Loyal Babblers, Pawns, Fellow Travelers, and the Old Guard Losers of the ‘Military Reform Machine’

How to tell who the Faux Military Reform Players are and the name of the ‘Show’… Since they won’t give you the REAL program.

Like many, I frequently begin the day perusing the web over coffee. One of the things I often check for these days is ‘breaking news’ about the F-35. My main interest in keeping on top of the F-35 story has little to do with my past or current associations with the program (contrary to the Crack Circumstantial Ad Hominem Suicide Brigade’s belief). I expect soon I will be shifting to the next big ‘target’ of anti-defense crowd: the Next Gen LRS program just because it will BE the big target like the F-35 today.

Usually, the legionnaires of F-16.net manning their remote keyboard outposts around the globe have the ‘latest and greatest already posted’ before I’m even awake, and I need go no further to find a trailhead for the day’s trek through F-35 Newsdom. Sometimes though, I’ll just ‘Google’ “F-35 News”. Early yesterday just the other day that tactic yielded a ‘jackpot’ of sorts. I’ve been working on a “transonic acceleration” post in the little free time I can find, and will have it up eventually, but I’ve had a post on the back-burner even longer looking for just the right platform on which to roll it out. Today, er Yesterday, I mean TWO THREE FOUR days ago was “THE DAY”… (Delay explained in blub at end of post)

Brad Plummer
'Serious' (Just not when
it comes to "Defense") 

The Great Google spit this article out right at the top yesterday that morning. It’s a pretty vapid lamentation, written by some tech-deficient ‘writer’ named Brad Plumer. The article is titled “This military program lost 100 times as much money as Solyndra — yet no one talks about it”. The article has since begun descending to its rightful place in the deepest depths of Google anonymity. It is also hardly worth mentioning anything in detail about the ‘piece’: Brad does a lousy job trying to draw an analogy between the F-35 program cost increases to Obama’s Poster-Child-for-Crony-Capitalism, aka “Solyndra!”, and he loses all credibility when he reveals he based his overwrought title on an Atlantic ‘piece’ by James Fallows (introduced in some detail to regular readers here), opening with:

James Fallows has a long, excellent essay in this month's Atlantic….

That is our first clue….that Brad doesn’t have one.

I say Brad’s title was “overwrought” because, to quote ‘Brad’, “Fallows estimates that taxpayers could end up losing 100 times as much money on the F-35 as they did on Solyndra”. Annnnd…to quote Brad quoting Fallows:

Total cost overruns, losses through fraud, and other damage to the taxpayer from the F-35 project are perhaps 100 times that great, yet the "Solyndra scandal" is known to probably 100 times as many people as the travails of the F-35.

Setting aside unsupported allegations of ‘fraud’, in what reality do “estimates” and “perhaps” translate into a definitive statement of fact, ESPECIALLY when drooled out of Fallows' pie-hole? To be fair, ‘Brad’ probably had an editor write the title – writers often suffer the editor's imprimatur. If so, then Brad’s editor is a worthless producer of Bulls***. Brad is a worthless producer of Bulls*** for writing the rest of the worthless ‘article’. From his portfolio of writing, it appears Brad has his own agenda for using Fallows ‘piece’ in his interpretive dance-cum-journalism routine. If so, that makes Brad an “Opportunist” and a “Fellow Traveler”. In the ‘Reformer’ sense he is merely a “Pawn” but he could with time work his way up to "Loyal Babbler" if he minds his manners (more on these characterizations later). But Brad’s electronic effluence is only the quick first stop on this journey.

Next Stop: Fallows’ Epic Cultural Hit Piece

James Fallows: Boy Speech 

Writer for the second worst 

President in my life-time 

has parlayed that gig into 

quite a career promoting 

bad ideas. One of Thomas 

Sowell's 'Intellectuals: 

Believes Inconsequential 

Knowledge should have

Consequential application.

