Monday, December 31, 2012
Guns don't kill, people with guns do...
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Reality vs Lies...
Every society has its history...some prefer truth, but many Americans prefer myth. That's why we keep hearing about how great the economy was under the Great Reagan. The truth is that we haven't had a "great" economy since LBJ left office.
Note that average economic growth as a percentage of GDP enjoyed its sharpest rise and reached a post WW II high of almost 5.5% under Kennedy and remained above 5% under LBJ. Also note that during almost all of that period that Democrats had a super majority in both the House and the Senate, the only period of any length in which either major party has controlled all three key areas since WW II. We haven't seen even 4% since.
Then note the sharp plunge under Nixon and Ford, and the recovery under Carter, which Reagan, who raised taxes 11 times in 8 years, parlayed into a modest improvement. Then note the sharp decline under GHW Bush, the sharp rise under Clinton to a good bit better than Reagan, the steepest decline since the Great Depression under W Bush.
In fact, three of the top four average GDP growth periods came under Democrat Presidents, while three of the lowest four came under Republicans.
So by all means, hang onto your myths, suckers.
Note that average economic growth as a percentage of GDP enjoyed its sharpest rise and reached a post WW II high of almost 5.5% under Kennedy and remained above 5% under LBJ. Also note that during almost all of that period that Democrats had a super majority in both the House and the Senate, the only period of any length in which either major party has controlled all three key areas since WW II. We haven't seen even 4% since.
Then note the sharp plunge under Nixon and Ford, and the recovery under Carter, which Reagan, who raised taxes 11 times in 8 years, parlayed into a modest improvement. Then note the sharp decline under GHW Bush, the sharp rise under Clinton to a good bit better than Reagan, the steepest decline since the Great Depression under W Bush.
In fact, three of the top four average GDP growth periods came under Democrat Presidents, while three of the lowest four came under Republicans.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Get bigger than a bull...no bull!
Here is how your Mk-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) will look in its fashionable H-912 backpack style transport container.
If you want to carry it as a concealed weapon, you can just wrap a bundle of sticks around it, as shown here in actual use in Afghanistan. The women, of course, are not really women…just SpecOps guys in drag. Women are too weak and fragile to be allowed in actual combat. For just how fragile they are, see the post about Major Mary Jennings Hegar below (older posts).
For other suggestions, see one of the gun nuts at your local sheriff's office. They have many creative ideas on how to conceal weapons.
The Mk-54 SADM comes with a conversion kit for use with your recoilless rifle. If you don't yet have a recoilless rifle, just ask around the neighborhood. Your local gun nut probably has a couple of spare ones stowed in his basement.
Now you can ignore those penis enlargement ads on the internet. Owning your own SADM and recoilless rifle will make yours feel way bigger.
If you want to carry it as a concealed weapon, you can just wrap a bundle of sticks around it, as shown here in actual use in Afghanistan. The women, of course, are not really women…just SpecOps guys in drag. Women are too weak and fragile to be allowed in actual combat. For just how fragile they are, see the post about Major Mary Jennings Hegar below (older posts).For other suggestions, see one of the gun nuts at your local sheriff's office. They have many creative ideas on how to conceal weapons.
Now you can ignore those penis enlargement ads on the internet. Owning your own SADM and recoilless rifle will make yours feel way bigger.
Insanity today...
Who is the biggest fool? This man...
Who said that the Sandy Hook shootings were caused by birth control pills, iPhones, evolution and homosexuals.
Or the morons who created this:
Who said that the Sandy Hook shootings were caused by birth control pills, iPhones, evolution and homosexuals.
Or the morons who created this:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Sissy Call...
Did this ever happen to you?
Well, here's the answer, big boy...next time, take this with you to the beach...it's legal in North Carolina and most other red(neck) states...
Brought to you by the NRA and the Republican Party
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Peter and the Wolf...
Part of a version featuring Sting
Sex, lies & videotape...minus the sex and videotape...
Wow, got this done sooner than expected. Again apologize for length, but if we want to know what is really going on, we have to invest a little time. You can sure as hell read this in much less time than it took me to create it.
This "news" article appeared in the Wall Street Journal about four weeks before election day. It is a perfect example of how low the Wall Street Journal has fallen. My comments are in yellow.
