in Beijing or Moscow you can bet!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Tap Dancing Exit Stage Left
Glen Beck demonstrates how to do a follow-up when you suddenly seem to have turned over a rock with crawlies under it:
I'd heard about it, but had to actually get the first hand audio. The answer to the first question would have been too easy for a viable candidate.
I'd heard about it, but had to actually get the first hand audio. The answer to the first question would have been too easy for a viable candidate.
Will Even the Whackos Notice?
There is a certain level of blindness to the obvious required to be certifed as a full-fledged whacko. You must be deeply committed to your movement and oblivious to facts, logic, common sense or meaningful dialogue. It really helps in your certification if you carry an aura of intellectual superiority. You are so bloody smart that you are no longer constrained by reality.
Universities in America are almost universally recognized as being in that category and the Ivy League schools are the most clear examples. Of the Ivy League, it would be hard to top Harvard as being so smart they can even open the door to the White House for you without any other visible qualifications.
Read this:
Act Locally, Think Globally
That should handle the situation. Simply mandate that the top of the food chain eschew protein and revert to grazing on the quadrangle lawn. Those notorious vegan methane emissions in faculty meetings should speed up the debate considerably. Tax cars and eliminate parking. That should do wonders for local businesses and with the huge reduction in traffic both vehicular and customers, the closed businesses won't be polluting as much. And, of course, the impact of a 100,000 people taking these draconian measures should easily offset the other 6 billion or so who are living a more human existance.
That seems a bit egotistical to me. First they assert the emergency is caused by their local greenhouse gas emissions. Hard to think that Cambridge is having a global impact. Then they believe that the otherwise inadequate global efforts and federal policies will pale in comparison to their response. Wow!
And, they are properly redistributionist. No nasty capitalism or even municipal efficiency in their taxes.
So, they are going to tax the hell out of you then give you the money back? Don't believe it for an instant. They are going to tax the hell out of anyone who fails to march in lockstep with their utopian fantasy and they are going to give that money to the oppressed granola munchers who don't contribute to the economy or society beyond their climate friendly sloth.
Universities in America are almost universally recognized as being in that category and the Ivy League schools are the most clear examples. Of the Ivy League, it would be hard to top Harvard as being so smart they can even open the door to the White House for you without any other visible qualifications.
Read this:
Act Locally, Think Globally
That should handle the situation. Simply mandate that the top of the food chain eschew protein and revert to grazing on the quadrangle lawn. Those notorious vegan methane emissions in faculty meetings should speed up the debate considerably. Tax cars and eliminate parking. That should do wonders for local businesses and with the huge reduction in traffic both vehicular and customers, the closed businesses won't be polluting as much. And, of course, the impact of a 100,000 people taking these draconian measures should easily offset the other 6 billion or so who are living a more human existance.
"This emergency is created by the growth of local greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent warnings of climate scientists that substantial reductions are needed in order to reduce the risk of disastrous changes to our climate," the Climate Congress reported in proposals issued on Jan. 23. "This proposal is made in the belief that an effective local response is, if anything, made more urgent by so far inadequate global agreements and federal policies for emissions reductions. It is made in the belief that our City should lead by example."
That seems a bit egotistical to me. First they assert the emergency is caused by their local greenhouse gas emissions. Hard to think that Cambridge is having a global impact. Then they believe that the otherwise inadequate global efforts and federal policies will pale in comparison to their response. Wow!
And, they are properly redistributionist. No nasty capitalism or even municipal efficiency in their taxes.
To best reduce emissions in the near-term, Green suggested a revenue-neutral carbon tax, meaning that little -- if any -- of the funds raised would be retained by municipal government. The vast majority under such a plan would be returned to the public.
So, they are going to tax the hell out of you then give you the money back? Don't believe it for an instant. They are going to tax the hell out of anyone who fails to march in lockstep with their utopian fantasy and they are going to give that money to the oppressed granola munchers who don't contribute to the economy or society beyond their climate friendly sloth.
Unusual Day in Texas
When I moved from Colorado to Texas, I left my snow shovel behind. For my first four years in this beautiful little town, I didn't miss it a bit. Today might be a bit different.
And, I've got a Siberian Husky who thinks he's back in the Vaterland.
What We Have Here...
...is a failure to communicate:
Remember the dignity, clarity and effective articulation of the late Tony Snow?
Here we've got a situation in which a pooch was clearly screwed. The tall dogs in the administration have already testified that DOD, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Counter-Terrorism were NOT in the decision loop on Mirandizing the BVD Bomber. The embarrassing fact of just fifty minutes of interrogation makes it obvious that professional terrorist intelligence operatives didn't have time to get from the front door to the interrogation room, let alone gather "actionable intelligence" and make a determination that all available info was gleaned.
The admission last week that after five weeks of delay, the terrorist had resumed discussions makes the point of a screw-up clearly.
Why is it so impossible for the administration to simply say, we fumbled the ball, but we've done X, Y and Z so that we won't make the same mistakes again?
Remember the dignity, clarity and effective articulation of the late Tony Snow?
Here we've got a situation in which a pooch was clearly screwed. The tall dogs in the administration have already testified that DOD, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Counter-Terrorism were NOT in the decision loop on Mirandizing the BVD Bomber. The embarrassing fact of just fifty minutes of interrogation makes it obvious that professional terrorist intelligence operatives didn't have time to get from the front door to the interrogation room, let alone gather "actionable intelligence" and make a determination that all available info was gleaned.
The admission last week that after five weeks of delay, the terrorist had resumed discussions makes the point of a screw-up clearly.
Why is it so impossible for the administration to simply say, we fumbled the ball, but we've done X, Y and Z so that we won't make the same mistakes again?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Result of A New Dialogue
The refreshing change in relationships with those nations of the world which hated us because of George W. Bush's nationalistic arrogance is on display today in Teheran. The President's foreign policy initiatives of apology and obeisance are bearing fascinating fruit:
Modern Art on Display in the Muslim World
Modern Art on Display in the Muslim World
You Gonna Believe Me or Your Lyin' Eyes?
It begs the question of how stupid does he think we are:
Fierce Advocate of the Free Market
This might be the ultimate proof of my theory that whatever he says is exactly the opposite of what he means.
Fierce Advocate of the Free Market
This might be the ultimate proof of my theory that whatever he says is exactly the opposite of what he means.
The Future of Our Military
I didn't write this and I don't know where it came from, but it is pretty accurate. Nelson at Trafalgar:
Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."
Nelson: "Hold on, this isn't what I dictated to Flags. What's the meaning of this ?"
Hardy: "Sorry sir ?"
Nelson (reading aloud): " England expects every person to do his or her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability.' - What gobbledegook is this for God's sake ?"
Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting ' England ' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free working environments."
Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the mainbrace to steel the men before battle."
Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."
Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it ........... full speed ahead."
Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."
Nelson: "Damn it man ! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest please."
Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."
Nelson: "What ?"
Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness; and they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck Admiral."
Nelson: "Wheelchair access ? I've never heard anything so absurd."
Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
Nelson: "Differently abled ? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card."
Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
Nelson: "Whatever next ? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts ?"
Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
Nelson: "What ? This is mutiny !"
Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish ?"
Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."
Nelson: "We're not ?"
Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."
Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-ordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."
Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King."
Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your life"
Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash ?"
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu ! And there's a ban on corporal punishment."
Nelson: "What about sodomy ?"
Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."
Nelson: "In that case............................... kiss me, Hardy
Remember the Constitution?
How does one qualify to become a "political analyst" for CNN? I've really got to question the credentialing when I read items like this:
Time to "Go Gangsta"
Here's a guy who supposedly is going to offer enlightenment to the masses yet he doesn't seem to understand the US Constitution or the requirement for a government in our republic to be responsive to political process. No wonder we are so screwed up.
The checks and balances of our Constitution are finely tuned and they have worked well for 223 years. The executive's ability to shape the courts and the administration is not unlimited. It is constrained by the need to gain Senate confirmation for appointees. The wisdom of senior legislators originally appointed to their seats by the legislatures of the states (until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913) may not be what it once was but it still is a relevant input and a conduit for the voice of the people to control a run-away executive.
Certainly there is a work-around in the recess appointment process, but it isn't a free hand to rule by fiat and with disregard for the political costs. A recess appointment might be in order during those rare instances in which a critical administration position is vacant and the opportunity to build consensus for the candidate is lacking. That's the purpose of recess appointment.
Simply because you didn't get your way is not justification for "going gangsta." When you didn't get your way because you can't even maintain your own party discipline then you've really got a situation in which you will pay a high price for thumbing your nose at the Senate and the American people.
An intermediate level functionary in the National Labor Relations Board is not the time to go to the mattresses.
You would think a CNN political analyst would understand how that works. But, he's frustrated that the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeousie is being delayed.
Time to "Go Gangsta"
Here's a guy who supposedly is going to offer enlightenment to the masses yet he doesn't seem to understand the US Constitution or the requirement for a government in our republic to be responsive to political process. No wonder we are so screwed up.
The checks and balances of our Constitution are finely tuned and they have worked well for 223 years. The executive's ability to shape the courts and the administration is not unlimited. It is constrained by the need to gain Senate confirmation for appointees. The wisdom of senior legislators originally appointed to their seats by the legislatures of the states (until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913) may not be what it once was but it still is a relevant input and a conduit for the voice of the people to control a run-away executive.