So we follow Brad’s link to Fallow’s Atlantic ‘editorial’, where he re-sows some ground in his ‘fallow’ field of left-wing fantasy. This one is ostensibly about an America ‘disconnected’ from its military. He could have titled it ‘An Aging Leftist Regrets His Kind Do Not Enlist’. There’s all kinds of falderal inside the margins. Here’s a short list of Fallows’ most typical foibles that I would feel remiss if I let go by without pointing the reader to them.

1. Fallows expresses a wonderment that the percentage of people who are immediate relations to a (I presume living) veteran has dropped:

Among older Baby Boomers, those born before 1955, at least three-quarters have had an immediate family member—sibling, parent, spouse, child—who served in uniform. Of Americans born since 1980, the Millennials, about one in three is closely related to anyone with military experience.

Yeah, Total War for 5 years (1940-45 counting the call-ups in 1940, 0r 1941-1946 counting the time it took to return home – your choice) and an active ‘draft’ that ran right up to the early 70s will artificially raise the average until a few years past those factors fading won’t it? Want to feel more connected to the ‘Military’ Fallows? Move to a Red State. Then shed every silly Fascist urge you may feel a) to champion America’s return to a military ‘draft’ or b) that doing so would be ‘good for America’.

2. Fallows weaves a tale of cultural media (film, electronic and print publishing) ‘shifts’ in attitudes towards the military and how it is portrayed by the media. He provides enough cultural comparisons between days of yore and now to make the point but yet does so without ever observing that the shift is entirely due to today’s media and entertainment industries being controlled by the Left, not to mention carries the Left’s water on all things anti-military. But of course, if he did, he would be tacitly admitting his own complicity in attempts to ‘manage reality’ wouldn’t he?

3. Fallows drags up the ‘Missed-It-By-This-Much-Darn-You-Gary-Hart-Libido Reformer’: William S. Lind. Lind’s (keeping with the 'hyphenizin') much-debated-at-one-time-and-still-generally-seen-as-‘derivative’ Fourth Generation Warfare ‘shtick’ is used thusly: l

The most curious thing about our four defeats in Fourth Generation War—Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan—is the utter silence in the American officer corps. Defeat in Vietnam bred a generation of military reformers … Today, the landscape is barren. Not a military voice is heard calling for thoughtful, substantive change. Just more money, please.

Perhaps the (asserted) utter silence in the ‘officer corps’ is more due to the widespread knowledge that the cockup ain’t with the military Mr. Lind, but with the ‘political class’ of which you and Fallows belong. The political class these days behave as self-annointed Archons of ‘truth’ with presumptive rights to define reality for the rest of us. The ‘Political Class’: the ones that Goldwater-Nichols’ed the military a generation ago. In Lind’s case here, he attempts to obfuscate what has really been occurring since the latest President took office: a retread of the Left’s canned ‘Vietnam’ strategy. That is the one that illustrates there is no military ‘Victory!’ the American military can secure that the Political Left will not turn into a political defeat if given the chance.

Full disclosure: There's a lot of Lind's stuff I like (see here). It's just that none of it has to do with 'defense'.

Oh, and Lind’s old meal-ticket Gary Hart (as part of his political rehabilitation?) makes a return from exile in an appearance later in Fallows’ dump.

Lind’s contribution actually seems a little out of place, as much of Fallows’ complaints seem pointed at the politicians and ‘Mericunizm in general. But the cognitive dissonance of lamenting a lack of ‘military reformers’ when ‘political reform’ is what is needed is…. palpable.

Fallows’ and Lind’s problem in selling this ‘stuff’ is that there is too much information and too many sources to get the information from for the gatekeepers to control the ‘message’ like they did the first time they hit the scene. Too bad for them.

Franklin C. 'Chuck' Spinney.