MIDDLE EAST NEWS
Updated October 9, 2012, 7:13 p.m. ET
Report Finds Iran Is Closer to Weapons-Grade Fuel
By JAY SOLOMON
WASHINGTON—Iran has advanced its nuclear program to where it will be able to produce weapons-grade fuel in two to four months, nuclear experts and former United Nations inspectors said. (The sources cited are not who the article says they are and the premise of the lead is extremely misleading, not to mention the headline)
The new assessments feed growing alarm in the U.S., Europe and Israel that efforts to deny Tehran a nuclear-weapons capability could be rendered futile by as early as next summer. (None of which is true)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. General Assembly last month that the international community needed to be prepared to strike Iran's nuclear sites by the summer. (Netanyahu does not meet the criteria for the "experts" cited in the lead, yet becomes the first source cited. The headline and the article itself reflect his uninformed political opinions, which are well known throughout the world)
Iran denies it is pursuing atomic weapons and says its nuclear work is solely for civilian purposes. U.S. officials said they believe Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet to make the political decision to acquire a nuclear bomb. (Mostly correct, but it is not belief…we know for sure that Khamenei has not made any decision to acquire a nuclear weapon)
The state of Iran's nuclear program has become a major foreign-policy issue in this year's U.S. presidential election. Republican candidate Mitt Romney has charged President Barack Obama with being soft on confronting Iran. The White House said its sanctions aimed at pressing Iranian leaders to bend to international demands have fueled a 40% fall in the value of the Iranian currency in the past two weeks. (The true reason for the article…to further the political purposes of Mitt Romney)
The Institute for Science and International Security, an independent research institute in Washington with former U.N. inspectors on its staff, concluded in a report this week that Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for one atomic bomb, about 25 kilograms, in two to four months using its largest uranium-enrichment facility near the city of Natanz. (The Institute for Science and International Security [ISIS] is essentially a one man operation headed by David Albright, MS. He likes to refer to himself as a "nuclear physicist" but only holds a MS in physics and an MS in mathematics, both of which would qualify him to teach at a community college. His knowledge of the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility is about the same as mine)
The ISIS report offered a faster timeline than Mr. Netanyahu presented to the U.N. on Sept. 27 because of Tehran's growing stockpile of higher-enriched uranium and its expanding numbers of centrifuge machines. The Israeli leader said Iran is expected to have acquired enough higher-enriched uranium by spring or summer to begin conversion to weapons grade. He said Iran then could construct its first nuclear bomb within several weeks or months. (Again, this info comes from Netanyahu, who has political reasons to attempt to frighten people, but no actual knowledge of any of this. In fact, his own intelligence people contradict what he says)
ISIS bases its conclusions almost solely on information released by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA said in its most recent report in August that Tehran had doubled its capacity to produce 20% enriched uranium at its underground facility near the holy city of Qom. But the IAEA didn't offer a timeline for when Iran might be able to produce weapons-grade fuel. (Actually, ISIS ignored the IAEA report and manufactured its own conclusions)
The think tank said Tehran could combine its stockpiles of low-enriched and higher-enriched uranium to make a dash for weapons-grade fuel, which is around 90% purity. The Iranians could do that by synchronizing the enrichment of these two grades of uranium and cutting out some intermediary steps that slow the process, ISIS said. (This is not scientifically accurate, nor economically possible)
"Growth in the stock of near 20% [purity] reduces the time to break out," ISIS said in its report. (Same as above)
Iran has a stockpile 91.4 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% purity, according to the IAEA. An additional 25 kilograms of the material is committed for conversion into fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor. (Correct)
ISIS said its faster estimates for Iran acquiring the highly enriched uranium would require Tehran to use its total stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. (Irrelevant)
The institute played down Mr. Netanyahu's assertion that Iran could quickly convert the weapons-grade fuel into a usable atomic bomb. "Iran would need many additional months to manufacture a nuclear device suitable for underground testing and even longer to make a reliable warhead for a ballistic missile," the report said. (Now the reporter admits that even ISIS disagrees with Netanyahu's assessment and his own, but buried well down in the article)
U.S. officials believe Iran would need 12 to 18 months to build an atomic weapon if Mr. Khamenei gives the order. The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a controversial 2007 report that Tehran had ended a structured program to build an atomic bomb four years earlier, though some research is believed to have continued. (US officials do not believe that Iran can develop an atomic weapon in 12-18 months. The only controversy about the 2007 report came from Netanyahu and other pro-Israeli war hawks)
IAEA officials have said recently that they believe the suspected head of Iran's nuclear-weapons studies, scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, reopened a scientific office last year. And the U.N. agency has been pressing Iran, so far unsuccessfully, to allow it to visit a military facility south of Tehran, called Parchin, where the IAEA believes nuclear-weapons related tests had occurred. (Mostly true, but pretty much irrelevant)