Certainly there is a work-around in the recess appointment process, but it isn't a free hand to rule by fiat and with disregard for the political costs. A recess appointment might be in order during those rare instances in which a critical administration position is vacant and the opportunity to build consensus for the candidate is lacking. That's the purpose of recess appointment.
Simply because you didn't get your way is not justification for "going gangsta." When you didn't get your way because you can't even maintain your own party discipline then you've really got a situation in which you will pay a high price for thumbing your nose at the Senate and the American people.
An intermediate level functionary in the National Labor Relations Board is not the time to go to the mattresses.
You would think a CNN political analyst would understand how that works. But, he's frustrated that the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeousie is being delayed.
Fizzle
The threat, or promise if you wish to sweet-talk it, was that Israel and the West were going to get a bitch-slap in commemoration of the 1979 revolution on Feb 11. That has to sound ominous to almost anyone except possibly the US State Department in the Bamster administration.
So, here's the punch:
We Can Do It, I Said We Can
This is a lot like a four year old arguing with his six year old brother. The national leader stands before a crowd which isn't all on his side and announces that we can enrich to better than 20%. Yes, we can even enrich to more than 80% if we want to, but I don't want to. I could if I wanted to, but right now I don't want to...but I could.
And the uniformly sized flags are waved and the neatly printed posters are waved and the crowd dutifully chants, "Death to...whoever we want death to today."
There are more than a few protesters in the crowd seeking an end to the theocracy and the clownish regime. But, Mahmoud seems to be thinking, "let them eat cake."
There ought to be someone whispering in his ear, "Remember, thou art mortal. Remember..."
So, here's the punch:
We Can Do It, I Said We Can
This is a lot like a four year old arguing with his six year old brother. The national leader stands before a crowd which isn't all on his side and announces that we can enrich to better than 20%. Yes, we can even enrich to more than 80% if we want to, but I don't want to. I could if I wanted to, but right now I don't want to...but I could.
And the uniformly sized flags are waved and the neatly printed posters are waved and the crowd dutifully chants, "Death to...whoever we want death to today."
There are more than a few protesters in the crowd seeking an end to the theocracy and the clownish regime. But, Mahmoud seems to be thinking, "let them eat cake."
There ought to be someone whispering in his ear, "Remember, thou art mortal. Remember..."
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Speaking the Obvious
Research can often lead one into dangerous politically incorrect territory. Taking objective measurements and reporting conclusions reached as a result of that data might put you in a position of offending a protected constituency. I'm not talking about global warming here. Take a look at this:
Stupid Is As Stupid Dies
It may be possible to say that in England, but it certainly would be a cause for moral indignation in the US. Is there a valid syllogism there? There is always a caution in epidemiological studies that simply because A is common where B exists that A is causative.
The Brits seem to conclude that lower intelligence folks tend to have a greater risk of heart disease and death. Does being less astute lead to higher probability of heart attacks?
Take your own unscientific survey of what you can readily observe. Low IQ folks tend to smoke, drink, do drugs, eat unhealthy foods, neglect healthcare, work menial and stressful jobs, etc. etc. Do those behaviors lead to heart attacks?
But, can you say that lower mental acuity is a causative factor without being accosted by the PC police? Apparently you can in Great Britain.
Stupid Is As Stupid Dies
It may be possible to say that in England, but it certainly would be a cause for moral indignation in the US. Is there a valid syllogism there? There is always a caution in epidemiological studies that simply because A is common where B exists that A is causative.
The Brits seem to conclude that lower intelligence folks tend to have a greater risk of heart disease and death. Does being less astute lead to higher probability of heart attacks?
Take your own unscientific survey of what you can readily observe. Low IQ folks tend to smoke, drink, do drugs, eat unhealthy foods, neglect healthcare, work menial and stressful jobs, etc. etc. Do those behaviors lead to heart attacks?
But, can you say that lower mental acuity is a causative factor without being accosted by the PC police? Apparently you can in Great Britain.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
The Earth Moving
A key anchor of my American Government course is an emphasis on the core ideology of America's political environment. Once students can identify the elements of the ideologies in competition, they can begin to understand the concepts of parties, interest groups, process and policy.
They come to the course familiar with the terms liberal and conservative but generally don't know what the principle perspectives of the ideologies entail. Ask them what are the essentials of liberalism or conservatism and they will offer a litany of issues such as abortion, gun control, welfare, healthcare, taxes or immigration. The positions, however, aren't the core beliefs.
If they can detach from policy they can begin to see the elements:
Liberals believe:
So, I found this piece interesting:
Seeing the Emerging Coalition
When Ronald Reagan won the presidency he did so by bringing a coalition together of tradtional and social conservatives. That group found common interests that gave them justification for supporting the Republican Party. The coalition has crumbled over the ensuing years. The demands of the "Religious Right" have become a litmus test of candidates and in the process qualified people have been prevented from serving because they were not "pure" enough for the social conservative wing of the party. Along the way the moral authority to fill the image of such ideology has been tarnished by a series of scandals.
Now, the Tea Party movement enters. There isn't a political party there but a protest movement. It is clearly anti-Democrat, but not so obviously pro-Republican. As described in the American Thinker piece, the movement is certainly aligned with traditional conservative ideology. The question is whether it will be acceptable or even tolerable to the Religious Right.
The Tea Party folks are going to be influential and probably decisive in the next two elections. Will that lead to an improved government that is more responsive to the realities of our nation or will it lead to a series of poor electoral choices chasing after unrealistic emotionally based policies?
They come to the course familiar with the terms liberal and conservative but generally don't know what the principle perspectives of the ideologies entail. Ask them what are the essentials of liberalism or conservatism and they will offer a litany of issues such as abortion, gun control, welfare, healthcare, taxes or immigration. The positions, however, aren't the core beliefs.
If they can detach from policy they can begin to see the elements:
Liberals believe:
- Government solutions to social problems
- High taxes with a redistribution of wealth at the core
- Social spending over defense
- Labor over management
- Judicial activism over strict construction
Conservatives believe:
- Individual responsibility over government intervention
- Low taxes allowing for investment and opportunity
- Defense over welfare expenditure
- Entrepreneurship and free market
- Original intent over convolution of the Constitution
Where it has gotten difficult is when the question of traditional or fiscal conservativism conflicts with social conservative position. The conflict is one of whether a "conservative" wants government to mandate morally appropriate behavior. If you are traditionally conservative you would want government to stay out of your life. If you are socially conservative you want to force people to do the right thing according to your beliefs. That's an oxymoron.
So, I found this piece interesting:
Seeing the Emerging Coalition
When Ronald Reagan won the presidency he did so by bringing a coalition together of tradtional and social conservatives. That group found common interests that gave them justification for supporting the Republican Party. The coalition has crumbled over the ensuing years. The demands of the "Religious Right" have become a litmus test of candidates and in the process qualified people have been prevented from serving because they were not "pure" enough for the social conservative wing of the party. Along the way the moral authority to fill the image of such ideology has been tarnished by a series of scandals.
Now, the Tea Party movement enters. There isn't a political party there but a protest movement. It is clearly anti-Democrat, but not so obviously pro-Republican. As described in the American Thinker piece, the movement is certainly aligned with traditional conservative ideology. The question is whether it will be acceptable or even tolerable to the Religious Right.
The Tea Party folks are going to be influential and probably decisive in the next two elections. Will that lead to an improved government that is more responsive to the realities of our nation or will it lead to a series of poor electoral choices chasing after unrealistic emotionally based policies?
Kabuki Writ Large
One need always be a bit skeptical when dealing with the Wizard of Odds. He is the master of the staged event, the double-speak and the compound innuendo. He "makes himself perfectly clear" by being perfectly obtuse. The lighting, the music, the timing and the makeup are the issue, not the substance. A scenario in which there would be real give and take simply won't meet his needs.
There were nods all around when the Bamster announced his intention to hold a White House meeting of the Congressional leadership from both parties on television to discuss actually finding consensus on healthcare. But, skepticism is prudent.
What's the ROE?
Having cogitated for a couple of days, the Republicans are considering the scenarios and it isn't unreasonable to have serious reservations.
Who is coming to dinner? Will there be a cast of supporting characters for the Messiah or will there actually be some moderate Democrats in the assembly?
Will it be possible to get anything beyond a media event done in a half-day assembly?
Will the agenda be a review of the two conflicting bills, each more than 2000 pages in length or will it be a clean slate discussion of what the problem really is and what would realistically be done to deal with it?
Will there be a white paper or working outline of topics offered to the participants before the meeting so that attendees can arrive prepared?
Will there be rebuttal and follow-up to highlight objections or disagreements on proposals?
Last night on Fox News there was a film-clip of Health & Human Services Secretary Sibelius speaking on healthcare reform. She said the reform is "too complex" to be attempted with anything but a comprehensive bill. An incremental approach dealing with individual aspects of policy wouldn't work because the various healthcare components are too inter-mingled.
Does that make sense to anyone? If the situation is so inter-mingled then logically any incremental remedy should have impact on the entire system. The impossibility of an ominibus bill spanning thousands of pages of complex language, filled with set-asides, exceptions and pay-offs should be obvious. Picking single aspects for clear and concise legislation to get a solution on track over time is a doable task.
