Curious events. … Alice through the looking glass

Explosions rocks arms factory in Sudan, no casualties

Sudan claims Israeli airstrike

Satellite imagery of damaged area

U.S. admiral recalled from Arabia Sea for lack of judgment

Interesting, Arty Johnson on Laugh-In would have said. Very interesting.

Ok, conspiracy theorists, let’s crank up the speculation machine.

First, explosions rock a field at an arms factory in the Sudan. In this field supposedly were, at some time, transport containers. Now, some people who have been following the conflict say that they count six bomb craters in satellite imagery they bought. The plant, known to work with the Iranians making rockets for use by Hezbollah and other Palestinian factions in their on-going rocket war against Israel and run by the government of the Sudan, initially says it doesn’t know what caused the explosions but that there were no casualties.

Now, of course, witness say they saw four jets in the sky … at night … and presto, it is obvious the Israelis did it. Not that they probably don’t have cause, but bear with us here.

The rationale behind the attack is to demonstrate to the Iranians that the Israelis can mount a long range raid to attack a target about the same distance as it is from Iran to Israel (as the crow flies).

Then, the U.S. admiral in charge of the carrier strike group sitting out in the Arabian Sea between Iran and the Sudan gets recalled for exercising poor judgment.

Most wheels turn, thinking either the admiral mouthed off at the wrong time or it had something to do with the Libyan deal. Unfortunately for that tale, is that the ship only got on station three weeks ago.

Ok, fellow buffs, how about this scenario:

The Israelis do fly a strike. Of course, they have to skirt the radars in Eqypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, without raising anybody’s alarm. It is a long way, so whatever bombers they use will most likely have to refuel in the air.

Now, the U.S. carrier, the USS Stennis, is doing its thing out in the ocean. Let’s say it picks up these aircraft. If the admiral does nothing, then he is going to piss off one group back in the District. If he tries to warn the flight off, then well, that causes other problems with another group. Or did he send up his own refuelers to help the Israelis? Or maybe it wasn’t even the Israelis by the U.S. spec ops people in Djibouti who snuck in and called in the strike from the Stennis, ala Bill Clinton’s bombing the aspirin factory back in 1998.

Then again, a really smart bunch would have just infiltrated, ala James Bond, and set charges all over the field to make it look like an airstrike.

And considering that most airstrikes these days by both the Israelis and the U.S. don’t find aircraft flying all that low to the ground, since usually the bombs are either GPS guided or laser guided and can be dropped from a pretty high altitude (they even work better when you do that, because the guidance package has more time to refine its flight path to the target coordinates).

But then again, if it was a practice run for Iran, maybe they were practicing their nap of the earth skills.

Just think of all the different permutations of this you can come up with. It really is fascinating … and right before an election too!

WOOF! WOOF!

Those evil insurance companies are going to get it

Insurers prepare for Hurricane Sandy

If you are an insurance company, how do you prepare for the “Storm of Century” or whatever they are going to call what happens when Hurricane Sandy joins the cold front in the Ohio Valley?

Well, you can report on the superficial things, like getting teams of adjusters ready, etc., but the real impact is going to be at the end most people never think about: Their investments.

Hurricane Sandy/Frankenstorm is predicted to cost about $3 billion in insurance claims … and that is before it even hits. While a big chunk of that probably will be paid by federal flood insurance claims, still the insurance industry, coming off a really bad 2011 (remember all the tornadoes in the US and Hurricane Irene), is about to get hammered again.

Little exercise in insurance economics: Where do insurance companies come up with all that money after a “disaster” to pay for all those claims?Yes, they get a lot of their money from those premiums (fees, really) that people pay on the off chance that they might be damaged by something that is covered under the policy/contract.

However, a bigger chunk of those funds come from investments made by those insurance companies (called capital gains). Now, since we have been in a recession, those returns are not as high as they once were but, still, insurance companies have big reserves … they have too (usually, it is part of the laws that regulate them).

What you are going to see now is one of two things: A) Insurance companies are going to borrow whole heck of a lot of money against the collateral of their investments or B) insurance companies are going to have to sell a lot of those investments in order to generate the cash to pay out all those claims. (Don’t even think they are just going to crack open a piggy bank and come up with that much ready cash because there is no piggy bank)

This means, either the stock market is going to take a dip (from all that selling) or lending rates are going to go up. I may be wrong, but that is what economics tells me.

Oh, and premiums also will go up … have to restock the piggy bank, ya know.

People do so love their conspiracies

GOP is stealing elections

I do so love progressives and their belief that if they aren’t winning then it obviously is the result of a conspiracy.

According to the British, a retired American National Security Agency (NSA) analyst proves that the GOP has been stealing elections Arizona, since the state has gone computerized vote counting and machines.

The premise of this person’s argument is that the larger the precinct the more the vote count is skewed electronically toward a particular candidate (favored by the Republican Party elite, which apparently have corrupted the software). From what I gathered from the story, the assumption is that a candidate’s support should be a flat line, rather than one that gyrates wildly from precinct to precinct. Having covered a plethora of elections over four decades (most without the benefit of voting machines, which have been around for more than a century), I find his thesis a bit strange. If you plot precinct by precinct totals, your graph most likely is going to gyrate rather wildly, especially as larger precincts report in. This is not a conspiracy. This is reality.

My progressive friend out west who provided the above link, says to drive them crazy and vote anybody but Republican. But, if “they” control the software, then it shouldn’t matter who you vote for, the result is predetermined. So, what he is telling you doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Of course, there is the usual conspiracy nonsense about all the voting machine makers being in the hip pocket of the Republicans, but does that explain the documented reports of machine malfunctions in some Eastern states that were switching votes to the Democratic candidate.

Granted, paper ballots are – to a point – the most secure way of casting ballots. Of course, there is a long history of stuffed ballot boxes, lost boxes, found boxes, etc.

It would seem to me that it would take some really sophisticated programming to go without detection, at least at the levels I witnessed over the years.

I am not saying it is not possible. I am saying I am tired of progressives trying to discredit the election process before it even happens.

Batten down the hatches

Hurricane Sandy

Halloween Frankenstorm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecaster Jim Cisco, who coined the nickname Frankenstorm, said: "We don't have many modern precedents for what the models are suggesting."

Ok, not to belittle the weather event forming up in the Atlantic, along with the cold front that sweeping through the Midwest, but … so what? We are going to have a bad storm.

Alright, my point is exactly what NOAA forcecaster Jim Cisco said: We mere 21^st century humans don’t have all that many precedents upon which to base our forecasts. Like that is a no-brainer.

Hello, we peoples down here on this little planet have been keeping fairly accurate records for maybe 100 years, and have actual satellite data (which is a step up from ground records) for maybe 30 years … on a planet that is 4 billion years old. That is not a wealth of data to choose from when you look at it.

We can infer a lot from what we can get from ice core samples from glaciers and the Polar Regions. We can estimate a lot from analyzing geological samples from years past, but real actual hard data to plug into our relatively recent inventions called digital computers is pretty doggone hard to come by.

So, before you go jumping off any cliffs because we are going to get a bad storm, don’t. The weather guys and other folks mean well, but they really are talking just possibilities and probabilities. What they want you to do is to use your common sense and take sensible precautions. In other words, don’t do something stupid and be prepared for changing circumstances.

Now is not the time to run around like a chicken with your head cut off and expecting the end of the world to happen. It ain’t … at least until Dec. 21, when we have it on good authority that all sorts of cultural catastrophes are going to happen … or then again maybe not.

The reality of the situation is that if we get a bad storm, it will be a bad storm. Lots of people will be without power and generally very inconvenienced. How we all react to that will be of more importance than what the weather does or does not do.

In most cases, unless you do something stupid or silly, you will survive and will have yet another tale to tell somebody who wasn’t there.

Weird report: What plane crash?