The Obama administration has voiced concerns about the threat posed by Iran's production of higher-enriched uranium. But U.S. officials have stressed that the IAEA would detect any moves by Iran to reconfigure their centrifuge machines to begin producing weapons-grade fuel. (True, but irrelevant in the context of this article)
IAEA inspectors visit the sites in Natanz and Qom around twice a month. The agency also has cameras monitoring the sites. (True)
Iran, however, has indicated in recent months that it may further limit its cooperation with the IAEA. (As they always have)
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, charged the Vienna-based agency last month with trying to sabotage Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities by cutting off electricity supply. (True, but irrelevant in the context of this story)
Iran also has accused the IAEA of being complicit in the murders of five Iranian nuclear scientists over the past five years and spying for Western countries. The IAEA has denied these charges. (True, but irrelevant in the context of this article)
"If the IAEA has to end or limit these inspections, there could be a serious problem," said Olli Heinonen, a former chief weapons inspector at the agency, during a presentation on Tuesday in Washington. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering)
Both Mr. Heinonen and ISIS said that the underground facility at Qom is playing an increasingly central role in Iran's nuclear-fuel production. The facility is buried deep underground and seen as potentially impervious to attacks. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering)
Currently, the Qom site is seen as incapable of quickly producing highly enriched uranium because of the dearth of centrifuges currently operating there. But the IAEA said in August that over 2,000 machines could be operating there shortly. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering. Our time on earth "could" end on December 22, or any other day)
Still, ISIS said in the report that it doesn't expect Iran to "break out" in the next year, because of the high likelihood that such moves would be detected by the IAEA and lead to an American or Israeli military strike. (Finally, a bit of truth)
"Iran's current trajectory at [the Qom facility] is increasing the chance of a military confrontation, particularly given growing concern about the relatively short breakout time," ISIS said. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering)
------------------------------------------
Two things that we do know:
1. Iran is the only country in Southwest Asia that has a functioning nuclear reactor for civilian power production, a legacy of a US program from almost 50 years ago to export nuclear power to the rest of the world.
2. Israel is the only country in Southwest Asia that has nuclear weapons. They do not have a functioning nuclear reactor for civilian power production.
The White House, the Pentagon, US intelligence, the IAEA, Israeli intelligence and the Israeli military command (but not Mr. Netanyahu), all agree on three things:
1. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon
2. Iran is not now building a nuclear weapon
3. Iran has not even made a decision as to whether they want to build a nuclear weapon
So I guess the question is, why was the above Wall Street Journal article written in the first place? If you have an IQ above 85 or so, I bet you can figure that out for yourself.
This "news" article appeared in the Wall Street Journal about four weeks before election day. It is a perfect example of how low the Wall Street Journal has fallen. My comments are in yellow.
MIDDLE EAST NEWS
Updated October 9, 2012, 7:13 p.m. ET
Report Finds Iran Is Closer to Weapons-Grade Fuel
By JAY SOLOMON
WASHINGTON—Iran has advanced its nuclear program to where it will be able to produce weapons-grade fuel in two to four months, nuclear experts and former United Nations inspectors said. (The sources cited are not who the article says they are and the premise of the lead is extremely misleading, not to mention the headline)
The new assessments feed growing alarm in the U.S., Europe and Israel that efforts to deny Tehran a nuclear-weapons capability could be rendered futile by as early as next summer. (None of which is true)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. General Assembly last month that the international community needed to be prepared to strike Iran's nuclear sites by the summer. (Netanyahu does not meet the criteria for the "experts" cited in the lead, yet becomes the first source cited. The headline and the article itself reflect his uninformed political opinions, which are well known throughout the world)
Iran denies it is pursuing atomic weapons and says its nuclear work is solely for civilian purposes. U.S. officials said they believe Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet to make the political decision to acquire a nuclear bomb. (Mostly correct, but it is not belief…we know for sure that Khamenei has not made any decision to acquire a nuclear weapon)
The state of Iran's nuclear program has become a major foreign-policy issue in this year's U.S. presidential election. Republican candidate Mitt Romney has charged President Barack Obama with being soft on confronting Iran. The White House said its sanctions aimed at pressing Iranian leaders to bend to international demands have fueled a 40% fall in the value of the Iranian currency in the past two weeks. (The true reason for the article…to further the political purposes of Mitt Romney)
The Institute for Science and International Security, an independent research institute in Washington with former U.N. inspectors on its staff, concluded in a report this week that Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for one atomic bomb, about 25 kilograms, in two to four months using its largest uranium-enrichment facility near the city of Natanz. (The Institute for Science and International Security [ISIS] is essentially a one man operation headed by David Albright, MS. He likes to refer to himself as a "nuclear physicist" but only holds a MS in physics and an MS in mathematics, both of which would qualify him to teach at a community college. His knowledge of the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility is about the same as mine)