Good with 'Cost', lousy with 

'Value' 

Fallows, as a ‘Loyal Babbler’, continues to roll out nearly all the still-active Old Guard Faux-Reformers from his National Defense days. (If you must read it, please check it out at your local library or buy it used will you?) Besides Lind, he treats us to a mention of Chuck Spinney, whose fabulous (as in ‘fable’) “Defense Facts of Life: The Plans/Reality Mismatch” briefing book got him a TIME magazine cover once. Too bad his analysis sucked then and it still sucks now. I keep a marked-up copy of a ‘Westview Press’ edition in a binder because if I marked up the original the way it needed to be, I couldn’t read it. You could pick about any page number and I’d tell you where he was most ‘wrong’ on it, but IMHO most of his ‘sins’ derive from three fatal flaws. The first is a total lack of understanding of ‘complexity’ (origins, drivers, effects), The second was complete discomfort with not knowing the unknowable before it can become knowable. That boy had a textbook “High Motive for Certainty” and probably does still. The third was Spinney’s analysis relying on assuming the U.S. economic conditions at the time (particularly the high inflation rates) were “the” reality relevant to future spending, and then using them in his ‘projections’. From where I’m standing, Spinney suffers from a life-long and over-inflated concern for ‘costs’ with, like most of the ‘Reform’ blowhards, a vestigial (at best) grasp of the greater concept we call ‘value’.

Full Disclosure: I have a ‘bias’ when it comes to ‘Cost Analysts’. I do combat and logistics operations analysis (mostly the latter these days). It’s a side gig that I get ‘called in’ on now, but it once was my main job. One of my great professional frustrations has been when I have to closely deal with cost analysts for any length of time. They’re usually good people (like most people) and they do a job I would never want to do. The problem is they seem to rarely have the depth of technical experience needed to understand all the cost drivers they attempt to characterize, and I end up spending an inordinate amount of time every occasion I do deal with them just 1) keeping them for declaring something they’ve done in the past as ‘equivalent’ or 2) getting them to understand a nuance to a cost driver that took me or somebody else years to distill properly. Almost invariably, I’ve found myself presenting and standing behind my technical analysis including the explicit, and clearly-defined caveats, but having to explain some ‘hidden’ or overly abstract cost element on something that the cost analysts accepted and treated as somehow ‘real’ without bothering to caveats. It is almost as if the cost estimates become real dollars in their minds, and it is an affliction that is too often shared by some managers—it’s not a good ‘synergy’ when they get together.

Ricks: Long Time 'Go To'

Guy for getting the 'Reformist'

Propaganda out to the public.

There’s also a cameo appearance by semi-retired ‘Loyal Babbler’ Thomas E. Ricks. But more significantly, there is a ‘Reformer’ presence that isn’t explicit but it is clearly sitting there to anyone familiar with the subject. This unattributed ‘Reformer’ presence is of particular interest and will be used to wrap up this dissection of Fallow’s Fallacies. It is important because it can be clearly shown as the basis for the fallacious representation of reality: using gross oversimplification to dupe the unaware. It didn’t require particular insight to tickle out the fraudulence, as some of it has been used before by the ‘Reformers’. Specifically, there is not one but two presentations containing the same data (a graphic and a similar representation adapted for the embedded video) sourced from POGO (or were sourced TO POGO by Fallows? –whichever direction, the link is there). The data was used by CDI/POGO’s point man, Winslow Wheeler, a few years ago for much the same purposes, and I caught it that time as well.

Winslow Wheeler: CDI
Ringmaster at POGO

Wheeler and CDI/POGO fingerprints are all over Fallows’ craptastic article. As a bonus, Dina Rasor, founder of POGO and now running the high-grade idiocy collector and low-grade information dissembler called ‘Truthout’ (won’t link to it. Yeccchhh!), links to the Fallows video from their Buzzflash feed. 

The only guy missing from this Old Guard Faux Reform ‘all-star’ production seems to be Pierre Sprey.

Here is the graphic from the Fallows piece:

 Source: The Atlantic

This is a fraudulent (intentional or not) mishmash of unsourced (but largely traceable) numbers posing as ‘facts’ that is used in such a cavalier manner by Fallows et al. The acquisition costs are meaningless without knowing the fiscal year dollars involved, and comparing aircraft that do not perform the same mission is folly anyway. This chart is a typical 'fool the innumerate' propaganda that regularly comes out of the Faux Reform camp. The interesting thing to me here is the perverse representation and comparison of operating costs across aircraft types, especially the bit about:

“…the efficient A-10 Warthog has the lowest per-flight-hour cost, because it needs so little maintenance—yet the military plans to phase it out. The F-35, which was supposed to bring new efficiency to plane design, costs five times as much per plane and three times as much preflight hour.”