This is going to be a grand production of fiction that may make Avatar look like a documentary.
There were nods all around when the Bamster announced his intention to hold a White House meeting of the Congressional leadership from both parties on television to discuss actually finding consensus on healthcare. But, skepticism is prudent.
What's the ROE?
Having cogitated for a couple of days, the Republicans are considering the scenarios and it isn't unreasonable to have serious reservations.
Who is coming to dinner? Will there be a cast of supporting characters for the Messiah or will there actually be some moderate Democrats in the assembly?
Will it be possible to get anything beyond a media event done in a half-day assembly?
Will the agenda be a review of the two conflicting bills, each more than 2000 pages in length or will it be a clean slate discussion of what the problem really is and what would realistically be done to deal with it?
Will there be a white paper or working outline of topics offered to the participants before the meeting so that attendees can arrive prepared?
Will there be rebuttal and follow-up to highlight objections or disagreements on proposals?
Last night on Fox News there was a film-clip of Health & Human Services Secretary Sibelius speaking on healthcare reform. She said the reform is "too complex" to be attempted with anything but a comprehensive bill. An incremental approach dealing with individual aspects of policy wouldn't work because the various healthcare components are too inter-mingled.
Does that make sense to anyone? If the situation is so inter-mingled then logically any incremental remedy should have impact on the entire system. The impossibility of an ominibus bill spanning thousands of pages of complex language, filled with set-asides, exceptions and pay-offs should be obvious. Picking single aspects for clear and concise legislation to get a solution on track over time is a doable task.
This is going to be a grand production of fiction that may make Avatar look like a documentary.
Monday, February 08, 2010
I'm Melting...
Like the wicked witch meeting a bucket of water, the meltdown proceeds apace:
Some Steroids, A Knife, an Ex-Prostitute and a Former Wife
Now I'm just a part-timer on the political candidate scene, but it seems as though before jumping into a race you might want to review your personal past to see if there is something there that might give pause to a reasonable voter. If someone is to offer meaningful campaign contributions to your effort, they might want to ascertain if you are reasonably electable. But, I forget that this is Illinois and the "Chicago Way" of governing is active.
It's localized of course. It isn't reasonable to paint with a broad brush. New York cleaned up their act when they ousted Spitzer from the governor's chair, didn't they?
To Be or Not To Be...To Withdraw from Re-election or to Resign From Office
Ooops! What do you suppose could trigger such a gathering? Bumbling incompetence certainly hasn't been adequate for a drop-out. In fact that is the hallmark of modern liberal governance. The more inefficient the leadership the better they like it. There is a lot more slippage in the disbursal of tax revenues to the appropriate patrons.
Anybody want to start a pool on when the bloodbath in the White House is going to come? Who is going to be first to go? Emmanuel looks like a front-runner, but Holder is a dark horse...sorry, no pun intended. Axelrod is on the outside and Napolitano is so inept that even others have noticed. Gibbs will probably take a walk around the park and wind up dead like a Clinton loyalist.
Some Steroids, A Knife, an Ex-Prostitute and a Former Wife
Now I'm just a part-timer on the political candidate scene, but it seems as though before jumping into a race you might want to review your personal past to see if there is something there that might give pause to a reasonable voter. If someone is to offer meaningful campaign contributions to your effort, they might want to ascertain if you are reasonably electable. But, I forget that this is Illinois and the "Chicago Way" of governing is active.
It's localized of course. It isn't reasonable to paint with a broad brush. New York cleaned up their act when they ousted Spitzer from the governor's chair, didn't they?
To Be or Not To Be...To Withdraw from Re-election or to Resign From Office
Ooops! What do you suppose could trigger such a gathering? Bumbling incompetence certainly hasn't been adequate for a drop-out. In fact that is the hallmark of modern liberal governance. The more inefficient the leadership the better they like it. There is a lot more slippage in the disbursal of tax revenues to the appropriate patrons.
Anybody want to start a pool on when the bloodbath in the White House is going to come? Who is going to be first to go? Emmanuel looks like a front-runner, but Holder is a dark horse...sorry, no pun intended. Axelrod is on the outside and Napolitano is so inept that even others have noticed. Gibbs will probably take a walk around the park and wind up dead like a Clinton loyalist.
Making Lemonade
While it seems reasonable to squander a trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there when it comes to seizing control of Wall Street, failing car companies and healthcare, it doesn't seem to make as much sense to spend government dollars on research, science and some of those public good tasks which can't readily be achieved by free enterprise investment. You simply don't get a grateful constituency in return for spending money in red states like TX and FL on a space program that most Americans don't quite understand anymore.
So, we've got the announcement that the Bamster is pulling the plug on manned space flight. We've got a mere couple of remaining shuttle missions and the fund reduction means we aren't going back to the moon or dreaming of what it would take to get to Mars. Imagine, we could get to the moon in 1969 but forty years later the mission is too tough to do.
Just as we are embracing the foreign policy of apology to all and sundry accompanied by deep and self-effacing bows, so also we are becoming indelibly indebted to countries which are more aggressive in their economic outlook than we have become. Now we will become begging passengers in the space transportation systems of other nations. How low we have sunk.
But, the truism has always been that when given lemons one should make lemonade. Read this great scientific mind:
The Real Science is Done by Unmanned Vehicles
Wow! This guy is teaching young college students to really dream big, isn't he? He's a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, which means he has contributed as much to that science as the Messiah has to peace! Oh? Never mind.
Reading critically, we see that he builds a very fragile straw structure.
I'm just a political science adjunct and a crude tactical aviator, but I'd have to remind the good physicist that Hubble wouldn't have made those "brilliant discoveries" were it not for the ability of astronauts to get to the thing and correct the malfunctions of the wings and orientation so that it could actually work.
We might also want to recall as we head to a downtown metro area with GPS guidance to the address we've never been before that the network of satellites which support that technology was inserted into orbit because we developed the required lift capacity to deal with manned flight. He apparently prefers the intermittent beeps of the Sputnik/Telstar period. Grapefruits in space...
But, when we get to the end of his whimper we find out what it really was that motivated him:
See? He was heavily invested in the Supercollider and it lost to the ISS. His pet project got relegated to dependence upon the European collider project. Now he's got his payback and it tastes like heavily sweetened lemonade. Take that you astronauts and dreamers!
So, we've got the announcement that the Bamster is pulling the plug on manned space flight. We've got a mere couple of remaining shuttle missions and the fund reduction means we aren't going back to the moon or dreaming of what it would take to get to Mars. Imagine, we could get to the moon in 1969 but forty years later the mission is too tough to do.
Just as we are embracing the foreign policy of apology to all and sundry accompanied by deep and self-effacing bows, so also we are becoming indelibly indebted to countries which are more aggressive in their economic outlook than we have become. Now we will become begging passengers in the space transportation systems of other nations. How low we have sunk.
But, the truism has always been that when given lemons one should make lemonade. Read this great scientific mind:
The Real Science is Done by Unmanned Vehicles
Wow! This guy is teaching young college students to really dream big, isn't he? He's a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, which means he has contributed as much to that science as the Messiah has to peace! Oh? Never mind.
Reading critically, we see that he builds a very fragile straw structure.
All of the brilliant NASA discoveries in astronomy have been made by unmanned satellite-borne observatories. There is much more to be done, such as exploring the first fraction of a second of the big bang, observing the birth of stars and collisions of black holes, and measuring the mysterious dark energy that makes up most of the energy of the universe.
I'm just a political science adjunct and a crude tactical aviator, but I'd have to remind the good physicist that Hubble wouldn't have made those "brilliant discoveries" were it not for the ability of astronauts to get to the thing and correct the malfunctions of the wings and orientation so that it could actually work.
We might also want to recall as we head to a downtown metro area with GPS guidance to the address we've never been before that the network of satellites which support that technology was inserted into orbit because we developed the required lift capacity to deal with manned flight. He apparently prefers the intermittent beeps of the Sputnik/Telstar period. Grapefruits in space...
But, when we get to the end of his whimper we find out what it really was that motivated him:
In the early 1990s, the International Space Station came up for funding. It was in competition with a large elementary particle accelerator, the Superconducting Supercollider, then under construction near Dallas. After testifying for the SuperCollider, I heard a congressman say he could comprehend how our understanding of the universe could be helped by the Space Station, but not by the SuperCollider. In 1993, Congress decided to continue funding for the Space Station, and cancelled the SuperCollider.
It was a tragic mistake. Without the SuperCollider, we have discovered nothing that would take us beyond our present theories in searching for the laws of nature.
See? He was heavily invested in the Supercollider and it lost to the ISS. His pet project got relegated to dependence upon the European collider project. Now he's got his payback and it tastes like heavily sweetened lemonade. Take that you astronauts and dreamers!
Who Dat Pay Dat $2.5 Million?
The game was good. Faint heart never won fair maiden and an on-side kick to start the second half was as bold as one can get. The Saints played their game, Drew Brees threw consistently, Reggie Bush delivered as needed and the pick for a TD in the fourth quarter sealed the deal.