The ISIS report offered a faster timeline than Mr. Netanyahu presented to the U.N. on Sept. 27 because of Tehran's growing stockpile of higher-enriched uranium and its expanding numbers of centrifuge machines. The Israeli leader said Iran is expected to have acquired enough higher-enriched uranium by spring or summer to begin conversion to weapons grade. He said Iran then could construct its first nuclear bomb within several weeks or months. (Again, this info comes from Netanyahu, who has political reasons to attempt to frighten people, but no actual knowledge of any of this. In fact, his own intelligence people contradict what he says)
ISIS bases its conclusions almost solely on information released by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA said in its most recent report in August that Tehran had doubled its capacity to produce 20% enriched uranium at its underground facility near the holy city of Qom. But the IAEA didn't offer a timeline for when Iran might be able to produce weapons-grade fuel. (Actually, ISIS ignored the IAEA report and manufactured its own conclusions)
The think tank said Tehran could combine its stockpiles of low-enriched and higher-enriched uranium to make a dash for weapons-grade fuel, which is around 90% purity. The Iranians could do that by synchronizing the enrichment of these two grades of uranium and cutting out some intermediary steps that slow the process, ISIS said. (This is not scientifically accurate, nor economically possible)
"Growth in the stock of near 20% [purity] reduces the time to break out," ISIS said in its report. (Same as above)
Iran has a stockpile 91.4 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% purity, according to the IAEA. An additional 25 kilograms of the material is committed for conversion into fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor. (Correct)
ISIS said its faster estimates for Iran acquiring the highly enriched uranium would require Tehran to use its total stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. (Irrelevant)
The institute played down Mr. Netanyahu's assertion that Iran could quickly convert the weapons-grade fuel into a usable atomic bomb. "Iran would need many additional months to manufacture a nuclear device suitable for underground testing and even longer to make a reliable warhead for a ballistic missile," the report said. (Now the reporter admits that even ISIS disagrees with Netanyahu's assessment and his own, but buried well down in the article)
U.S. officials believe Iran would need 12 to 18 months to build an atomic weapon if Mr. Khamenei gives the order. The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a controversial 2007 report that Tehran had ended a structured program to build an atomic bomb four years earlier, though some research is believed to have continued. (US officials do not believe that Iran can develop an atomic weapon in 12-18 months. The only controversy about the 2007 report came from Netanyahu and other pro-Israeli war hawks)
IAEA officials have said recently that they believe the suspected head of Iran's nuclear-weapons studies, scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, reopened a scientific office last year. And the U.N. agency has been pressing Iran, so far unsuccessfully, to allow it to visit a military facility south of Tehran, called Parchin, where the IAEA believes nuclear-weapons related tests had occurred. (Mostly true, but pretty much irrelevant)
The Obama administration has voiced concerns about the threat posed by Iran's production of higher-enriched uranium. But U.S. officials have stressed that the IAEA would detect any moves by Iran to reconfigure their centrifuge machines to begin producing weapons-grade fuel. (True, but irrelevant in the context of this article)
IAEA inspectors visit the sites in Natanz and Qom around twice a month. The agency also has cameras monitoring the sites. (True)
Iran, however, has indicated in recent months that it may further limit its cooperation with the IAEA. (As they always have)
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, charged the Vienna-based agency last month with trying to sabotage Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities by cutting off electricity supply. (True, but irrelevant in the context of this story)
Iran also has accused the IAEA of being complicit in the murders of five Iranian nuclear scientists over the past five years and spying for Western countries. The IAEA has denied these charges. (True, but irrelevant in the context of this article)
"If the IAEA has to end or limit these inspections, there could be a serious problem," said Olli Heinonen, a former chief weapons inspector at the agency, during a presentation on Tuesday in Washington. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering)
Both Mr. Heinonen and ISIS said that the underground facility at Qom is playing an increasingly central role in Iran's nuclear-fuel production. The facility is buried deep underground and seen as potentially impervious to attacks. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering)
Currently, the Qom site is seen as incapable of quickly producing highly enriched uranium because of the dearth of centrifuges currently operating there. But the IAEA said in August that over 2,000 machines could be operating there shortly. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering. Our time on earth "could" end on December 22, or any other day)
Still, ISIS said in the report that it doesn't expect Iran to "break out" in the next year, because of the high likelihood that such moves would be detected by the IAEA and lead to an American or Israeli military strike. (Finally, a bit of truth)
"Iran's current trajectory at [the Qom facility] is increasing the chance of a military confrontation, particularly given growing concern about the relatively short breakout time," ISIS said. (Speculation and irrelevant fear mongering)
------------------------------------------
Two things that we do know:
1. Iran is the only country in Southwest Asia that has a functioning nuclear reactor for civilian power production, a legacy of a US program from almost 50 years ago to export nuclear power to the rest of the world.
2. Israel is the only country in Southwest Asia that has nuclear weapons. They do not have a functioning nuclear reactor for civilian power production.