Strange story
Ok, summary of the link above by the Associated Press: Military vote outreach officials are telling voting officials in various states that a plane crash on Oct.19, 2012, in Afghanistan apparently appears to have allegedly destroyed 4,500 pounds of service members’ mail, but they are not sure. Included in this load were an undetermined amount of absentee ballots. Would they send out new ones?
Now, this is not outside the realm of possibility. However, having said that, why do none of the public affairs offices in the theater make any reference to such an accident? Hello, these are the people who write press releases when a coalition aircraft makes a hard landing, much less gets its cargo burned up in a crash.
I have gone through my “usual” suspects when I am trying to find out about what the military is putting out, just to check to see if I missed something, but I can find no reference to said crash. Interesting, however, is the ISAF Joint Operations release for the next day now is missing, but that is just interesting.
I am not crying foul, but my experiences with the Military Postal System do not give me much faith that “replacement” absentee ballots will get to Afghanistan and back in anywhere near enough time. Makes one wonder exactly how many absentee ballots were on that “alleged” plane.
Something about this story is funky, and I don’t know what it is, but it is sending off all sorts of warning bells in my mind.
If anyone can find a reference to this accident dated prior to Oct. 25, 2012, I would surely like to read it, because I can’t. In addition, none of the military public affairs sites reference any aircraft losses on Oct. 19: ZIP, zero, nada, zilch; and no crashes with or without casualties.

The only reference I can find to a crash on the airbase is this one Afghan report of helicopter
"US helicopter crashes in Shindand airbase HERAT, Oct. 21 – Officials of Islamic Emirate reporting from Herat province state that a US helicopter crashed inside Shindand airbase due to technical difficulties. The helicopter is said to have crash landed at dusk time Friday inside the mega base, catching fire upon impact and killing all the invaders and crew aboard. It is worth reminding that a couple of days earlier, a UNAMA helicopter also crashed in Bamyan province due to technical issues, killing all the foreigners and hirelings aboard."

Off the radar screen.

Egypt refers case to trial
Does the name Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah ring any bells? Well he is the radical Islamist Egyptian imam who tore up a Christian Bible in front of the U.S. Embassy back in the middle of September.
He reportedly was arrested under Egyptian blasphemy laws. At first he was supposed to go to the local court Sept. 25, then Sept. 30, then Oct. 14, then Oct. 20 … and as far as I can tell, it still hasn’t gone before a judge. Now, those of us in the U.S. are used to these things dragging on in the court system for years, because that is how it is done here … but that is not how it is done in the Middle East. Even on relatively serious crimes you get a very speedy trial (if you are not an international celebrity, and even then it might be dicey) and if convicted, the sentence usually is carried out rather rapidly.
However, in this case, I guess the clerks of the court have lost the paper work and everybody else is distracted by the elections in the US. I think our defendant in this case has just walked right back to his TV studio to resume his life.
The question I have is: where are the riots here in the US demanding he be held accountable for insulting Christianity. Oh. that is right, Christians can’t be insulted in an country following Islam’s Sharia law.
Just thought I would point that out in passing.

PS: The Feds still are holding the alleged  producer of the allegedly insulting YouTube  video in jail on charges of parole violations. No hearings yet. That will have to wait until after the election.

Missed opportunity

Romney on Detroit auto industry bailout

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that General Motors and Chrysler should have gone through the bankruptcy process without the injection of $60 billion in taxpayer money that didn’t keep the companies out of bankruptcy court in the end.

Well, in this case, back in 2009, I was siding with Romney, but I understood the stakes. Yes, the American economy was going to go through a really rough shakeout, but I had foreseen that 30 years earlier, but I am not going to go back over what I was saying editorially back in the 1970s and 1980s.

No, something President Barack Obama said during the debate set off a cascade of thoughts in my head in relationship to the U.S. auto industry.

First, President Obama wasn’t talking about how he saved Detroit; he was talking about how the country had changed since 1916. Romney had pointed out that the U.S. Navy is smaller than it was before World War I and the president was saying a lot had changed, from bayonets (which are still used, Mr. President) and horses to aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

It was the horses’ thing that triggered my thoughts. Even though Special Forces guys rode to victory in Afghanistan (proving that even horses are not quite obsolete yet), it was the image of horse drawn carts that leapt into my mind.

In 1916, the U.S. (along with the rest of the world) was on the cusp of shifting from a horse-drawn world to a internal combustion engine-powered one, something like the world is facing now.

Ok, this is a stretch, but think about it. Detroit is heavily invested in internal combustion engines that run on things that burn, right? That is a no-brainer. Of course it is. I can think of more than one movie plot that has the “auto industry” in conjunction with the “oil companies” conspiring to suppress breakthrough technologies that revolutionize the auto industry.

Now, stop and think a moment. Why were GM and Chrysler doing so badly? Might it be that not only that they were stuck with union contracts that were sucking the life’s blood out of the industry but also because they were stuck with an old business model? Are they not still trying to sell horse-and-buggies to a world that needs Mr. Ford’s Model Ts.

What would have happened if the fossil-fuel based auto industry had been forced into bankruptcy? It might have had to reinvent itself. That is what the buggy makers did 100 years ago. Some made the transition to cars, but a lot didn’t. That is what happens in a truly progressive world where the world progresses and inspires innovations and new industries.

President Obama talks a big line when he talks about turning to alternative energies in the future, but when he had a chance to really change things, did he do it?

But no, our government was more concerned about doing the bidding of the auto unions. Don’t believe me? Then why did the unions get rescued, while those bond investors – who by law came first on the list of creditors – basically got the shaft and the door?

You see, one of the great things about the United States is that we used to be a nation of laws. Those laws applied to everybody and the president wasn’t busy waiving their application against this group or another.

You want to know why I have a problem with President Obama and his administration. The answer is right there: Its refusal to apply the laws of the nation equally, regardless of social status, economic status, racial status, religious status, etc.

Don’t complain about the wealthy not paying their share when 1 percent pay something like 40 percent of the federal income tax. Sorry, but that dog just doesn’t hunt.

Don’t grant states waivers to unpopular laws, while suing other states for trying to apply federal laws within their jurisdiction.

Don’t tell defense contractors they don’t have to abide by federal law and that the federal government will reimburse them for their violations if they get sued because they didn’t.

The U.S. missed a huge opportunity three years ago when it could have stood up and taken the body blow that would have hit the auto industry in Detroit. That auto industry could have taken that opportunity, as provided under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, to reorganize itself, reconfigure the industry and come out with a more forward looking product.

Nope, we missed out chance, because we were too afraid that the unions might take a hit and some people might get hurt.

Well, getting hurt is part of life. What marks the type of person you are is what you do when you get hurt, get knocked down, and then get up again. What you do then is the true indicator of the type of person and type of nation you are. What are you? What are we?

Initial debate reaction – Obama v. Romney

Well, the 2012 presidential debates have come and gone.
My gut level is that Romney has come off better than Obama.
Why?
First, he was able to hold his ground with the president. Not only was Mitt Romney able to hold his ground, but he also did it in a much more “civil” way than President Barack Obama. That has made Romney appear “more likeable” in many ways, and I read somewhere that the likeability factor goes a long way in these races.
Romney did not “attack” Obama “personally” as was not the case going the other way. Repeatedly, Obama attacked his challenger for his personal wealth, attacked him not for his policies as a former governor, but because of actions taken, all within the law and quite legal, by groups of investors who were seeking to rescue businesses from total financial collapse. The president, much to the delight of his supporters I imagine, was in his bully pulpit – quite literally. The Canadian half of my household was much disturbed by that behavior that was in such marked contrast to that of the challenger.
Second, at least to me, Romney also projected a more positive vision for the future. Words do matter and positivism, as was illustrated by Franklin D. Roosevelt, can do much to help a nation lift itself out of economic problems.
I don’t know if it will mean a lot in the overall scheme of things, but I personally like positivity more than negativity.
The problem I have with the President’s view is that he returns to the tired canard that only if the “wealthy” would pay more, then all the nation’s economic problems would be solved. Unfortunately, that is not true. You could confiscate all the billions and millions of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, the Waltons, the Koch brothers, Donald Trump and you would do only two things: 1. Not even eliminate the budget deficit from one year, right now, much less the $16 trillion in national debt that we owe; and 2. By confiscating all that wealth, you would, in essence, kill the golden goose because there would be no more wealth to confiscate.
You see, in my humble opinion, we ask far too much of our federal government and therefore it spends far more than it should. Education, really, is not a federal responsibility. It is not the federal government’s job to go out and hire teachers or set educational curricula. It is not the federal government’s job to build elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools.
It really isn’t the federal government’s job to decide what medical care is available where and for how much.
It is not the federal government’s job to decide what economic choices businesses and individuals should or should not be allowed to make.
I know that, among a lot of people, those are not popular positions, because they make solutions difficult … and outcomes different for different people.
As far as foreign policy between the two men, I see very little difference, except maybe in how they want America to be perceived. One (Romney), wants to see the U.S. strong and assertive in its leadership, while the other (Obama), seems to want to see the US deferential, cooperative and respectful, if not necessarily strong and assertive. These perceptions are definitely different; although exactly how that would play I have no clue.
I do know that the quest to be both loved and respected is a bit Quixotic. It is a wonderful romantic goal, but totally illusionary. I also know it is what Americans want and can’t understand why we aren’t.
As for the election in that essentially ends (we all hope) in about two weeks, I have no predictions. I have no grand suggestions. Heck, I don’t even have any recommendations to anyone. I can’t tell you how to vote, even if you have a vote (which considering how many non-Americans read this is considerable), but then I wouldn’t even to presume to tell you how to vote. That is an individual’s decision. Each of us has to make up our own minds as to whom we are going to vote for and why.
It comes down to what we expect from our government (at any level) and which candidate will work (and not necessarily accomplish) toward ends that we think are in our best interest, as well as those of our communities and our nation. We have to understand that neither of the candidates will be able to deliver on many of their “promises” because it really is not in their power to do so in the American federal republic. Presidents are not gods, nor absolute rulers. Presidents have to find compromise and common ground. The more you see done by executive order or fiat, the less you are seeing our republic at work.
In the end, our choices at the ballot box do have consequences and those consequences, good or bad, will reach far and wide. I know the world is watching Americans with bated breath, because the United States does play such huge role in not just the affairs of its citizens but for people around the world, good, bad or indifferent.
But Americans now have to consider their own counsels. They have to look to themselves and decide what, in the final accounting, which candidate will indeed serve their own interest … because in the end, whether you agree or not, it is the individual who counts and not the village, not the province or state, not the nation, not the world, but the individual.
Without the individual, with respect and dignity for all, then there is nothing. We all become slaves, compelled to live for others.