Half time was a technological tour-de-force with a light show that probably had even Billy Beck impressed with the programming. Musically it left a lot to be desired. It is sad when your heroes have aged and done so none too gracefully. John Entwhistle and Keith Moon are long gone but the replacements filled the space competently. Roger looked bloated and dispeptic, somewhat fearful of banging himself in the knee or the noggin should he try one of those microphone spins he made famous. Pete windmilled but simply looked like a characiture of a rock star done by a sixty-five year old man at a Halloween party. Depressing to say the least. Ditch the Jersey fedora and shave, Pete.
The commercials were hit and miss. My favorite, but I'm a sucker for longhorns, was the Clydesdale and calf growing up together for Budweiser. The cutest for me was the four-year-old in the Doritos ad slapping the suitor across the face and saying, "Keep your hands off my mama and keep your hands off my Doritos."
I didn't get the vaunted Simpsons and Coke shot. It didn't do a thing for me. The Go-Daddy.com ads brought Danica Patrick to a new low with nothing but sleaze to recommend the product and not a bit of wit.
The most confusing ad of the evening was the public service travesty of stewardship of public funds. Your US Government spent big bucks for a Super Bowl slot to offer a stupid scenario of people wanting to tell a story without letting anyone know that they are telling a story. The ludicrous idea of a secret for 300 million people disguised as the US census was neither funny nor compelling. If this is the best use they can find for $2,500,000.00 of your money they should be fired.
Half time was a technological tour-de-force with a light show that probably had even Billy Beck impressed with the programming. Musically it left a lot to be desired. It is sad when your heroes have aged and done so none too gracefully. John Entwhistle and Keith Moon are long gone but the replacements filled the space competently. Roger looked bloated and dispeptic, somewhat fearful of banging himself in the knee or the noggin should he try one of those microphone spins he made famous. Pete windmilled but simply looked like a characiture of a rock star done by a sixty-five year old man at a Halloween party. Depressing to say the least. Ditch the Jersey fedora and shave, Pete.
The commercials were hit and miss. My favorite, but I'm a sucker for longhorns, was the Clydesdale and calf growing up together for Budweiser. The cutest for me was the four-year-old in the Doritos ad slapping the suitor across the face and saying, "Keep your hands off my mama and keep your hands off my Doritos."
I didn't get the vaunted Simpsons and Coke shot. It didn't do a thing for me. The Go-Daddy.com ads brought Danica Patrick to a new low with nothing but sleaze to recommend the product and not a bit of wit.
The most confusing ad of the evening was the public service travesty of stewardship of public funds. Your US Government spent big bucks for a Super Bowl slot to offer a stupid scenario of people wanting to tell a story without letting anyone know that they are telling a story. The ludicrous idea of a secret for 300 million people disguised as the US census was neither funny nor compelling. If this is the best use they can find for $2,500,000.00 of your money they should be fired.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
None Crawl Lower
It isn't often enough that these loathsome creatures are arrested, indicted and punished:
OBE and Two Distinguished Service Crosses
There is no more despicable act that I can think of.
Yet we still have people who seek to cloak these slugs under the mantle of the First Amendment.
Law Professor Likens Valor Thieves to Pick-up Artists in a Singles Bar
Listen Dr. Turley, you can exaggerate the fish you caught yesterday. You can prevaricate about your Ferrari in the parking lot. You can dazzle the dollies with your exploits on Mt. Everest and your NASCAR victory at Darlington. But don't tell her you were equal to men who did more than they were asked to do willingly in the service of their country.
OBE and Two Distinguished Service Crosses
There is no more despicable act that I can think of.
Yet we still have people who seek to cloak these slugs under the mantle of the First Amendment.
Law Professor Likens Valor Thieves to Pick-up Artists in a Singles Bar
Listen Dr. Turley, you can exaggerate the fish you caught yesterday. You can prevaricate about your Ferrari in the parking lot. You can dazzle the dollies with your exploits on Mt. Everest and your NASCAR victory at Darlington. But don't tell her you were equal to men who did more than they were asked to do willingly in the service of their country.
Born to the Purple
Royal families have always run a risk. The necessity of maintaining the "blood line" and keeping royalty royal has often resulted in a decline over time of talent. Inbreeding deteriorates the breed. One need only read of the decline and fall of Rome to see the syndrome. The erosion of the French royal family as the series of Louis' progressed in the path to revolution is another example. The Romanoffs ditto. And, how about the writings, speeches and love letters of that heir to the throne, Charles? The metaphor of lover as feminine hygiene product is timeless.
So then, what of these entitled descendents who have made a family business of governance?
RFK Jr Reminded of the Good Old Fashioned Winters in Washington
On the wave of manufactured data fifteen months ago, Bobbie Blue Blood was preaching of the manifestations of Gore's wisdom. Of course it is so easy to see how the heavy hand of capitalist man has destroyed the eco-system. Why clearly all future generations of Beltway denizens will live in a world bereft of snowstorms...
West Wing Nearly Buried
Lights Out in Washington
Darkness Descends on Joisey
Philly Inundated
Maybe we'll begin to see that simply because your name is Kennedy and you own a carpetbag that you really don't have a right to elected office. More important, we might notice that there is not necessarily any particular wisdom attached to a lineage.
So then, what of these entitled descendents who have made a family business of governance?
RFK Jr Reminded of the Good Old Fashioned Winters in Washington
On the wave of manufactured data fifteen months ago, Bobbie Blue Blood was preaching of the manifestations of Gore's wisdom. Of course it is so easy to see how the heavy hand of capitalist man has destroyed the eco-system. Why clearly all future generations of Beltway denizens will live in a world bereft of snowstorms...
West Wing Nearly Buried
Lights Out in Washington
Darkness Descends on Joisey
Philly Inundated
Maybe we'll begin to see that simply because your name is Kennedy and you own a carpetbag that you really don't have a right to elected office. More important, we might notice that there is not necessarily any particular wisdom attached to a lineage.
Why We Win
We've had air superiority over American fighting troops in every combat engagement since the Korean War. That's a pretty good feeling for our guys. No enemy aircraft are going to be involved against them.
Here's some viddie about our future, if only we've got the fortitude to actually field the equipment in sufficient numbers:
Here's some viddie about our future, if only we've got the fortitude to actually field the equipment in sufficient numbers:
5th generation fighter planes from Gizmodo on Vimeo.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
When Football Was More Fun
Once upon a time the NFL was about fun and athletics rather than "Who Dat" shirts and how much profit can be made:
They so good, they be BAAADD!
They so good, they be BAAADD!
Jobs-Gate Crunches Numbers
Yesterday the announcement came from the administration that we had finally turned the corner on job creation. The symbolic barrier of ten percent unemployment had been breached in a downward trend. We were now back below the magic number at 9.7% jobless.
But, those who can add, subtract and apply reason to the discussion might want to question how you can lose jobs during the period and still have unemployment go down. The President has a vested interest in making the numbers look good for his policy positions. It is much like that bunch of pseudo-scientists in England who exhibited no compunction about finagling data to make global warming "real" despite evidence to the contrary.
If the numbers don't work, change the way you are counting.
If you stop counting people without jobs as unemployed the percentage will go down even though your economy continues to lose jobs. Those who "stopped looking for work" are simply ignored. I guess the plan is to once again increase the duration of unemployment compensation benefits. Once upon a time in a real world, it was eight weeks of stipend to help you find a new job. Now we apparently can't bear the guilt of forcing people to get hungry so that their motivation rises so we continually extend the pay out until it is now running well over a year in most places and approaching two years in some.
The scramble to make the data fit the policy continues here:
Here's $5000 To Create a $35,000 Job
The rhetoric must once again be questioned. The truism that whatever he speechifies is exactly the opposite of his meaning and intent remains in place.
He intones that small business is the engine of job creation, but he doesn't want to stand aside and provide the free market stability which would let that engine race. He wants to take some money out of that pot of gold which was authorized to save the banking industry (aka "Wall Street") and which they have largely paid back. Rather than bask in the realization that we threw some money at a problem and the problem got improved so we got the money back and we can pay some debts, he wants to keep the deficit at outrageous level and double or triple spend the money.
Small business will create jobs when market demand makes it rewarding to do so. You don't create a job without demand and you certainly don't do it to get a tax credit that is a fraction of what the job will cost you. The clearly foreseeable outcome of the deficit is a future of tax levies and fees on your business which will drive you into bankruptcy. It is only without the government interference that we can hope for the engine of job creation to run.
But, those who can add, subtract and apply reason to the discussion might want to question how you can lose jobs during the period and still have unemployment go down. The President has a vested interest in making the numbers look good for his policy positions. It is much like that bunch of pseudo-scientists in England who exhibited no compunction about finagling data to make global warming "real" despite evidence to the contrary.
If the numbers don't work, change the way you are counting.
If you stop counting people without jobs as unemployed the percentage will go down even though your economy continues to lose jobs. Those who "stopped looking for work" are simply ignored. I guess the plan is to once again increase the duration of unemployment compensation benefits. Once upon a time in a real world, it was eight weeks of stipend to help you find a new job. Now we apparently can't bear the guilt of forcing people to get hungry so that their motivation rises so we continually extend the pay out until it is now running well over a year in most places and approaching two years in some.
The scramble to make the data fit the policy continues here:
Here's $5000 To Create a $35,000 Job
The rhetoric must once again be questioned. The truism that whatever he speechifies is exactly the opposite of his meaning and intent remains in place.