The White House, the Pentagon, US intelligence, the IAEA, Israeli intelligence and the Israeli military command (but not Mr. Netanyahu), all agree on three things:
1. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon
2. Iran is not now building a nuclear weapon
3. Iran has not even made a decision as to whether they want to build a nuclear weapon
So I guess the question is, why was the above Wall Street Journal article written in the first place? If you have an IQ above 85 or so, I bet you can figure that out for yourself.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Reliable news...
Once upon a time getting the news was fairly easy. For us locals, that meant the Winston-Salem Journal, WSJS radio and Walter Cronkite or Huntley-Brinkley. If you needed more, the New York Times. And if you were interested in economics and finance, The Wall Street Journal and The Economist. And around town, a bit of word of mouth or gossip, whichever you like to call it.
But cable television and the internet have produced a bewildering array of "news" sources, the vast majority of which are not reliable. The fierce competition for reader and viewership has led to headline and sound bite "journalism" that can range from pure sensationalism to outright deception.
So how do you determine whether a news source is reliable or not? One way is to look out for and avoid sensationalist headlines. Today I noticed such a headline on the once reliable Wall Street Journal website.
Dozens? Just how many is that? Once upon a time there were some hard and fast rules about the use of the word "dozens" in headlines. If the exact number was known, you used that. If not, there was some sort of threshold for "dozens". It wasn't two, nor three...it might be four under certain circumstances, but usually it meant more than that. Some recent examples of actual headlines making the proper use of dozens:
Typhoon Kills Dozens in Philippines (over 80)
Dozens Dined In Style for Good Cause (around 200)
Dozens to don Santa suits for 'SantaCon' pub crawl (about 100)
Dozens of militants seen in Mali city of Timbuktu (over 90)
Twin Blasts Kill Dozens In Damascus (over 50)
But in the case of today's Wall Street Journal headline, the exact number was known and reported in the story, 27, and even if the number had been "about 25", that would not meet the threshold for the use of the word "dozens".
So why did the Wall Street Journal use "dozens"? It wouldn't have 30 years ago, but since it has become a part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, it has followed the Murdoch credo of sensationalism, along with such other Murdoch outlets as the New York Post and Fox "News".
Can you trust news outlets that use sensationalist headlines? Sometimes. In this case, the Wall Street Journal got the story essentially right. But in the case of many articles from Murdoch media, the headline is just the intro to misleading and outright false "information". I'll have a great example of that from The Wall Street Journal soon.
Meanwhile, I will seek information from more reliable sources that don't feel the need to use sensationalism.
But cable television and the internet have produced a bewildering array of "news" sources, the vast majority of which are not reliable. The fierce competition for reader and viewership has led to headline and sound bite "journalism" that can range from pure sensationalism to outright deception.
So how do you determine whether a news source is reliable or not? One way is to look out for and avoid sensationalist headlines. Today I noticed such a headline on the once reliable Wall Street Journal website.
Typhoon Kills Dozens in Philippines (over 80)
Dozens Dined In Style for Good Cause (around 200)
Dozens to don Santa suits for 'SantaCon' pub crawl (about 100)
Dozens of militants seen in Mali city of Timbuktu (over 90)
Twin Blasts Kill Dozens In Damascus (over 50)
But in the case of today's Wall Street Journal headline, the exact number was known and reported in the story, 27, and even if the number had been "about 25", that would not meet the threshold for the use of the word "dozens".
So why did the Wall Street Journal use "dozens"? It wouldn't have 30 years ago, but since it has become a part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, it has followed the Murdoch credo of sensationalism, along with such other Murdoch outlets as the New York Post and Fox "News".
Can you trust news outlets that use sensationalist headlines? Sometimes. In this case, the Wall Street Journal got the story essentially right. But in the case of many articles from Murdoch media, the headline is just the intro to misleading and outright false "information". I'll have a great example of that from The Wall Street Journal soon.
Meanwhile, I will seek information from more reliable sources that don't feel the need to use sensationalism.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wake up, before it's too late...
I apologize in advance for a ridiculously long post, but I have had about all I can take of stupidity.
The legendary American historian Will Durant once wrote that "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." Certainly that is true of the last three "greatest", the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union, all of which were rotten at the core well before they fell.
The United States of America is no different. We have defeated the mighty British in the Revolutionary War, withstood their all-out attempt to retake us in the War of 1812, defeated our own internal demons in the Civil War, played a major role in overcoming Fascism, Nazism and Communism in the 20th century.
But in recent years we have been bedeviled by our own internal conflicts, which have reached a point where our own unique version of Democracy may no longer be able to function. There are many reasons for that, but the most pressing is the same one that brought down both Rome and the Ottomans…a combination of ignorance and arrogance.