Global leadership

Realistic prism of the cost of global leadership
Interesting article linked above … and the author probably is right. You know, it is expensive being the world’s policeman … even if you aren’t really elected to do it.
He may have a point. Maybe the time has come for the United States to stand down and let China take a larger role. I mean, for sure, nobody else will or is in the position to do anything about it.
Of course, it would help if the United States was totally independent of the world energy market, and definitely not dependent on Chinese imports to supply our consumer economy and Chinese investments in Federal Treasury Bonds to keep the federal government afloat with all its deficit pump-priming (that sure doesn’t seem to be working all that well).
Of course, we could hope that everyone is going to bury their swords and pick up plowshares and peace will rule the planet. Who knows, stranger things have happened … or have they?
Nope, just look at the world today (and don’t blame the US for all the conflicts, they would be there whether or not the US did or does anything). Seriously, look where there are conflicts: Across Asia, Africa, South America, North America, even Europe. About the only continent that doesn’t have an active conflict going is Australia (We won’t count the Whale Wars down south of it).
And if it is not wars, conflicts, then how about riots and demonstrations that routinely turn into fiery melees with burning cars and people getting their heads busted.
Nope, sorry, try all you want, you can’t blame the Americans for all that violence. It ain’t our fault. I know our progressives take their cues from various and sundry demagogues in this culture and that who claim if it wasn’t for “Western” influences – particularly those of the Great Satan that is America – that all would be peace, tranquility and happiness throughout the world, but if you believe that … well, I am afraid you may have serious problems.
As I have often pointed out: The Americans are powerful in many ways, but they neither are omnipotent nor omniscient. Besides, people in other countries always have a vote in how things go, whether they are in power or not.
The problem I have with the Americans stepping back behind our moats of the Atlantic and the Pacific and erecting our own castle walls along the Rio Grande and parts west, as well as from Puget Sound to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, is that would be an exercise in futility. We just can’t wall ourselves off from the rest of the world, however attractive that might seem.
Yes, folks, I am just as frustrated with the turn of events around the world as probably anybody else. I feel like screaming Rodney King’s famous line: Can’t we just get along?
But, unfortunately, people, man is not like that. I wish we were, but we aren’t.
In the end, somebody has to step up and lead … or as we used to say when I was in uniform: Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way!
Leading ain’t fun. It ain’t easy. It ain’t cheap. However, sometimes, in the long run, it turns out to be in your best self-interest.
In the end, I guess, what price do we want to put on our liberty, our freedoms, our way of life … as well as those of others?

What about them Kitties?

55-14 over West Virginia in West Virginia

What about them Kitties? Are they romping and stomping or what.

When did we all become so cynical?

I have an online acquaintance who asked me if I believe President Barack Obama when he says something.
I told him I did unless there was something in the facts on the ground that led me to think that I was going to have be willing to suspend my disbelief … or in other words, until the facts on the ground seemed to contradict the words coming from the mouth.
This came up in an online conversation where he contended that GOP candidate Mitt Romney was lying about how he got the infamous binders alluded to the second debate with President Obama. Apparently, the bulk of the “binders” came from an advocacy group called MassGAP that had prepared possible lists of appointment candidates for both candidates for Massachusetts governor in 2002. The non-partisan or bi-partisan group says it was the group that supplied Gov.-elect Romney with the binders.
The disagreement here, apparently, is over whether the group marched down, dropped the binders on Romney’s desk and said, “Take your pick.” Meaning that Romney made no effort to include women in the cabinet and was forced to do it by MassGAP and therefore he is lying about what happened. (My friend’s version)
Or did Romney look at the list of candidates given to him by his staff and say “is this the best you can do?” Then tell his staff to try again, and this time for political cover, include more women. Then the staff took advantage of the offer from MassGAP and accepted the binders they offered. (My view)
Now, I must point out that before this point, he basically accused me of blithely posting my view as just so much misinformation.
Here is the video clip: CBS News – Romney: I had binders full of women
You watch it and you decide which better fits the available facts.
My point being is that what we often see is colored by the prisms of our preconceptions and what we want to believe. This is natural and to be expected.
Now, I must admit: I have lots of problems with President Obama and his policies. I think his vision of the way the world is and the way America should be are wrong. However, having said that, I do not accuse him of lying or misleading people without some evidence to give me reason. I may disagree with what he says, but I am not going to say he is a liar.
Most of the time, as I see it, he or his staff are “spinning” the facts to have us accept a certain interpretation of the facts. Some of the times, one has to do a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to accept the party line, and other times it is much easier to swallow. The same holds true for the Republican candidates. They always are spinning the facts to fit the narrative that they want voters and constituents to believe.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
For example, do I believe that the tax cut plans as reportedly put out by the Romney Campaign are all they are cracked up to be – pro or con? Not on your life. I sometimes think that Romney takes a more realistic view of what he might accomplish. (There being an old saying about Washington: The President proposes; Congress disposes) Basically, what I have heard him say at the first two debates is that “yes, I would like to cut certain tax deductions, close some loopholes and lower tax rates across the board, but until I can negotiate the particulars with Congress, I really don’t know how that will work out.” That sounds to me like an honest assessment of the situation.
On the other hand, what I hear President Obama saying is that we will raise the tax rates on the “wealthy” (leaving open exactly what being “wealthy” means) and that is going to solve our deficit as well as pay for all the new things coming under Obamacare. That absolutely is impossible. There ain’t enough money in the “wealthy’s” piggy banks to pull that off. Besides, that smacks of killing the golden goose before she lays her eggs.
Now, the question is: Is Obama lying or is Romney lying.
I don’t know. But as an article of faith, I am going to say that I think for the most part both men are honest and decent people. They are neither vicious, nor cruel nor evil. Their world views are just different. They see the world through different prisms and therefore see what needs to be done in different lights.
There is a good question: Are things better today than they were four years ago? Do you think the policies of the last four years, extended and broadened over the next four years are going to improve the situation or not? Do you think what plans Romney and Ryan have articulated, if implemented and however sketchy they are, will make a difference? Will that difference be better or worse?
Honestly, my jury is STILL out, but I know it is leaning heavily more in one direction that another.
And, just for the record, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter in 1980. I voted for John Anderson and that is saying more about who I have voted for in 40 years because I really do believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot.
As for the binders’ discussion: It is a tempest in a teapot, as Pappy used to say.

Hot in Texas

Big Tex burns

You know something is hot in Texas besides the Tex-Mex cooking when you see news stories like this: Fire destroys Texas State Fair’s Big Tex icon.