He intones that small business is the engine of job creation, but he doesn't want to stand aside and provide the free market stability which would let that engine race. He wants to take some money out of that pot of gold which was authorized to save the banking industry (aka "Wall Street") and which they have largely paid back. Rather than bask in the realization that we threw some money at a problem and the problem got improved so we got the money back and we can pay some debts, he wants to keep the deficit at outrageous level and double or triple spend the money.
Small business will create jobs when market demand makes it rewarding to do so. You don't create a job without demand and you certainly don't do it to get a tax credit that is a fraction of what the job will cost you. The clearly foreseeable outcome of the deficit is a future of tax levies and fees on your business which will drive you into bankruptcy. It is only without the government interference that we can hope for the engine of job creation to run.
Saturday Morning Rocker
Ahh, the '70s when bad taste and outrageous clothing was the norm. Thankfully we've outgrown polyester double-knit although cheap "bling" has becomes a classic.
Friday, February 05, 2010
It Won't Work
The hot button of the week is now "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" and the dutiful sycophants of SecDef and Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon are parading before Congress to recite their lines about it being time to let loyal and patriotic gays, lesbians, transgendered and bi-sexual people experience the equality of misery in an extended combat engagement.
I'm, if you will excuse the imagery, at the "hump" of attitudes on homosexuality in general. Those who are my generation and older are distinctly in a majority of downright abhorrence of GLBT folks in society. Those who are younger than my generation are pretty much accepting in large measure of the concept but occasionally still stumble at the actual practice. For them, it isn't the outrage that older folks experience. Typically the deeper you get into the heartland, however, the more macho the guys get and the more stereotypically red-neck they become. That, of course, is prime recruiting country.
Here's a reasonably coherent discussion of the issue as it relates to the military which is distinctly different than acceptance by society at large:
Discipline, Morale, Cohesions and Philia vs Eros
A few years ago I was discussing the acceptance of women in the fighter community. That had been a rough road but after a quick twenty-five or thirty years, the females were generally accepted and showing the same spread of talent as the men. But simple acceptance in the trade is one thing. Actual practice was another.
I'd been an Operations Officer in a fighter squadron. The active-duty guy I was talking to was currently Ops Officer of a Strike Eagle squadron. The glitch for me was that he had dated and married a female weapons system officer who was assigned in his squadron. I asked him how that worked out relative to the other guys in the organization. My opinion was that it would lead to way too much drama.
The simple selection of aircrews for deployments, week-end or holiday alert, or for particularly dangerous missons could lead to serious problems. He denied it was an issue and I didn't believe him in the slightest.
The problem with open homosexuality in the military is the issue of being married to one of your aircrew members taken to exponential levels. Start with the fact that American society in huge segments does NOT accept homosexuality. That means festering hostility within the unit.
Add that the military, as we run it in the US, has a strict up-or-out policy. You must advance in rank and responsibility or be separated. Can you deny gays promotion without risk of being accused of prejudice? Probably that will be impossible. The inescapable conclusion then is that gays will then be in command or supervisory roles over folks who detest them for their practices. That isn't combat effective.
Can you imagine Douglas MacArthur in the trenches in WW I exhorting his brigade when everyone knows he's gay and proud of it? There's too much drama. Way too much drama.
What we've got here is a classic red herring. Obama has cast it out to assuage his base and throw the right into disarray as they scramble to avoid looking like prejudiced Neanderthals. It works because so few in American society in general and in the federal government in particular have any experience in the military.
I'm, if you will excuse the imagery, at the "hump" of attitudes on homosexuality in general. Those who are my generation and older are distinctly in a majority of downright abhorrence of GLBT folks in society. Those who are younger than my generation are pretty much accepting in large measure of the concept but occasionally still stumble at the actual practice. For them, it isn't the outrage that older folks experience. Typically the deeper you get into the heartland, however, the more macho the guys get and the more stereotypically red-neck they become. That, of course, is prime recruiting country.
Here's a reasonably coherent discussion of the issue as it relates to the military which is distinctly different than acceptance by society at large:
Discipline, Morale, Cohesions and Philia vs Eros
A few years ago I was discussing the acceptance of women in the fighter community. That had been a rough road but after a quick twenty-five or thirty years, the females were generally accepted and showing the same spread of talent as the men. But simple acceptance in the trade is one thing. Actual practice was another.
I'd been an Operations Officer in a fighter squadron. The active-duty guy I was talking to was currently Ops Officer of a Strike Eagle squadron. The glitch for me was that he had dated and married a female weapons system officer who was assigned in his squadron. I asked him how that worked out relative to the other guys in the organization. My opinion was that it would lead to way too much drama.
The simple selection of aircrews for deployments, week-end or holiday alert, or for particularly dangerous missons could lead to serious problems. He denied it was an issue and I didn't believe him in the slightest.
The problem with open homosexuality in the military is the issue of being married to one of your aircrew members taken to exponential levels. Start with the fact that American society in huge segments does NOT accept homosexuality. That means festering hostility within the unit.
Add that the military, as we run it in the US, has a strict up-or-out policy. You must advance in rank and responsibility or be separated. Can you deny gays promotion without risk of being accused of prejudice? Probably that will be impossible. The inescapable conclusion then is that gays will then be in command or supervisory roles over folks who detest them for their practices. That isn't combat effective.
Can you imagine Douglas MacArthur in the trenches in WW I exhorting his brigade when everyone knows he's gay and proud of it? There's too much drama. Way too much drama.
What we've got here is a classic red herring. Obama has cast it out to assuage his base and throw the right into disarray as they scramble to avoid looking like prejudiced Neanderthals. It works because so few in American society in general and in the federal government in particular have any experience in the military.
Being In Control
There was an exercise in pilot training which instuctors would inflict upon students with regularity prior to solo. It was called "runaway trim" and involved simply holding the trim button at the top of the stick in one direction until the trim limit was reached. It was done while the student was in control of the jet by an instructor. The idea was that if you are in control and the machine is doing something you didn't ask it to do, then you need to exercise your authority and control it.
Passive students would often assume that the IP had taken control, but the rule was that without a formal exchange which included IP saying "I've got it"; student responding "You've got it"; and a stick shake to identify that transfer had taken place, you should keep flying YOUR jet.
One student nearly killed me one day. He was probably the best I'd ever had and I may have had too much confidence in him. I ran the aileron trim to full left and he let the airplane roll left. After two revolutions, I asked him what he was planning. With each roll the nose dropped further and the airspeed built. After four rolls and at about 60 degrees of dive and a lot of knots, I took the airplane and it took 10Gs to make the pull out. In the process I watched his head begin to nod and then total unconsciousness as he slumped forward. I didn't even notice the G, which might be the result of a two quart dump of adrenaline in the bloodstream.
That training teaches military aviators that they are in control of the vehicle. That's why I wonder about the Toyota run-away throttle business. People apparently haven't considered what they might do in the situation. I've thought about it and it seems pretty simple. Push the brake pedal. If more response is necessary, move transmission to neutral. If still not adequate, turn off ignition.
Would you die without trying those actions?
The nagging question was would they work? Now I've seen this test by Car and Driver magazine:
Dealing With Unintended Acceleration
So, it seems like my plan would be effective. As a bonus, the comparison also showed that with two Infinitis in my garage each night, that my automotive brand of choice is well engineered for this sort of occurrence. But, it will apparently work with most cars.
Passive students would often assume that the IP had taken control, but the rule was that without a formal exchange which included IP saying "I've got it"; student responding "You've got it"; and a stick shake to identify that transfer had taken place, you should keep flying YOUR jet.
One student nearly killed me one day. He was probably the best I'd ever had and I may have had too much confidence in him. I ran the aileron trim to full left and he let the airplane roll left. After two revolutions, I asked him what he was planning. With each roll the nose dropped further and the airspeed built. After four rolls and at about 60 degrees of dive and a lot of knots, I took the airplane and it took 10Gs to make the pull out. In the process I watched his head begin to nod and then total unconsciousness as he slumped forward. I didn't even notice the G, which might be the result of a two quart dump of adrenaline in the bloodstream.
That training teaches military aviators that they are in control of the vehicle. That's why I wonder about the Toyota run-away throttle business. People apparently haven't considered what they might do in the situation. I've thought about it and it seems pretty simple. Push the brake pedal. If more response is necessary, move transmission to neutral. If still not adequate, turn off ignition.
Would you die without trying those actions?
The nagging question was would they work? Now I've seen this test by Car and Driver magazine:
Dealing With Unintended Acceleration
So, it seems like my plan would be effective. As a bonus, the comparison also showed that with two Infinitis in my garage each night, that my automotive brand of choice is well engineered for this sort of occurrence. But, it will apparently work with most cars.
Why You Couldn't Be an Actor
Ever wonder if you could make the big bucks in Hollywood? It takes a lot of talent and a strong stomach for inane dialogue if these clips are any indication. I know I couldn't keep a straight face trying to deliver these lines particularly if there were other people watching me:
It's OK, if it is meant to be over-the-top action movie cliche comment ala the Governator, but the rest is too sappy for serious people. Yet, apparently a lot of people pay money to watch this sort of thing.