George Washington warned against the establishment of political parties, but as great a man as he was, was unable to resist being sucked into the party battle. In his first term, he was the first and only US President elected without any party affiliation. By his second term, he was reluctantly a member of the Democrat-Republican Party.
Over time, party politics have been able to dominate our political process, to the point that today, much of what passes for politics is simply propaganda. The Republican Party, learning from Dr. Joseph Goebbels, who understood that if one repeated something often enough, it would eventually become "true", has become the master of propaganda.
Their greatest triumph has been the acceptance by the general populace and much of the press, even many Democrats, that the GOP stands for fiscal responsibility, while the Democrats are profligate tax and spenders. If you listen to today's soundbite substitute for news, you will believe that the current President is the worst spend and taxer of them all. Of course, you will be wrong, but that has become the Republican way…relying on the ignorance of the populace to get themselves elected.
This chart shows pretty much the opposite is true. It is not based on hysterical pronouncements from Rupert Murdoch's "news" outlets or the jibber-jabber of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or any of the other insane babble from the world of Chicken Little, but on simple figures supplied by the Congressional Budget Office.
As can be seen, even the first sharp increase in the deficit in the 20th century, during the totally corrupt Harding administration, was a nearly invisible blip in the chain of events. The first truly visible increase occurred during Herbert Hoover's administration at the outset of the stock market crash and the Great Depression, the result of eight years of corrupt and careless Republican administration.
The rise in the deficit during the early FDR years was not that sharp…his final average is the result of the outbreak of World War II as government revenues lagged the cost of prosecuting the war.
Truman benefited from the sharp drop in spending that accompanied the war's end, again lagging revenue. The Eisenhower administration quickly corrected Truman back to a normal level. After that, during the Kennedy/Johnson years, things remained normal, even through the Nixon years.
No one has ever been able to adequately explain what happened during the Ford administration, but it was the beginning of a discernible trend that has separated the parties ever since. The much vilified Carter brought the deficit back to the norm, but the "Great Reagan" led the first real breakout to craziness. He raised numerous taxes numerous times, yet found a way to dramatically increase the deficit. His successor, GHW Bush, actually began a decrease, but was booted from office for breaking his promise not to raise taxes. It is about there that stupidity began to claim America.
But we had an interregnum, as Bill Clinton moved to the center and continued GHW Bush's deficit reduction until it reached the lowest point since Truman. That would probably have continued, except that the US Supreme Court decided to pre-empt the voters in 2000 and put into office the biggest bunch of fools in American history.
GHW Bush's son W. became titular President, but his administration was actually run by the "neocon" wing of his party, most prominently Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their ilk. They believed in Reagan's craziest thing, "trickle down" economics, and the "fact" that deficits didn't matter, and also bought into the ridiculous idea that Reagan had, by talking tough, brought down the Soviet Union in a matter of a few years. Cheney and Rumsfeld especially were eager to demonstrate that American military power could rule the world.
So they managed to start two ridiculous unfunded wars while their dummy Bush was busy slashing taxes. You can see the result on the chart. In fact, I have divided the chart into two parts for the great W. era…the first covers only his first seven years, to give yo an idea of how the "neocon" policies worked to perfection, increasing the deficit geometrically by more than all previous deficit increases in American history.
The second W. Bush entry shows what happened in his last year as the neocon policies resulted in the crash of the economy, a deficit increase that outstripped all single year deficit increases in recorded history.
Of course, the ignorati drumbeat since the Bush years tells you that the Obama administration has continued the deficit increase. If you are foolish enough to believe that, then you are part of the problem. On the other hand, the decrease shown under Obama is a bit unfair. He has had the advantage of working against the astronomical rise of the Bush years. Still, his accomplishments should be enough to put the lie to the GOP BS. Of course, that will not happen.
As Pogo said more than once, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The legendary American historian Will Durant once wrote that "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." Certainly that is true of the last three "greatest", the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union, all of which were rotten at the core well before they fell.
The United States of America is no different. We have defeated the mighty British in the Revolutionary War, withstood their all-out attempt to retake us in the War of 1812, defeated our own internal demons in the Civil War, played a major role in overcoming Fascism, Nazism and Communism in the 20th century.
But in recent years we have been bedeviled by our own internal conflicts, which have reached a point where our own unique version of Democracy may no longer be able to function. There are many reasons for that, but the most pressing is the same one that brought down both Rome and the Ottomans…a combination of ignorance and arrogance.
George Washington warned against the establishment of political parties, but as great a man as he was, was unable to resist being sucked into the party battle. In his first term, he was the first and only US President elected without any party affiliation. By his second term, he was reluctantly a member of the Democrat-Republican Party.