I remember him. Right there in the middle of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex (you never know when one stops and the other begins)

It was a huge affair overlooking the State Fairgrounds.

Good news, he will be back next year in fine form again.

Mountain out of a molehill

Binders, sminders

As Pappy would have said: Tis a mountain out of molehill.

Jeemney Christmas. What is with all the uproar about presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying he got “binders” filled with women’s resumes when he went looking for women to fill out his cabinet when he was governor of Massachusetts?

Hey, give the guy some credit. He did do the sexist thing and tried to do affirmative action for women. What was he supposed to say: I got a pile of resumes or a stack of applications? This has got to be the most senseless news story in … well at least a couple of weeks.

I will say one thing for the businessman-turned-politician at least he had his staff trained halfway decently. The boss asks for information and a good staff will organize it for him, so he doesn’t waste time. It seems to me that his staff did just that: Organized the resumes for his review. And for this he is getting blasted and blistered?

Methinks some people have their head in the wrong place.

No, it seems that some of our progressive and liberal friends are trying to make an issue out of something that isn’t an issue, or at least shouldn’t be in my estimation. I wish someone would explain to me ( as Pappy used to say) in words of one syllable or less so I could understand exactly what the problem is because I don’t see the problem. Ok, I am a male in my sixties, but I don’t see what the problem is hiring women to fill positions if they are qualified, pay them the same rate as any guy you would hire for the position (note: you are paying for the job being done, not for the person to fill it).

Still, we are three days after the debate, and we still are flapping our jaws about a non-issue.

To me the unanswered question was who pulled the security teams from Libya in August? Who denied the U.S. ambassador to Libya’s request for addition security and why? Why was the White House apparently clueless when the flunkies in the State Department knew pretty much what was going on? Was it really the Secretary of State’s fault that the real-time reports of the eight-hour gun-battle (including mortar fire, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns) by an estimated-platoon-sized contingent of terrorist drove the Americans and their staff and guards into bunkers was not transmitted to at least the National Security Advisor, if not the Secretary of Defense, as well as the President?

Sorry, that seems to bear more on the job of being president then whether or not he reviews candidates for cabinet or staff positions by having their resumes presented to him in binders.

I am a retired journalist, actually a retired newspaper editor, and the current state of journalism absolutely revolts me when it comes to campaign coverage. Of course, I come from a different era, when you didn’t have to deal with the passions of the social media.

For example, I pointed out to one of the people whom I have considerable respect as a thoughtful person that a picture that she had posted on her Facebook page was factually incorrect … and she told me I basically was being an idiot because it didn’t matter. Everybody did it. Well, I guess, I have to apologize to her, but damn, I thought accuracy and the truth was more important than just tearing down people, places, organizations and things you disagree with.

At least when I differ with someone, I do try to at least explain why I think my observations are valid. But just to say: Well, that is how it is done of Facebook and everybody does it, appalls me. I guess personal integrity is passé and personal credibility is something no one cares about.

No wonder America is going to hades in the handbasket.

Small showing of leadership

I have to give President Barack Obama his due: Finally, at the second presidential debate, he said the words that he was responsible for the events leading up to the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound at Benghazi, Libya, in September.
Of course, he did dodge the question as to who was responsible for declining the requests for additional security forces or why there was the charade about it being a protest against a stupid YouTube video that turned into senseless violence. The latter took a lot longer for the administration to admit, and had various members of his cabinet trying to fall on their swords to absolve him of said responsibility.
The interesting thing to me is that the president’s whole artificial construct about who knew what, where and when came crashing down in the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb before the House Oversight Committee in Washington on Oct. 10 (almost exactly a month after the events in Libya).
Assuming Ms. Lamb was giving honest testimony before the committee, then some people in the administration either are flat out lying or they really failed their jobs to keep the president in the loop.
The Smoking Gun
My jaw dropped when I read the first paragraph on page five of her prepared opening statement. How could she be saying that when the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the U.N. ambassador, all had been saying they didn’t know what was happening at the time.
Ms. Lamb said:
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center (at the diplomatic facility) immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
Ok, alarms are going off all over the place and no one bothers to tell the president that the facility where an ambassador is under attack and there is an ensuing eight-hour running gun battle, complete with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons.
Somehow, this seems to defy understanding. And yet, the president, his press secretary, the vice president, the secretary of state and the U.N. ambassador who is sent out to represent the face of the administration on the talking heads circuit on television, all disavow any knowledge of this being an “attack”. Even Candy Crowley, the moderator at the presidential debate had to walk back her defense of the president when Gov. Mitt Romney posed the question why it took the president so long to use the words “terrorist attack.”
It really draws into question the competence, not just of the president (who really is a captive to his advisors) but of the whole national security establishment. I mean, basically, it was like a re-run of the 1979 assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.
I know a whole lot of people have no memory of that debacle, and the ensuing 444-day standoff that basically ruined Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
It left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, and I felt it again, when I read the deputy’s testimony.

Progressive hypocrisy is almost funny

I finding interesting, if not exceedingly hypocritical, when I read various critiques by liberal, progressives who make no pretense of their disdain for people of faith that fault those people for failing to adhere to the progressive’s image of what their faith should be.
Most liberals and progressives will admit that they basically are secular humanists who believe that religious faith is a mistake and belief in such dogma is leading individuals, if not societies, astray.
The thesis, as I understand it, is that there is good and there is bad, but only according to the definitions as provided by their secular viewpoint. To them, these values are absolutes, but everyone else’s is relative. I may be wrong in this analysis, but I don’t think I am far off.
So, it somewhat surprises me when they criticize followers a two-millennia-old Jewish rabbi, cum Christian messiah and prophet, by quoting their interpretation of that prophet’s doctrine as it has been handed down, interpreted, re-interpreted and re-re-interpreted over all those generations, which they don’t believe in, and expect to be taken seriously. That strikes me as being a stellar height of hubris.
And then, of course, if these people happen to hold what might be conflicting thoughts on what they think is right and proper, then the liberals and progressives call down all sorts of hell and damnation because these people might have a view that reconciles these differences and still cling to their faith.
It really is almost humorous, if it wasn’t so serious.
It is, almost by definition, an assault on individual liberty. You know, the kind that Americans have enshrined in the First Amendment to their Constitution.
I mean, if you don’t believe in the dogma as these progressives do, then you are condemned and chastised. You are, as it is said, “a bad person”. Some people might even go so far as to call you names like “lying bastards” who are out to subjugate women and the poor.
Now, that might be true, but I would be willing to bet that it is a false characterization. But then I remember, it is Election Time in America (Sorry, my Canadian relatives, but I had to borrow your line – It is Hockey Night in Canada) and this is what is to be expected from people on opposing sides of the political fence.
I hope everybody enjoys the next two presidential debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Romney. It will be so interesting to watch the vitriol spewing forth from each sides’ supporters … unless people shock me and actually talk civilly about the candidates.
An example of what I speak

Boy, the Democrats must be getting desperate

Hillary says it is all her fault in Benghazi
Clinton falls on her sword claiming responsibility for failures in Benghazi
I guess President Barack Obama’s campaign handlers are panicking. Somehow they talked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take the fall for the lack of security at the diplomatic facility (I won’t elevate it to the level of a real consulate) in Benghazi last month.
It took a month, but Clinton finally said, in this, the buck stops with me. Nice try, Ms. Rodham, but your credibility was shot back with Monica and the other girls.
Look, Clinton wants to run in 2116, so Bill and she can be co-presidents again. To do that, she has to smooth the waters with the wheels in smoke-filled rooms (ok, they aren’t smoke filled any more) out back so they will help her get the nomination. This is the price she pays: Get Barry re-elected. Deflect any and all criticism from him.
Fall on your sword, woman.
Well, I am sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but President Obama, and his invisible National Security Council advisor are responsible. If you didn’t coordinate your actions with them, then they screwed you over and let you take the fall. You should have coordinated those types of requests with the White House because, as you know very well, they have very large foreign policy implications. And while you are delegated the task of executing the foreign policy of the United States, if you go free-lancing it without discussing it with the boss, then you will find yourself in a very deep pile of horse manure.
You see, because that is the way things work. When you work for someone, you don’t free-lance the big stuff … and when it comes to terrorist attacks, it is all big stuff.
So, it would seem that logic would dictate the reason, the day before the second presidential debate of the season, that somebody, anybody, takes a sword for the embarrassing debacle that is Libya and the ambassador’s death. Vice President Biden tried to blame the intelligence people, and the DNI tried falling on his sword, but it seems that no one bought that. So, now it is Miss Hillary’s turn.
Please, Mister President, step up to the plate and do your mea culpa. It would make you look much more presidential and prop up your leadership image. To do anything else, merely mocks it. (And it makes Hillary look presidential and you look like a jerk)

Big bad Koch boys threaten employees

Vote for Obama and face the consequences – says NBC

Round two: Big Bad Employers against employees.