It's OK, if it is meant to be over-the-top action movie cliche comment ala the Governator, but the rest is too sappy for serious people. Yet, apparently a lot of people pay money to watch this sort of thing.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Why Government Motors Is A Bad Idea
The double-speak of referring to GM, Chrysler and Ford as "American car companies" while all of those other automobile builders with strange names are making their product in the United States with US workers and supporting suppliers is just the tip of an iceberg.
Using the salvation of "American car companies" and by implication American jobs as justification for nationalization of GMC and Chrysler is duplicitous at best. It might be possible to justify some federal intervention with regard to underwriting of loans (if you were a government focussed sort) but the complete take-over of a major portion of an industry such as we've seen leads to potential for abuse of a free market.
Toyota is the largest auto producer in the US market. The cars have long had a reputation for quality and value. They simply overwhelmed the shoddy products of Detroit and captured market share. They are currently responding to a problem with throttle sticking on several popular vehicles very aggressively and at apparent great expense.
But, yesterday we had the Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood "mis-speak" and say that "if you own a Toyota you should stop driving it." Well, we know what he meant. He was cautioning folks not to put off corrective action. What it sounded like, however, was a member of the Board of Directors of Government Motors telling citizens that the competion was selling dangerous cars and wise Americans shouldn't drive them. Maybe it was inadvertent. Maybe not.
Today there is this:
DOT Digs At Toyota's Top Dog
There is nothing wrong with DOT looking out for the safety of vehicles on the nation's roads UNTIL the government is the owner of the runner-up in market competition. Then you must ask if there is an ulterior motive for the scrutiny.
And that is what happens when you let the government reach beyond the responsibilities which it reasonably can assume from our Constitution.
Using the salvation of "American car companies" and by implication American jobs as justification for nationalization of GMC and Chrysler is duplicitous at best. It might be possible to justify some federal intervention with regard to underwriting of loans (if you were a government focussed sort) but the complete take-over of a major portion of an industry such as we've seen leads to potential for abuse of a free market.
Toyota is the largest auto producer in the US market. The cars have long had a reputation for quality and value. They simply overwhelmed the shoddy products of Detroit and captured market share. They are currently responding to a problem with throttle sticking on several popular vehicles very aggressively and at apparent great expense.
But, yesterday we had the Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood "mis-speak" and say that "if you own a Toyota you should stop driving it." Well, we know what he meant. He was cautioning folks not to put off corrective action. What it sounded like, however, was a member of the Board of Directors of Government Motors telling citizens that the competion was selling dangerous cars and wise Americans shouldn't drive them. Maybe it was inadvertent. Maybe not.
Today there is this:
DOT Digs At Toyota's Top Dog
There is nothing wrong with DOT looking out for the safety of vehicles on the nation's roads UNTIL the government is the owner of the runner-up in market competition. Then you must ask if there is an ulterior motive for the scrutiny.
And that is what happens when you let the government reach beyond the responsibilities which it reasonably can assume from our Constitution.
Real vs Staged
The spokesman for her record label is defending the performance at the Grammys, so I waded through the darkest intellectual morass of the archives of YouTube to see what the issue was.
The Duet That Sucked
I'll confess, I'm a fat, old, gray-haired curmudgeon who is out of the mainstream of modern music. I don't own a single rap or hip-hop song although I was tempted with Fergie's Boom-Boom-Pow which is arguably more techno than hip-hop. I don't watch award shows. Not Grammys or Tonys or Emmys or Oscars or CMA or whatever. I'd never heard a single Taylor Swift song.
But when you say that she won the major hardware and she's on stage with Stevie doing Rhiannon, then I'm a sucker for the show. Swift started out with one of her own compositions, "Today Was a Fairytale." When you've got lyrics about a girl saying it was a fairytale, because "I wore a dress, you wore a dark gray T-shirt" then you must ask where the level of "fairytale" begins. It was a high point that he wore a dark gray T-shirt? Really?
Then you can't miss the flat, toneless voice. I'll give latitude for live performance, but there must be some tone, texture, personality, emotion involved. And, don't get me started about the two chord guitar stroking.
When this vapid little girl stands next to the old lady who did this in her prime, I've got to go back to the original:
If you want the Swift performance, you can go here:
Making Bubblegum Profound In Five Flats and a Nasal Whine
The Duet That Sucked
I'll confess, I'm a fat, old, gray-haired curmudgeon who is out of the mainstream of modern music. I don't own a single rap or hip-hop song although I was tempted with Fergie's Boom-Boom-Pow which is arguably more techno than hip-hop. I don't watch award shows. Not Grammys or Tonys or Emmys or Oscars or CMA or whatever. I'd never heard a single Taylor Swift song.
But when you say that she won the major hardware and she's on stage with Stevie doing Rhiannon, then I'm a sucker for the show. Swift started out with one of her own compositions, "Today Was a Fairytale." When you've got lyrics about a girl saying it was a fairytale, because "I wore a dress, you wore a dark gray T-shirt" then you must ask where the level of "fairytale" begins. It was a high point that he wore a dark gray T-shirt? Really?
Then you can't miss the flat, toneless voice. I'll give latitude for live performance, but there must be some tone, texture, personality, emotion involved. And, don't get me started about the two chord guitar stroking.
When this vapid little girl stands next to the old lady who did this in her prime, I've got to go back to the original:
If you want the Swift performance, you can go here:
Making Bubblegum Profound In Five Flats and a Nasal Whine
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Riddle Me This
OK, I've seen The Untouchables. I know that income tax enforcement can sometimes be a violent enterprise. I've got no problem with the tax goons being equipped with necessary firearms.
Here's an RFP that shows what is desired:
Tactical Shotguns for Tax Collectors
A Remington 870 is a fine pump action shotgun and has long been a favorite for law enforcement use. It comes off-the-shelf for LEO sales with ghost ring sights, short barrel, extended magazine tube and extendable tactical stock. It is reliable, easy to maintain, familiar to most folks in the business.
My riddle is this:
Why isn't this a competitive bid contract? Why is it "small business set-aside"?
Here's my suspicious take on the issue. Remington Arms is clearly not "small business." So, the direct purchase from manufacturer at cost is taken off the table.
That means after-market retailer. But, that means a federal firearms license holder with LEO sales capability, not just Joe's Neighborhood Gun Emporium. The source is going to have to be a Cat III dealer.
When we find the list of small business set-aside qualified, LEO gun dealers I'm thinking we are going to find somebody who has a strong link to somebody in the executive branch.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I see no reason for small-business set-aside. It certainly isn't going to result in least cost acquisition. It looks suspiciously like a pay-off.
Here's an RFP that shows what is desired:
Tactical Shotguns for Tax Collectors
A Remington 870 is a fine pump action shotgun and has long been a favorite for law enforcement use. It comes off-the-shelf for LEO sales with ghost ring sights, short barrel, extended magazine tube and extendable tactical stock. It is reliable, easy to maintain, familiar to most folks in the business.
My riddle is this:
Why isn't this a competitive bid contract? Why is it "small business set-aside"?
Here's my suspicious take on the issue. Remington Arms is clearly not "small business." So, the direct purchase from manufacturer at cost is taken off the table.
That means after-market retailer. But, that means a federal firearms license holder with LEO sales capability, not just Joe's Neighborhood Gun Emporium. The source is going to have to be a Cat III dealer.
When we find the list of small business set-aside qualified, LEO gun dealers I'm thinking we are going to find somebody who has a strong link to somebody in the executive branch.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I see no reason for small-business set-aside. It certainly isn't going to result in least cost acquisition. It looks suspiciously like a pay-off.
Differences Between Democracy and Demagoguery
Giving a speech is easy. You analyze your audience and you then say things that they will want to hear. If it is a political speech you make sure you give them candy and then they will like you a lot and vote for you. That, regretably is what campaign speeches have come to mean.
Once you get elected it becomes immeasurably more difficult because then you must be constrained by the doable. You realistically can no longer make magic because you are limited by concensus building and revenue.
Remember when George W. Bush took all those hits for telling al Qaeda to "bring it on"? That was pugnacious and "cowboy", although it escapes me what is negative about cowboys.
Now we've got the Messiah using the phrase. The only difference is that he uses it to chide the minority party in America.
I Could But I Didn't, But Maybe I Will
That is a perfect example of campaign rhetoric rather than incumbent policy description. He speaks to an audience of loyalists and tells them what they want to hear so that they will applaud and subsequently love him.
That's how he rolls. With a wave of his wizard's wand he could "get health care coverage" and "it's free..." Is that within the realm of possibility? TNSTAAFL pops into my head. There is NOTHING free. The "pain of working through this process in Congress..." is because we don't want what he is selling. More than two thirds of Americans say they don't want this plan. We don't believe his cost estimates. We understand that quality costs money and that healthcare is NOT an inalienable right.
That is so disingenuous that I'm embarrassed for him. He apparently doesn't like having the finger of responsibility pointed at him. He simply forgets the previous eight years during which he and his cohorts blamed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for everything from the economy to low gas mileage to ring-around-the-collar. He doesn't want us to notice that he's run the national debt from 5.8 trillion dollars in 2007 to more than 12.4 trillion today. Nearly all of that jump came during his watch. He doesn't admit that he can't give a speech without blaming Bush.
Apparently you can win elections when unemployment is 10%, particularly if the electorate is repudiating your single year of misguided governmental policies.