Over time, party politics have been able to dominate our political process, to the point that today, much of what passes for politics is simply propaganda. The Republican Party, learning from Dr. Joseph Goebbels, who understood that if one repeated something often enough, it would eventually become "true", has become the master of propaganda.
Their greatest triumph has been the acceptance by the general populace and much of the press, even many Democrats, that the GOP stands for fiscal responsibility, while the Democrats are profligate tax and spenders. If you listen to today's soundbite substitute for news, you will believe that the current President is the worst spend and taxer of them all. Of course, you will be wrong, but that has become the Republican way…relying on the ignorance of the populace to get themselves elected.
This chart shows pretty much the opposite is true. It is not based on hysterical pronouncements from Rupert Murdoch's "news" outlets or the jibber-jabber of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or any of the other insane babble from the world of Chicken Little, but on simple figures supplied by the Congressional Budget Office.
As can be seen, even the first sharp increase in the deficit in the 20th century, during the totally corrupt Harding administration, was a nearly invisible blip in the chain of events. The first truly visible increase occurred during Herbert Hoover's administration at the outset of the stock market crash and the Great Depression, the result of eight years of corrupt and careless Republican administration.
The rise in the deficit during the early FDR years was not that sharp…his final average is the result of the outbreak of World War II as government revenues lagged the cost of prosecuting the war.
Truman benefited from the sharp drop in spending that accompanied the war's end, again lagging revenue. The Eisenhower administration quickly corrected Truman back to a normal level. After that, during the Kennedy/Johnson years, things remained normal, even through the Nixon years.
No one has ever been able to adequately explain what happened during the Ford administration, but it was the beginning of a discernible trend that has separated the parties ever since. The much vilified Carter brought the deficit back to the norm, but the "Great Reagan" led the first real breakout to craziness. He raised numerous taxes numerous times, yet found a way to dramatically increase the deficit. His successor, GHW Bush, actually began a decrease, but was booted from office for breaking his promise not to raise taxes. It is about there that stupidity began to claim America.
But we had an interregnum, as Bill Clinton moved to the center and continued GHW Bush's deficit reduction until it reached the lowest point since Truman. That would probably have continued, except that the US Supreme Court decided to pre-empt the voters in 2000 and put into office the biggest bunch of fools in American history.
GHW Bush's son W. became titular President, but his administration was actually run by the "neocon" wing of his party, most prominently Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their ilk. They believed in Reagan's craziest thing, "trickle down" economics, and the "fact" that deficits didn't matter, and also bought into the ridiculous idea that Reagan had, by talking tough, brought down the Soviet Union in a matter of a few years. Cheney and Rumsfeld especially were eager to demonstrate that American military power could rule the world.
So they managed to start two ridiculous unfunded wars while their dummy Bush was busy slashing taxes. You can see the result on the chart. In fact, I have divided the chart into two parts for the great W. era…the first covers only his first seven years, to give yo an idea of how the "neocon" policies worked to perfection, increasing the deficit geometrically by more than all previous deficit increases in American history.
The second W. Bush entry shows what happened in his last year as the neocon policies resulted in the crash of the economy, a deficit increase that outstripped all single year deficit increases in recorded history.
Of course, the ignorati drumbeat since the Bush years tells you that the Obama administration has continued the deficit increase. If you are foolish enough to believe that, then you are part of the problem. On the other hand, the decrease shown under Obama is a bit unfair. He has had the advantage of working against the astronomical rise of the Bush years. Still, his accomplishments should be enough to put the lie to the GOP BS. Of course, that will not happen.
As Pogo said more than once, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Who is this harridan...
Asked about climate change in advance of her upcoming speech at an energy summit, she said:
"Everybody has an opinion on it, you know, and I probably don't believe that it's man-made. I believe that, you know, that weather and certain elements are controlled maybe by different things."
Yes, and everybody has an opinion on whether you should bathe your cat. Difficult to believe that this is a quote from the governor of a US state, but then I grew up with governors like Luther Hodges and Terry Sanford and Mark Hatfield and G. Mennen Williams and George Romney and Averell Harriman and Nelson Rockefeller and Christian Herter and Earl Warren and Pat Brown and Bill Scranton and other people who had brains and spoke the English language.
Should people like this even be speaking at an energy summit? Imagine if we had put people like Paul Ryan on the team that won the race to produce the first atomic bomb. Or put Todd Aiken in charge of research at Johns Hopkins.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Women In Combat...
This woman has more guts than you do, big boy!
Women Warriors Are On the Battlefield. Eliminate Outdated, Unfair Military Combat Exclusion Policy
Major Mary Jennings Hegar served three tours over two deployments to Afghanistan, and trained as a California Air National Guard Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) pilot after serving 5 years in the Air Force. She was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for heroism while participating in an aerial mission near Kandahar Airfield on July 29, 2009.She is currently a plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit challenging the military’s policy excluding women from many combat positions.