Give me a break. In these various “notifications” to employees of various corporations the people who are sending the e-mails say outright they are not telling the employees whom to vote for.

No, rather, they are telling the companies’ employees what the most likely consequences will be if President Barack Obama wins re-election, and that one of those consequences will be that an undetermined number of the employees of the companies will lose their jobs.

Is this a threat? Yes, indirectly. However, it also is an economic reality. Four more years of the policies of the Obama Administration is going to bite into the receipts and profits of many a corporation and business. The Obama Administration has made no bones about its plans and that is what it intends to do. It intends to tax “wealthy” business people more. It is going to make companies provide more benefits or pay a tax. It is going to do more to advance alternative energy at the expense of the current energy providers and the consumers, through higher prices for traditional sources of energy.

These people who have far more money than I will ever dream of have earned their money, for the most part. Granted, I can’t do what they have done, but then I never tried, nor did I have the skills. But then again, I am not jealous of their wealth or begrudge them it either.

Now, at least these people are being honest. They are saying that if Obama gets re-elected, they are going to cut costs at their businesses so they can keep more of the money (or at least amounts similar to what they are getting now) in the wake of the economic changes. You blame them?

Now, regardless of how you look at it, these are the people who put the big bucks up to sustain these businesses … it is called investments. They are entitled to a return on that investment (commensurate to its contribution to the success of the company), just as a shop floor worker deserves compensation for his labor that creates or adds value to the product. So, you may disagree with how that compensation is allocated, but unless you are one of the stockholders/owners of the company, then you are just hired labor and are selling your investment at a pre-agreed upon rate.

I know there are a lot of people who think that isn’t fair … but it is part of the price we pay for individual liberty. You know, where you get to make your own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Oh, I forgot, no one is supposed to fail or face the consequences of their choices.

Well, tough! That is life. Time to get over and get on with your life.

Comparative militaries

Numbers in the military

Money spent on the military

Ok, I get it: The U.S. spends a whole lot more money on its military capabilities than anybody else. Doesn’t necessarily mean its military is all that much larger than anybody else’s, because it isn’t. There are any numbers of countries that field armies that are larger per capita than the U.S. counterparts or spend more money per capita or as a portion of their gross domestic product (also known as GDP) than the US does.

In fact, there even a few countries whose military establishment is even larger than that of the U.S., as shocking as that might seem.

Still, the U.S. military remains, arguably, the best trained, best equipped, most powerful force in the world.

Well, part of it is that the U.S. does put more bucks into its military might than anybody else (in aggregate). The old saying is that you get what you pay for.

However, as the world shows us time and again, you can spend big bucks on the gadgets and toys and other things (like paying the troops, their medical care, housing their families, giving them a fairly nice retirement plan), and still find yourself stretched to meet the challenges of much more frugally funded and equipped forces in the world.

What was that line by Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: Adapt, improvise and overcome.

As an American, I sometimes am dismayed by the amounts we spend on our military forces. But then I step back and look at the reality of it. For its size, we do have the most professional corps of troops in our military services. I suppose that comes from the fact that it also is the best paid, nation-state funded military in the world, with – again arguably – the best benefits for the individual soldier that the world has to offer.

It is among the best trained forces in the world, so that is a good thing. I am a big believer it training troops. The better trained they are, the better prepared they are for the reality of conflict. The better prepared they are, the more likely they will survive in combat.

I also realize that like it or not America is called upon to be the “global cop”. You may not like it. I might not like it. Unfortunately, it is the way that things are. When bad things go down, everyone starts asking: Where is the nearest U.S. carrier task force or amphibious ready group? Why aren’t the Americans doing something about this?

Not that the Americans should be doing something about these things, but it seems that a large number of people look to the Americans to lead and  do something about them. Good, bad, indifferent, it still is the case.

For example, Syria: Our “friends” in the area are looking to the U.S. to at least support, if not provide leadership, to them. Hence, there is a military planning task force of 150 Americans in Jordan today … just to help the Jordanians prepare for any untoward consequences of the civil war in Syria.

And don’t be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of NATO planners (with a substantial contingent of Americans) talking with their brethren in Turkey about potential needs the Turks may have if the rumbles on its border with Syria continue to worsen.

The problem with the American military is that it is well-paid and very well equipped. Those things don’t come cheap. Oh, we could have a much larger military establishment, with lot cheaper weapons, but then that would come with a much higher human cost, which Americans are much more averse to seeing.

For example: Iraq, over eight years, cost the Americans about 6,000 dead. The British, in the 1920s, lost 1,200 in one battle. If that had happened in the latest Iraq war, it would have been over, right there.

Still, does the U.S. need such a powerful military? That is a good question and one I know Americans are quite divided about. Actually, one will find that Americans are quite happy holding contrary thoughts.

Americans always have looked askance upon a large standing military force. It smacks too much of opportunities for military coups and tyrannies. For that reason, there is such a strong tradition in the U.S. for civilian control of the military and for its members, particularly its officer corps, to remain as much as possible non-political and non-partisan.

On the other hand, particularly since World War II and the Cold War, Americans have been – and rightly so, to my estimation – almost terrified of a surprise attack catching the U.S. unawares and unprepared … sort of like 9-11 did.

In addition, Americans have this intense desire – not all that different than anyone else - to be respected (despite what you think, Americans still have somewhat of an inferiority complex toward the older and more established nations and cultures in the world … we are a bit like the nouveau riche), but not only respected, but also loved. We can’t seem to understand why everybody just doesn’t love us and respect us. I mean we have pretty much the most affluent society and our political system pays so much homage to the individual and individual rights, what is not to like and love? And we have this wonderful, almost Star Wars-like, military that is the envy of just about every military commander in the world (If we had just had half the weapons and gadgets at our command, they think)

For most Americans, we just don’t understand that being respected and being loved are two entirely different things and what makes you respected often does not lead to you being loved, and vice versa.

Americans don’t like to think of themselves as imperialists, and in the traditional sense, we are not (we don’t usually take over land; we merely try to get the people there to act like we do). We do not make good imperials. We are not ruthless enough or willing to pay the price to be imperials.

Ironically, I suspect, there is a reason that none of the First World powers have used their military forces to settle their disputes in recent memory and that is directly related to the power of the United States, and to a lesser extent to the power of the former Soviet Union. It was not in the interest of the US or USSR to fight a large scale conflict (even in conventional terms) involving First World technologies. It would have been a bloody mess, literally. That “peace” is the result of each playing “cop” in their respective spheres of influence and basically helping each other in the other areas. (You may not agree with this analysis, but I think if you examine it from a historical perspective, you will find it has a certain modicum of support) This not to say that there were not any “proxy” wars, because there were, but the two big guys kept a leash on the participants to keep them from going global.

So, when you look at the military “might” of America, you need to keep it in perspective: What is it there for?

Answer that question, and you have a better understanding of why the U.S. spends so much on its military and why, probably, it should continue to spend big bucks on it.

Another civics lesson

Sometimes I think I missed my calling and should have been a high school civics teacher or a professor of history at some Podunk college. Still, I find within me this insatiable need to speak to my readers – whether here on my blog with its terribly few followers or at the small newspapers that I used to work for – about the American system was to be, historically, and how it really is.

For example: Taxes.

Why do we have taxes? To pay for those activities that we as the people who make up the governed – no matter what level, township, village, city, county, state or federal – have indicated to those elected to represent us that we would like to see government to provide for us.

Now, one of the two predicates for the American Revolution was that the American people wanted to have a voice (which parliament in London denied them) in the taxes that were levied on them. The second predicate was that that as citizens of Britain they thought it wrong that they would have to pay taxes that were not levied on other British citizens. They saw this as being patently unfair … I agree, and it still is.

Now, if you accept that definition and the precepts that the people have a right to voice in their taxes AND that those taxes apply to all citizens equally, then we in the United States have a major problem. Why? Because our taxes are not being applied equally to all taxpayers but rather there are giant differences, depending on a whole host of variables and factors that discriminate against individual taxpayers.