Increasingly the voters of the nation, those who can still read and write and who have a reasonable understanding of a household budget, are not buying the demagoguery and are seeking a rational democratic form of government which is aware that government has limits in our Constitutional format. Awareness is coming too late to stop damage, but maybe it is not yet to late to save the republic.
Once you get elected it becomes immeasurably more difficult because then you must be constrained by the doable. You realistically can no longer make magic because you are limited by concensus building and revenue.
Remember when George W. Bush took all those hits for telling al Qaeda to "bring it on"? That was pugnacious and "cowboy", although it escapes me what is negative about cowboys.
Now we've got the Messiah using the phrase. The only difference is that he uses it to chide the minority party in America.
I Could But I Didn't, But Maybe I Will
That is a perfect example of campaign rhetoric rather than incumbent policy description. He speaks to an audience of loyalists and tells them what they want to hear so that they will applaud and subsequently love him.
Okay, let me think. I could have everybody get health care coverage that's high quality, and it's free, which I'll bet is really popular. But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to go through the pain of really working through this hard process in Congress, getting yelled at and called a socialist, because I just -- that's how I roll. I'm a glutton for punishment.
That's how he rolls. With a wave of his wizard's wand he could "get health care coverage" and "it's free..." Is that within the realm of possibility? TNSTAAFL pops into my head. There is NOTHING free. The "pain of working through this process in Congress..." is because we don't want what he is selling. More than two thirds of Americans say they don't want this plan. We don't believe his cost estimates. We understand that quality costs money and that healthcare is NOT an inalienable right.
My point is the easiest thing to do in politics is to point fingers, to figure out who to blame for something, or to make people afraid of things. That's the easiest way to get attention. That's what reporters will report on. You call somebody a name, you say, look what a terrible thing they've done and they're going to do more terrible things to you if you don't watch out. And you'll get a lot of press attention. And, in some cases, you can win elections, particularly when unemployment is 10 percent.
That is so disingenuous that I'm embarrassed for him. He apparently doesn't like having the finger of responsibility pointed at him. He simply forgets the previous eight years during which he and his cohorts blamed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for everything from the economy to low gas mileage to ring-around-the-collar. He doesn't want us to notice that he's run the national debt from 5.8 trillion dollars in 2007 to more than 12.4 trillion today. Nearly all of that jump came during his watch. He doesn't admit that he can't give a speech without blaming Bush.
Apparently you can win elections when unemployment is 10%, particularly if the electorate is repudiating your single year of misguided governmental policies.
Increasingly the voters of the nation, those who can still read and write and who have a reasonable understanding of a household budget, are not buying the demagoguery and are seeking a rational democratic form of government which is aware that government has limits in our Constitutional format. Awareness is coming too late to stop damage, but maybe it is not yet to late to save the republic.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
There Must Be Something in My Eye
This came over the transom today:
God bless this airline pilot.
He writes: My lead flight attendant came to me and said, "We have an H.R. on this flight." (H.R. stands for human remains.)
"Are they military?" I asked.
'Yes,' she said.
'Is there an escort?' I asked.
'Yes, I already assigned him a seat.'
'Would you please tell him to come to the flight deck. You can board him early," I said.
A short while later, a young army sergeant entered the flight deck.He was the image of the perfectly dressed soldier. He introduced himself and I asked him about his soldier. The escorts of these fallen soldiers talk about them as if they are still alive and still with us.
'My soldier is on his way back to Virginia,' he said. He proceeded to answer my questions, but offered no words on his own.
I asked him if there was anything I could do for him and he said no. I told him that he had the toughest job in the military and that I appreciated the work that he does for the families of our fallen soldiers. The first officer and I got up out of our seats to shake his hand. He left the flight deck to find his seat.
We completed our preflight checks, pushed back and performed an uneventful departure. About 30 minutes into our flight I received a call from the lead flight attendant in the cabin. 'I just found out the family of the soldier we are carrying, is on board,' he said. He then proceeded to tell me that the father, mother, wife and 2 - year old daughter were escorting their son, husband, and father home. The family was upset because they were unable to see the container that the soldier was in before we left. We were on our way to a major hub at which the family was going to wait four hours for the connecting flight home to Virginia.
The father of the soldier told the flight attendant that knowing his son was below him in the cargo compartment and being unable to see him was too much for him and the family to bear. He had asked the flight attendant if there was anything that could be done to allow them to see him upon our arrival. The family wanted to be outside by the cargo door to watch the soldier being taken off the airplane. I could hear the desperation in the flight attendants voice when he asked me if there was anything I could do.
'I'm on it,' I said. I told him that I would get back to him. Airborne communication with my company normally occurs in the form of e - mail like messages. I decided to bypass this system and contact my flight dispatcher directly on a secondary radio. There is a radio operator in the operations control center who connects you to the telephone of the dispatcher. I was in direct contact with the dispatcher. I explained the situation I had on board with the family and what it was the family wanted.
He said he understood and that he would get back to me.
Two hours went by and I had not heard from the dispatcher. We were going to get busy soon and I needed to know what to tell the family. I sent a text message asking for an update. I saved the return message from the dispatcher and this following is the text:
'Captain, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. There is policy on this now and I had to check on a few things. Upon your arrival a dedicated escort team will meet the aircraft. The team will escort the family to the ramp and plane side. A van will be used to load the remains with a secondary van for the family. The family will be taken to their departure area and escorted into the terminal where the remains can be seen on the ramp. It is a private area for the family only. When the connecting aircraft arrives, the family will be escorted onto the ramp and plane side to watch the remains being loaded for the final leg home. Captain, most of us here in flight control are veterans. Please pass our condolences on to the family. Thanks.'
I sent a message back telling flight control thanks for a good job. I printed out the message and gave it to the lead flight attendant to pass on to the father. The lead flight attendant was very thankful and told me, 'You have no idea how much this will mean to them.'
Things started getting busy for the descent, approach and landing. After landing, we cleared the runway and taxied to the ramp area. The ramp is huge with 15 gates on either side of the alleyway. It is always a busy area with aircraft maneuvering every which way to enter and exit. When we entered the ramp and checked in with the ramp controller, we were told that all traffic was being held for us. 'There is a team in place to meet the aircraft,' we were told.
It looked like it was all coming together, then I realized that once we turned the seat belt sign off, everyone would stand up at once and delay the family from getting off the airplane. As we approached our gate, I asked the copilot to tell the ramp controller we were going to stop short of the gate to make an announcement to the passengers. He did that and the ramp controller said, 'Take your time.'
I stopped the aircraft and set the parking brake. I pushed the public address button and said, 'Ladies and gentleman, this is your Captain speaking I have stopped short of our gate to make a special announcement. We have a passenger on board who deserves our honor and respect. His Name is Private XXXXXX, a soldier who recently lost his life. Private XXXXXX is under your feet in the cargo hold. Escorting him today is Army Sergeant XXXXXXX. Also, on board are his father, mother, wife, and daughter. Your entire flight crew is asking for all passengers to remain in their seats to allow the family to exit the aircraft first. Thank you.'
We continued the turn to the gate, came to a stop and started our shutdown procedures. A couple of minutes later I opened the cockpit door. I found the two forward flight attendants crying, something you just do not see. I was told that after we came to a stop, every passenger on the aircraft stayed in their seats, waiting for the family to exit the aircraft. When the family got up and gathered their things, a passenger slowly started to clap his hands. Moments later more passengers joined in and soon the entire aircraft was clapping. Words of 'God Bless You,' I'm sorry, thank you, be proud, and other kind words were uttered to the family as they made their way down the aisle and out of the airplane. They were escorted down to the ramp to finally be with their loved one. Many of the passengers disembarking thanked me for the announcement I had made. They were just words, I told them, I could say them over and over again, but nothing I say will bring back that brave soldier.
I respectfully ask that all of you reflect on this event and the sacrifices that millions of our men and women have made to ensure our freedom and safety in these United States Of AMERICA.
Foot note: As a Viet Nam Veteran I can only think of all the veterans including the ones that rode below the deck on their way home and how they we were treated. When I read things like this I am proud that our country has not turned their backs on our soldiers returning from the various warzones today and give them the respect they so deserve. I know every Viet Nam veteran who reads this will have tears in their eyes Including me.
Bring Me Men...or Whatever
I note that I didn't go to the school. I did serve in the organization for 23 years, I did work with a lot of the graduates of the school, and I did live about four minutes from the main gate of the school for 20 years, most of it after retirement.
I mentioned a while back an experience about five years ago when I spoke to a couple of history classes at the Academy on a Wednesday and then went to Univ. of Colorado Boulder to speak to the AFROTC wing on the next day. I was distinctly unimpressed with the motivation, attitudes, dress, demeanor and bearing of the USAFA students. I was dazzled by the drive, goals, dedication and involvement of the AFROTC students. That wasn't prejudice, it was objective observation...and a bit of disappointment.
I've known several faculty members at the academy over the years, most of them warriors and all of them aviators. To a man they expressed disappointment at the attitudes of academy leadership while at the same time indicating that the reason they were assigned there was in recognition of that attitude and in the hope of reinstilling the warrior ethic.
What to make of this:
Becoming One With the Mountain and the Forest
They appear to have lost connection with the mission of that establishment.