When I was little, people would ask me, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” I’d always answer, “I want to be an Air Force pilot.” I never understood why they would look so surprised. To this day, that same part of me doesn’t understand why someone’s gender would have any bearing at all on what job they ended up in. I always thought that your skills, strengths, and interests would be better qualifiers. I remember watching the news when I was in high school and hearing that they were opening combat aircraft up to women for the first time. My first thought was, “Cool! What do I need to do to get one!” followed closely by my second thought, “What changed? Why weren’t we allowed to fly in combat before?”
Since those days, I’ve truly been living my dream. I’ve been through years of vigorous, challenging, sometimes brutal training. I excelled in the academic, flying, and physical fitness arenas. I never doubted I could do this job. SERE training (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) was the most intense physical and mental test I’ve been through to date, and successfully completing that course convinced me that I could do anything. But, despite these accomplishments, I have faced a great deal of discrimination during my career. The most unfortunate example was as a brand new co-pilot on my first tour in Afghanistan.
I was very eager and excited to finally be “hacking the mission” in Afghanistan in 2007. My first crew was amazing, and together we flew hundreds of missions saving the lives of soldiers and civilians alike. You would never have guessed that before our first flight my Aerial Gunner had to be ordered to fly with me over his objections to flying into combat with a woman. When I confronted him about it, he said that he didn’t think I could carry my weight in an evasion situation if we were to find ourselves shot down over enemy lines. He used the combat exclusion policy as substantiation for his prejudice, stating that if women were his equal then the Air Force would let them be Pararescuemen and Combat Controllers (two jobs closed to women then and now). He didn’t take into consideration the fact that I had become somewhat of an expert on the local area, learning some of the language and landmarks, or that I was the only expert marksman (in both of my weapons) on the crew. Instead of seeing my strengths and how I could contribute to an evading crew, he only saw my gender. However, I was able to prove him wrong in 2009.
On my third tour to Afghanistan, my crew and I were flying a Medevac mission to exfiltrate three Category A (“Urgent Surgical”) American soldiers from a convoy which had been ambushed and was pinned down somewhere north of Kandahar. When we landed the first time to offload our Pararescuemen (our Special Forces troops who have medical training and are responsible for going out and getting the patients to the helicopter), the aircraft took a 5.56mm round through the co-pilot windshield which fragmented and impacted my right forearm and thigh in 15 places. On takeoff, the crew discussed returning to base. All it took was my telling them that I was alright and that I thought we should go back in (it’s every Rescue pilot’s nightmare to leave a Pararescueman or survivor on the ground while you go home). There was no overzealous chivalry, no concessions given for gender…just a crew of Americans who refused to fly out of there without everyone on board.
On our second landing, unfortunately, the enemy had repositioned a belt-fed heavy machine gun and proceeded to fill our aircraft with 40 or 50 7.62mm rounds. Crippled, we lifted off and tried to get our patients to safety. However, some of the rounds we took had impacted our fuel system enough that we only made it 1.8 miles. Despite my injuries, I continued to serve my crew as their co-pilot, helping the aircraft commander get the limping aircraft on the ground. We instantly shut down and established a perimeter, receiving fire from the surrounding enemy forces for 20 minutes before being rescued on the skids of the supporting Army OH-58 helicopters. While we lifted off, I was able to ascertain the point of origin of enemy fire being directed at the Pararescuemen who were transferring our patients to our sister ship. I returned fire and suppressed the enemy enough to enable them to safely traverse the terrain between the two aircraft. At no point during this encounter was my gender ever even considered to be a factor in any decision or action taken by any member of my crew. We were warriors on a battlefield with one goal in mind: get everyone - EVERYONE - home safe.
If there is one thing I’ve learned about the differences between us all throughout my years of service, it’s this: putting the right person in the right job has very little to do with one’s gender, race, religion, or other demographic descriptor. It has everything to do with one’s heart, character, ability, determination and dedication.
That’s the problem with the military’s combat exclusion policy. It makes it that much harder for people to see someone’s abilities, and instead reinforces stereotypes about gender. The policy creates the pervasive way of thinking in military and civilian populations that women can’t serve in combat roles, even in the face of the reality that servicewomen in all branches of the military are already fighting for their country alongside their male counterparts. They shoot, they return fire, they drag wounded comrades to safety, they engage the enemy, and they have been doing these heroic deeds since the Revolutionary War. They risk their lives for their country, and the combat exclusion policy does them a great disservice.
I’m proud to be a part of this moment in history, and believe my country will recognize the need to update an antiquated policy that only serves to limit the pool of applicants who want to rise to answer our nation’s call by serving in our military’s most demanding jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)