In other words, the government does not, will not and cannot treat all taxpayers equally. Now, you can say this is hunky-dory. You know, those who can pay more (a higher rate) should pay a higher rate. And those who do things that we as a society approve of or want to encourage get to pay less taxes than those who don’t do things we (generally as a group, with the majority ruling and sometimes only a plurality) like paying more.

Now, we have a whole variety of taxes and fees (which legally are different critters, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court this last summer in the ruling on the Affordable Care Act – known colloquially as Obamacare) that we Americans pay at each level of government. Local governments get to levy taxes on property, states and some cities get to levy taxes on sales, the federal government and states get to levy taxes on some products and activities (known as excise taxes) and the feds, states and some cities get to levy taxes on income and what is known as capital gains and interest income.

Pretty confusing isn’t it? I sometimes think it is all malice aforethought so those running the show can get away with what they want to do and line the pockets of their buddies, but I know that is being awfully cynical of me (who said being cynical is bad).

What complicates things even further is that these levels of governments can grant abatements, credits and deductions to encourage various things, like having a company or corporation open a new plant in your neighborhood to boost the tax base and bring in new jobs. Unfortunately, this is where things begin to go south, as the saying goes.

What happens is that those people who we elect to represent us … well, they are human, and most of the time they mean well … but business is business and anything to lower costs and maximize returns. Now, you can’t fault businesses, which are run by individuals who are trying to get the most from their investments of time, labor and capital – from the shop floor to the executive suite.

So, what do they do? They talk to the level of government that they want to curry favor with to grant them these indulgences. Something like what was going on in the Catholic Church back in the Middle Ages. Know you are going to sin? Well, go to the church and make a contribution and they will grant you an indulgence to absolve you of that sin and you won’t have to spend as much, or any, time in purgatory and go straight to heaven. This got to be a really big thing in the Middle Ages, especially with the wealthy who found they could just about do anything their little hearts desired and buy off the bishop to save their souls from damnation.

Well, that lasted until a priest by the name of Martin Luther came along and posted 95 reasons why the church was screwing up, screwing people and generally theologically wrong with this business of selling indulgences (and a host of other practices).

We need a Martin Luther for the tax codes in this nation. You see, as it stands now, everybody is out to game the system and get their own tax credits or deductions.

Look, nobody but nobody likes to pay taxes. That is a given. We pay taxes as part of our contract with our neighbors and fellow citizens. You know, we all chip in and then our government does something for the greater good, or something for each of us that individually we couldn’t afford.

For example, how many of us could afford to buy a fire truck, man it and operate it for that outside chance that we might have a fire on our property? So, we agree to pool our resources to fund the fire department. Now, here comes the hard part: Which is fairer? Everybody paying the same amount (flat fee) or how about we pro-rate it on the value of the property a person owns (a property tax), or on how much cash they have available on hand to pay (income tax) or maybe on how much value there is on the things they purchase (sales tax)?

I don’t have a magic wand and I don’t know what is best, but that same concept applies all the way through government and everything it does. With the federal government, which gets its income through customs duties, excise taxes and income taxes, this revenue applies to everything from Social Security to Medicaid to the Defense Department to the simple job of paying the people who clean the buildings on federal property and process all that paperwork we seem to want to generate.

Now, I do have some views:

Sometimes, a flat fee is appropriate.

Sometimes, an excise tax is appropriate … which is like a flat fee, only it varies by the product, such as the tax per gallon on gasoline or liquor.

Sometimes, it seems that an income tax seems appropriate. Only what seems inappropriate to me is the plethora of adjustments that can be made to the rate being paid. I am sorry, while I understand the rationale for all these deductions and credits and such, but they are the reason our representatives seem to be up for the highest bidder and that is wrong.

And then there is the argument about tax cuts and tax increases. Well, it all depends on whose baseline you want to take. To me, whatever the current rate is the baseline, but I know I am in a minority there.

I also am doubtful about raising the rate just because someone has the cash available to pay more. How would you like that at the store? You know, you get the same product at the check-out stand, but the cashier charges you more because you are dressed more nicely than the slug in front of you. No, I don’t think that is right.

So, as you muddle through your thoughts this election season, stop and think about those promises those candidates are making. You know what they really are doing is to buy your vote. Are you willing to sell it, just so you benefit or do you really want us all to chip in as we can to buy that fire truck, tank or whatever.

Leadership? Is it lacking?

At war with no leader

Once again, someone much more articulate than I am summarizes my feelings quite well.

One of the things that distress me about the current American administration is the lack of the elusive thing called “Leadership.” Unfortunately, neither President Barack Obama nor his cadre of senior leaders seem to know what that is.

It is, as President Harry Truman once put it, an attitude that “the buck stops here.”

Even if subordinate staff fails at their jobs, the responsibility still lies with the leader. That, apparently, is something that the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the UN ambassador and others fail to grasp. Just look at who is getting blamed for the ever changing narrative about the assassination of the American ambassador to Libya.

It is becoming increasing obvious that the Global War on Islamic Terrorism has not ended, nor is it really winding down. It is, however, shifting to new theaters of operation while in the old theaters of operation seems to be finding new life as the forces of Islamic Terrorism regroup, reassess, adapt, innovate and overcome.

This is what always happens in the ebb and flow of war and, yes folks, we are engaged in a “war”, even if it remains “undeclared” and most people wish it would just go away. It won’t.

The Americans do not like wars. Honest, they don’t. They are taxing, dirty, ugly affairs that disrupt the tranquility of their existence, which to most mean being allowed to do their business in relative peace and harmony. As some political wag in the past said, the business of the US is business … and war disrupts business so it becomes an annoying bother.

However, conflict is endemic to human relations and war is conflict writ on a large scale. I wish people would realize that, but I am very aware that most people would rather ignore that little aspect of human relations.

That is where leadership comes in. Leaders help followers understand those things that the followers don’t want to face. Leaders help followers see what needs to be done and why, and inspire them to do the work necessary to accomplish whatever needs to be done.

Our leaders are not doing that right now. They are failing us.

Not the CIA (nor the Marines)

Satellite photos reveal DOD installation where Navy SEALS trained.

This is one reason I get so really hacked off at today’s so-called journalists. They just can’t get their facts straight.

First, Navy SEALS are not the CIA. They don’t belong to the CIA. They operate independently of the CIA. They may coordinate with CIA paramilitaries but they still fall under military command.

Second, the assault on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan basically was a military operation: Military helicopters carrying military personnel to conduct a military assault on a military objective.

Now, to some people, confusing intelligence operations with military operations is merely a sematic exercise, but confusing the capabilities and responsibilities is always a bad idea.

No, the CIA is not the military. The compound in North Carolina was a military installation where military special operations forces trained. It was not CIA agents training there.

The question that always bugs me is why people can’t keep the two straight. Yes, SpecOps people operate in a very foggy environment, but they still are military warriors and not armed spies and intelligence agents.

I guess it is like the Marine Corps. You do know that there are no other riflemen defending our shores than Marine riflemen. Nobody else carries weapons but Marines and the Marines always do all the fighting. Just ask a Marine

Oh, PS: Like Michael Yon pointed out, this was one hell of an OPSEC violation, but then who the heck cares. SEAL Team 6 is just a bunch of wigged-out warmongers and who cares if they get killed or compromised.

One wonders? A WARN Act warning?

CEO threatens layoffs if Obama gets reelected

Big Bad CEO threatens to fire workers

Ok, the above links provide differing views of the chief executive officer of a company that sells time shares and hosts resorts who e-mailed his employees, presenting them with a stark view of the future. His employees were told that should President Barack Obama be re-elected, he may be forced to lay off employees in order to be able to afford the taxes and other requirements that the Obama Administration has indicated it wants to implement. Obviously, if Mitt Romney is elected, the chances of those taxes and other requirements being implemented go do, and hence their jobs might not be at risk.

In a sense, the business person, whose business employs some 7,000 workers, might just be following the dictates of the WARN Act that requires employers over a certain number of workers to give at least 60 days warning to their employees if they are planning any large layoffs. You know, the law that the Labor Department under President Obama told defense contractors they could ignore. They are considering issuing such warnings because the sequestration of the federal funds that will go into effect Jan. 2, if a budget deal isn’t made.