What the hell is an "Earth-centered cadet"? And, why is an E-4 in charge of anything that cadets are participating in? Where does he get authority to have any contact with cadets during their tightly scheduled day?
Who Is That Masked Man
Well, that certainly clears nothing up. Now we've got "Sgt" morphed into T/Sgt. But in one release we've got him first as Brandon and then as Robert. Apparently the earth spirits haven't firmly established a name for their minister.
But if you want fluff, here's the chief of chaplains spinning the politically correct wheels:
The Constitution's First Amendment offers a two clause phrase on religion. The second clause allows that there shall be no law restricting free exercise of an individual's religion of choice. That's easy. Stay out of the way. The first clause is more complicated, however. It says "no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The idea there was to preclude a state religion but it goes further. Not only shall we make no law "establishing" a religion, more importantly we shall make no law "respecting an establishment..."
That legalistic convolution says that providing favoritism or respect for a particular establishment of religion, i.e. a faith or organization of religious worship is also beyond the pale.
Traditionally the nation has leaned heavily toward Christianity. The result has been a blind eye, and rightfully so, to the preference of the majority. Prayers before meetings of governments, chapels on military installations, crosses and Stars of David in military cemeteries, etc. have been acceptable.
But, there seems to be a point at which lines need to be drawn. We don't allow practicing Sikhs at the Academy to wear turbans and grow their beards. We don't allow Native American cadets to chew a bit of peyote in a sweat lodge on week-ends. We don't modify cadet rooms with compass oriented prayer mats pointed toward Mecca. No santaria slaughter of chickens and goats in the hallways.
We don't yet.
What does this have to do with leading men into battle?
I mentioned a while back an experience about five years ago when I spoke to a couple of history classes at the Academy on a Wednesday and then went to Univ. of Colorado Boulder to speak to the AFROTC wing on the next day. I was distinctly unimpressed with the motivation, attitudes, dress, demeanor and bearing of the USAFA students. I was dazzled by the drive, goals, dedication and involvement of the AFROTC students. That wasn't prejudice, it was objective observation...and a bit of disappointment.
I've known several faculty members at the academy over the years, most of them warriors and all of them aviators. To a man they expressed disappointment at the attitudes of academy leadership while at the same time indicating that the reason they were assigned there was in recognition of that attitude and in the hope of reinstilling the warrior ethic.
What to make of this:
Becoming One With the Mountain and the Forest
They appear to have lost connection with the mission of that establishment.
"When I first arrived here, Earth-centered cadets didn't have anywhere to call home," said Sgt. Robert Longcrier, the lay leader of the neo-pagan groups on base.
What the hell is an "Earth-centered cadet"? And, why is an E-4 in charge of anything that cadets are participating in? Where does he get authority to have any contact with cadets during their tightly scheduled day?
Who Is That Masked Man
Well, that certainly clears nothing up. Now we've got "Sgt" morphed into T/Sgt. But in one release we've got him first as Brandon and then as Robert. Apparently the earth spirits haven't firmly established a name for their minister.
But if you want fluff, here's the chief of chaplains spinning the politically correct wheels:
"Every servicemember is charged with defending freedom for all Americans, and that includes freedom to practice our religion of choice or, for that matter, not to practice any faith at all," said Chaplain (Lt. Col.) William Ziegler, Cadet Wing chaplain. "Being in the military isn't just a job -- it's a calling. We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and that means we've all sworn to protect one another's religious liberties. We all put on our uniforms the same way; we're all Airmen first."
The Constitution's First Amendment offers a two clause phrase on religion. The second clause allows that there shall be no law restricting free exercise of an individual's religion of choice. That's easy. Stay out of the way. The first clause is more complicated, however. It says "no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The idea there was to preclude a state religion but it goes further. Not only shall we make no law "establishing" a religion, more importantly we shall make no law "respecting an establishment..."
That legalistic convolution says that providing favoritism or respect for a particular establishment of religion, i.e. a faith or organization of religious worship is also beyond the pale.
Traditionally the nation has leaned heavily toward Christianity. The result has been a blind eye, and rightfully so, to the preference of the majority. Prayers before meetings of governments, chapels on military installations, crosses and Stars of David in military cemeteries, etc. have been acceptable.
But, there seems to be a point at which lines need to be drawn. We don't allow practicing Sikhs at the Academy to wear turbans and grow their beards. We don't allow Native American cadets to chew a bit of peyote in a sweat lodge on week-ends. We don't modify cadet rooms with compass oriented prayer mats pointed toward Mecca. No santaria slaughter of chickens and goats in the hallways.
We don't yet.
What does this have to do with leading men into battle?
Monday, February 01, 2010
He Was Off On Scheduling
Even the blind pig finds an acorn occasionally. We tend to dismiss Vice-President Biden as a bit of a buffoon, expecting a laughable gaffe whenever he opens his mouth. But, even a broken clock is right twice a day...that is if you can read an analog clock.
Remember when he said this:
Well, he was wrong wasn't he?
He said Kennedy was tested within six months, and unless you are counting the Bay of Pigs fiasco which was a defeat for Cuban freedom fighters and not really a major foreign policy challenge for JFK, it took almost 21 months for the serious test to come along with the Cuban Missile Crisis. That confrontation with the Soviet Union was the step-up-to-plate moment for the young whiz-kid from Hahvahd.
So, we've had a rise in terrorist activity in the last year. We've had N. Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China and the Middle East very visibly rubbing the administration's nose in the dirt. But, we haven't really had one of those "this could be the big one" moments like the near tip-over into nuclear war of October 1962.
What then do we make of this:
February 11th Is The Day
It is a symbolic day. It is the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It is the day that the resistance, despite lack of visible support from the US, is organizing to take to the streets of Iran in protest. It could signal a revolutionary movement to oust the fundamentalists and return the nation to a more modern and secular path. It could be the trigger for brutal represssion as well.
Historically we see dictators and autocratic rulers re-direct pressure against the regime to scapegoats external to the country. Nothing unifies a crumbling polity like a common enemy. If that enemy is simultaneously stereotyped from a long history of animosity, so much the better. Could we see the prominent target within reach of Iran struck by the first demonstration of Iranian nuclear power?
In the absence of a completed nuclear weapon, what about chemical or biological WMD on an intermediate range missile aimed at Tel Aviv?
Can Isreal wait and see? Can the Messiah develop a policy response to defuse this situation rather than ponder until all that remains is reaction to a fait accompli?
We've got ten days to watch the plot unfold. The worst thing that could happen is that we don't take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seriously.
Biden was correct, just a bit too eager in his time schedule.
Remember when he said this:
Well, he was wrong wasn't he?
He said Kennedy was tested within six months, and unless you are counting the Bay of Pigs fiasco which was a defeat for Cuban freedom fighters and not really a major foreign policy challenge for JFK, it took almost 21 months for the serious test to come along with the Cuban Missile Crisis. That confrontation with the Soviet Union was the step-up-to-plate moment for the young whiz-kid from Hahvahd.
So, we've had a rise in terrorist activity in the last year. We've had N. Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China and the Middle East very visibly rubbing the administration's nose in the dirt. But, we haven't really had one of those "this could be the big one" moments like the near tip-over into nuclear war of October 1962.
What then do we make of this:
February 11th Is The Day
It is a symbolic day. It is the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It is the day that the resistance, despite lack of visible support from the US, is organizing to take to the streets of Iran in protest. It could signal a revolutionary movement to oust the fundamentalists and return the nation to a more modern and secular path. It could be the trigger for brutal represssion as well.
Historically we see dictators and autocratic rulers re-direct pressure against the regime to scapegoats external to the country. Nothing unifies a crumbling polity like a common enemy. If that enemy is simultaneously stereotyped from a long history of animosity, so much the better. Could we see the prominent target within reach of Iran struck by the first demonstration of Iranian nuclear power?
In the absence of a completed nuclear weapon, what about chemical or biological WMD on an intermediate range missile aimed at Tel Aviv?
Can Isreal wait and see? Can the Messiah develop a policy response to defuse this situation rather than ponder until all that remains is reaction to a fait accompli?
We've got ten days to watch the plot unfold. The worst thing that could happen is that we don't take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seriously.
Biden was correct, just a bit too eager in his time schedule.
Homeland Security Explained Clearly
For your convenience, I like to embed videos and lucky for the coding-challenged such as your humble commentator, most viddie sites offer the codelets right there. Occasionally, however, the code is flawed and then I try to fix it, which may or may not result in successful embedding but inevitably results in curses at my own incurable technophobia. And, even more rarely, there are some sources which don't offer the code at all.
If the video is worth a couple of minutes of your time, I still might give you the link and you can go to the source and enjoy it there. Such a video is this one on Homeland Security so that you can enjoy your future travels knowing that the Messiah has your safety foremost in mind:
The System Did or Didn't Sort of Work, Maybe
You might avail yourself of the free registration while there so that you'll be able to view future items without limit.
If the video is worth a couple of minutes of your time, I still might give you the link and you can go to the source and enjoy it there. Such a video is this one on Homeland Security so that you can enjoy your future travels knowing that the Messiah has your safety foremost in mind:
The System Did or Didn't Sort of Work, Maybe
You might avail yourself of the free registration while there so that you'll be able to view future items without limit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)