Now the company, which happens to be the largest privately-held company of its kind in its field, is drawing flak from people who don’t like it when companies oppose President Obama. They think it is unfair.

Well, sorry folks, but it is a privately-held company. There is no law that says the owner(s) of that company can’t shut the doors if they feel it is necessary. Now, under the WARN Act, they can’t do it tomorrow, but they could do it in 60 days. But then again, how many companies in the current economic world actually have just shut their doors and given up. Quite a few, I imagine. That happens in a recession and we have been in a big one.

So, the CEO made it clear he wasn’t telling his employees whom to vote for. He only was warning them that should Obama be reelected, the company would be forced to downsize in order to meet the increased overhead.

Now, I know this gets the progressives, like those people at the Huffington Posts, panties in a wad, but when did we start requiring employers to employ people. Oh, I know that those under union contracts do have certain obligations, and we do seem to be requiring our governments to employ more and more people, along with paying people who can’t or out of work a stipend in order to permit them to survive.

I am not knocking that per se, since I am myself disabled and get some of that money, but then I was working for the government and you know all those rights those government workers have. You can accuse me of hypocrisy, but look: I am playing by the rules and did pay into the system for 40 years before my health collapsed. So, it is not really hypocrisy to point out that maybe the system needs to be changed. Granted, the government did screw me over big time, but that is only from my perspective.

Now, I have no problem with an employer warning his employees of the unfortunate political realities out there. It may not be a pretty picture, but at least it is being honest.

So, two points to the CEO for at least being boldly honest. You do know that he still does have that right and will, until the progressives make it a crime to shut a business down because the overhead has eaten up the profits. Remember, the world is supposed to be non-profit and it should be to each according to their indefinable and unlimited needs and from each according to the their maximum but necessarily limited efforts.

Only in America

Billy Krystal on Letterman as Romney

It is one of the things I absolutely love about being an American: Being able to mock and parody people – especially public figures like political candidates – with virtual impunity.

Billy Krystal, who is a very funny comedic actor, just leaves me in stitches all the time and he doesn’t fail here in his appearance on the late night TV show with David Letterman.

Now, I know that Letterman supports President Obama, as does Krystal, and that doesn’t bother me at all. It bothers me that Letterman seems so upset that his entertainment show apparently will not be a campaign stop for the Romney campaign bus. Get real, man, you obviously are hostile, so why go there?

Still, I think Krystal is a gem and this was absolutely hilarious. Besides, there is an element of truth to it, which is what makes parody and satire so effective.

A puzzled person

What is it about this election that makes people hate so viscerally? I haven’t a clue, but I see it even in people that I hold in some respect.
I see it when individuals call political candidates “lying bastards” and other deeply offensive slurs. Why is it our language has become so coarsened that such pejoratives are acceptable … especially in public discourse? I see it when people attack others for disagreeing with them in terms that defy civility.
I watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night, and either I am totally blind or I didn’t see any flat out lying … and I certainly didn’t see any bastards. Oh, did they tell the absolute unvarnished truth? Give me a break. However, there was truth in everything that they said, depending on how you want to parse the facts. It was in the spin, rather than the facts, the mistruths were slung.
You see, I have become painfully aware that we all seem to view Plato’s shadows differently. We view things, I have come to realize, through different prisms and some of them are starkly different than others.
It makes me question my own reality and as hard as I can, I find it hard to find empirical evidence that disputes the perceptions I have gained over the six decades of my life.
Yes, politicians shade the truth to fit their cause. There was plenty of that on Wednesday night, on both sides. Maybe I hold a too high a standard to call out people on “lying” rather than telling the truth from a particular point of view.
So I look at what people say, and ask why? What is it that drives people to be so visceral in their hatred of their political opponents?
And then I step back and I look around the world at conditions in other countries and I realize that Americans are not any different. No, we are humans, just like everybody else. It would be nice to think we are “exceptional” but as humans we are not.
We do have an exceptional form of government and an exceptional (well, less now that at other times, maybe) economic system, but as a people, there is little different from others around the world. The dogmas may be different, even the ideologies, but the essence of our human nature is not different.
As I watched the debate, it was obvious that the challenger was beating the incumbent badly. It seemed such a mismatch. Mitt Romney came across as the civil individual, while President Barack Obama came across as angry and offended that anyone would challenge him. That bothered me a lot.
Now, I don’t know what issues the president was dealing with that night, but he definitely wasn’t cool, calm and collected.
Now, I know that Romney impressed me, but I could also see how he was parsing his facts in ways that could be construed in various ways as to make him seem like he was not telling the truth.
The classic being the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, profits and profit margins, tax credits and tax deductions, and if you don’t understand the differences between those terms, please look them up. Educate yourselves.
Tax Rate vs Tax Revenue
Profit vs Profit margin
Tax Credit vs Tax Deduction
So, when Romney said he was going to lower tax rates but keep them revenue neutral, it really isn’t an oxymoron. Economists will tell you something about what is called the Laffer Curve which is the point that Romney was trying to make.  (Laffer Curve explained.)  While it is difficult to chart exactly how the curve will be under any given tax rate situation, it really is not hard to understand how it works. Most people don’t understand.
Most people think, that the higher the rate, the more the government will get in taxes, and history has shown that to be false in the 1960s, the 1980s and again, in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Still, it bothers me that people I respect very much somehow see the world through such different prisms.
I joked with one of them, who was saying that the very rich should pay so much more in taxes, that since he made more than I did, would he send some of his money to me. I mean he is richer than I am, or so it seems. (Well, since I now have rent a two-bedroom apartment and he apparently owns a small farm and has access to a condominium in a very expensive building – at least by my standards as I would never been able to even consider owning either, while acting as the COO for a software gaming company that has the rights to a few of the top selling games of the 1990s and at least one or two of the top rated games for the latest IPODs in the 2010s, would make him appear to be more wealthy than I am, living as I do.) He got very upset with me, for making such a suggestion, since his company is a restart of the 1990s version, and said I was “enjoying my retirement.”
Again, we probably are making asses of ourselves – you know the old cliché that when we ASSUME you are making an ASS of yoU and ME.
However, my point was what gives him the right to demand that others pay higher taxes to transfer their wealth to others, if I don’t have the same right to make that demand of him. However, I think it all got lost in translation.
And maybe that is what puzzles me the most: We all seem to have lost any sense of humor. Hey, given my life, one has to look back at it and laugh. Otherwise, you probably would either be crying or committing suicide – neither of which option appeals to me right now.
Still, if you push me really hard, I would have to say I know who I am not voting for … now if I just could figure out who to vote for that will most effectively represent what I believe. I still am left puzzled.

More on conspiracy theories

It always amazes me when people deny they believe in any conspiracy when they say “But I don’t think it happened that way.”

Time out! If you don’t believe something happened the way that it has been explained, then the burden sort of falls on you to come up with an alternate explanation to solve the mystery. Either it was an act of God, or humans did it and that means a conspiracy of some sort to execute and cover-up the real explanation.

For example, over the years, I have read or seen a host of books, documentaries, movies, etc., or in some cases actually interviewed people with first-hand knowledge of the events on Dealy Plaza on Nov. 23, 1963. And yes, while it is possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter, there remains no credible alternative explanation for those events. Oh, I know about the commission in that found the tape that allegedly recorded a fourth shot and I have interviewed people who had statements from people who said there was someone on the grassy knoll. I also have seen people debunk the magic bullet mystery. So, my final point is, does it really matter? No. Because nothing we do now will either bring back John Kennedy or change the events of that day (or all the history up to now).

What about the controversy over the President’s birth certificate? It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t unless you really want to screw up the country, which if you get the president declared ineligible, and therefore nullify everything he has done for the last three and half years, will happen … in spades.

Hell, he may have been born in Kenya or somewhere else in the Third World, but it doesn’t matter now, and it is time to get over it.

Same thing with the people who say the “official” and “unofficial” reports that explain how the events unfolded on Sept. 11, 2001, can’t be true. There is no way that 19 ragheads could cause that much damage and kill that many people. Yes, there is … and it happened.

Oh, you say, but I am just saying I don’t believe the official explanation. It leaves too many questions unanswered. Then provide your own beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise, let it lie.

The problem with those who reject these explanations, as I said before, is that the burden then falls on you to come up with a working alternate explanation. Now, it gets really fun when you do that, because you have to explain away the hijackings, or change their backers somehow from the people who have said they were the organizers and planners, and in one case, the hijacker who screwed up and got himself arrested two months before the operation took place.

Then, since the aircraft didn’t significantly damage two nearly forty-year-old buildings, and fires and other debris from the collapsing towers didn’t trigger the collapse of a third building, one is left with having to come up with an alternative. You need to develop one that a) creates the conditions that will allow the buildings to collapse, b) has a reasonable possibility for it being executed without detection, c) is backed by some group that has the money and the resources to do the job, d) has the ability to sway a whole slew of people to produce multiple products that ignore the explanation of the real cause, e) has a damn good reason to go out on a limb to make it happen, f) and do this under the spotlight of every media organization in the world without anyone on the team – from top to bottom – ever letting on.

I will admit that there probably are  gaping holes in the 9/11 Commission report, but I am willing to bet that they got most of the facts right. Just as I know there are holes in the Warren Commission report, but in the end, I suspect that they got the facts basically right.

This basically holds true for all conspiracies.

Don’t get me started on the military pulling off an operation of this magnitude, even a rogue group of Special Operations folks. The movies make them look like miracle workers … and I won’t deny that they are pretty damn good, but they still put their pants on the same way the rest of do and have to tie their shoelaces just like anyone else and are just as prone to have Mr. Murphy riding on their shoulders as anyone else. There has never been a military operation at any time that went off without a hitch.

The best one of those has to have been the Israeli raid on Entebbe to rescue a planeload of hostages, which succeeded. However, it still left one person behind, had one rescuer KIA and basically everybody knew about it and who did it within 24 hours.

Of course, I could be stupid, blind and ignorant and maybe all those movie magical toys do exist and there is some super-secret organization that kills all its members who might leak any information about its operations when they come back.

You believe that? Well, then look at the book just released on the takedown of Osama bin Laden. That is my exhibit No. 1.

There are engines and there are planes

Inspectors find cracks on second Dreamliner engine

I want to hand to the inspectors, they have done their job.

Now, rather than crack the whip at Boeing, I think somebody needs to crack the whip at General Electric Aviation’s engine plant.

It was the engines, not the plane that didn’t function correctly, CNN, and those engines are not just in use on the new Boeing Dreamliner, but also on the latest model of the Boeing 747-8, which has four of them and they are in service in at least 10 more airlines. So, how many have cracks on the 747s. I mean we are talking about maybe 10 engines on the 787s and more than 40 on the 747s. So, it was not the airframe, so don’t blame the airframe.

OK, I used to write headlines for a living, and I know how a headline can screw up a story. But the headline and the story miss the story … which is GEAv has some engine problems again. Remember, GE? Whose CEO is a BFF to the president and supposedly didn’t pay a lick in corporate income taxes the other year? Not saying there is any connection. Just an interesting confluence of facts.

Another air oopsie – with CNN right on the spot.

American Airlines seems to be going into the ditch these days. It seems that another symbol of U.S. passenger flight is about to bite the dust. Now, not only does it have problems in bankruptcy court, it also has an ongoing problem with at least its pilots union.

This problem, apparently a row of seats became unanchored in flight on two different Boeing 757s, seems to be another problem for the airline to deal with.

Now, if I was a conspiracy minded fellow, I could see all sorts of links here, all of them lined up on the unions.

The 787 is assembled in South Carolina (a Right to Work state,) where the plant is not unionized and the union tried to get the National Labor Relations Board to force Boeing to unionize the plant or build it (after it was almost completed) in Seattle,. Washington, where the Boeing plants are unionized. That didn’t fly, but you can’t fault them for trying. Only problem is the engines are built in Cincinnati where the plant is unionized (Ohio being a big state for unions)

Now, you have two more Boeing planes with seats coming out of their bolts. MMM … now we could have the mechanics union working with the pilots union to make American look bad, or maybe they just want Boeing to look bad.

I’ve got it, they all are a bunch of Airbus plants trying to discredit the American aircraft industry. I told you, I am good at seeing conspiracies when they aren’t there.

Anyway, for what it is worth, you still are safer in a commercial airliner than you are on the ground .. even driving just to and from work or the store.

Conspiracies: Tactics versus logistics

9/11 Truthers
I have been having an interesting discussion with another of my progressive friends out west. This person, methinks, that I am a raving idiot, but I don’t return the favor. I just blame the differences in our world prisms.
The contention, in the above link, is that the three World Trade Center buildings (1,2 and 7) were not brought down by factors related to the impact of the two passenger jets that struck Towers 1 and 2, but a government-caused controlled demolition. While I respect the sincerity of the people in the 90-minute video, I also respectfully disagree.
Why do I have a problem with their argument? Well, it goes back to something you are taught in the military, especially if your career lasts long enough:
Amateurs talk/think/are concerned with tactics, while professionals talk/think/are concerned with logistics.
In short, you can have the best tactics and equipment in the world, but if you don’t have the logistics to get them to where you need them to be utilized and the ability to support them, then they are useless.
So, you can argue all day long about “how” the World Trade Center buildings actually collapsed and, in the end, you will basically have an argument about the tactics (physics) of how the buildings came down.
The question then has to revolve around how those physics came into play and, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, that is where if you rule everything else out, then even the most improbable of answer comes into play … which usually is the simplest or Occam’s Razor solution.
Note, while I respect the points made in the video, I am reminded that not all evidence is equal … and often, in science, you find what you are looking for, not for what is there. They make that point about the “official” and “unofficial” reports that support the hypothesis that the planes (and their hijackers) ultimately were responsible for the structural failures.
The problem I have with all government/military conspiracies is that they depend on absolute secrecy and the integrity of that secrecy. I am sorry, but that never happens, at least not when you are dealing with more than one human being.
So, to assume the people in the video are correct:

1. First you have to have someone who has the skills, capabilities and resources to achieve the objective. Obviously, this is not something you can pull off on the spur of the moment. It takes considerable planning and preparations. Note that even Al Qaeda took years to get their people trained and into place. So, you are talking about years for someone or some organization, resources (money) and foresight to train the operatives who were to place the exotic explosives along with appropriate control devices, as well as have someone develop the exotic explosives and control devices. This type of training would be impossible to keep secret. These types of explosives and control devices also would be very difficult to keep secret.
2. Second, you would have to find a way to model what you wanted done, and then apply that modeling to the structures involved. That, the demolition expert would tell you, is not done on the drop of a hat, but takes considerable time to develop the optimum method to achieve the objective. So, what you are talking about is a group of people who can go unobserved, basically, for several months – if not years – in the three buildings preparing the explosives for their eventual use. Is this possible? Theoretically, possibly; practically, no. Somebody not involved in the effort is going to notice something that should not be there.
3. Third, you would have to arrange a suitable “cover” to give an alternate explanation to the event … otherwise, you are leaving a trail that leads back to you. That would mean, in this case, that the hijackings had to have been government-inspired/controlled. Are you serious? The US government? The one that routinely can’t find its left hand with its right, much less has any clue what it is doing. Even the best of the best, like Seal Team Six and the 160^th Aviation Regiment (Special Operations), have things go wrong – big time wrong. Witness the “oops” with the helicopter left in Pakistan when ST6 people assassinated Osama Bin Laden.

Assuming all that is correct, then exactly what would be the motive? Invading Afghanistan? Get real. Invading Iraq? No one seriously thought Iraq was involved in 9-11. (Yes, Saddam was busy helping all sorts of terrorists, just not the ones involved in 9-11) Helping Halliburton? Give me a break. Ok, helping the military/industrial complex? Hello, ever heard of herding cats? Defense contractors are very much like cats; they are out for themselves and not the industry.
So, to believe the 9-11 Truthers (like the Birthers),  you have to suspend all the disbelief about what is accomplishable logistically, and accept their view that what happened tactically is the only possible explanation.
Now, I am not saying I am an expert on anything (although I was trained how to use explosives and how they are made and what they are made of), it just seems to beggar belief to accept the dogma of the Truthers. For, no matter how or what caused the buildings to collapse, you have to answer the questions of who did it, how they did it and why they did it. This is not just an intellectual exercise of what if. Just saying, but it couldn’t have happened that way, doesn’t wash. Not when there are competing theories out there. You have to answer the total package.
Unfortunately, their explanation doesn’t. The various reports pointing to 19 terrorists hijacking aircraft being the proximate cause does. It may seem improbable, but the others have to be ruled out due to lack of evidence to support the entire package.