One must presume the target audience has no idea of the differences in the full-up capability between the two airplanes, among many other factors (perhaps a topic for the future?) that make such a comparison ludicrous.I slapped some of this ‘operating cost per flying hour’ horses*** down when Wheeler trotted it out the first time.  

POGO conveniently provides an updated version of the data Wheeler misrepresented at the time and it, along with all of the other operating cost data now shown by Fallows deserves the exposure it is about to receive. No direct link, but here's a screen capture showing how to get it:

The data Wheeler and Co. use is (ostensibly) from the Air Force itself. We have no reason to suspect otherwise. However, we have very good reason to call out the representation of the data as “highly-misleading”. This ‘data’ seems to be subject to annual exploitation by POGO/CDI now. Emerging (not fully 'conditioned' yet) Loyal Babbler Mark Thompson used it in March 2013 at Time’s 'Babbleland'. Wheeler and Pierre Sprey (Hey, he made it to the dance after all!) also rolled out the same meme in early 2014 (Google “Chuck Hagel’s A-10 Legacy”- I won’t link to that place if I don’t have to), where they did a Kaleidoscope-on-reality in a number of ways via the now-standard Reformer non-sequiturs. The only value of the article here is that it identifies the AF Comptroller’s office as the source. 

 Again, I have no problems at this time with the numbers Wheeler/POGO use: just the nefarious way in which they use it. 

The Numbers in the Fallows’ Atlantic ‘Cost’ Graphic

Now that we have identified just how widely and frequently this cost ‘scare tactic’ is deployed, let’s return our focus on this specific invocation: Fallows’ using sketchy O&S cost numbers that even if they were ‘correct’ are used in a way designed to mislead the public.

First, the only operating cost data shown above in the Fallow's graphic that we can trace to the same source and characterized in the same way as Wheeler’s 2011 hit piece is the B-2 and the V-22 (Note: The only rational explanation for the V-22 numbers that Fallows uses are if they are for the AF Special Operations Command CV-22s in 2011). The rest of Fallow’s numbers could have been randomly pulled from anywhere EXCEPT ‘an official source’ with the same provenance/ timeframe as what Wheeler used. Here's some of the big stuff missing from Fallow's graphic:

Dear James Fallows and the Atlantic: Sharing Numbers without Context is NOT DATA

As the inclusiveness of cost accounting has broadened over the decades, the Faux Military Reformers strived to exaggerate weapon system cost increases in an attempt to misshape public perceptions on ‘Defense’ and ‘Defense Spending’ in particular. One of the tactics of the Leftist Anti-Defense ‘activists’ has been to present the Operations & Support (O&S) Costs of a weapon system in terms of ‘Cost in Dollars Per Flight Hour’. When costs are presented in this manner, the unwary Public is left with the perception that it costs the Taxpayer these dollar amounts EVERY time, and for every hour these systems operate. In reality, these amounts include dollars that are spent whether the aircraft fly or not, dollars that have no direct connection to the weapon systems or their operation, and dollars that would be spent if there were no weapons systems present just to have the ability to support a weapon system. The dollars sourced from POGO contain every operational cost element listed in the graphic below as noted:

Everything except the Kitchen Sink. Well...actually that's in there too.

If you get the Excel spreadsheet from POGO, there are other cost numbers you may be interested in. 

Since Fallows’ Atlantic piece, another arm of The Atlantic media machine has spit out a screed titled "The F-35 Has to Phone Home Before Taking Off" (really), repeating out-of-date information as if it were somehow relevant to the F-35 ALIS system's current state. This was done when with only a modicum of journalistic inquiry, the issue could have been shown to be past.

Patrick Tucker, who wrote the piece had to reach past all current news, pushing newer well known developments out of the way to retrieve his moldy chunk of information ‘cheese’. From the ‘Reformer POV’ the author would be a ‘Pawn’, and perhaps the Pawn was moved by Fallows, the Atlantic’s Loyal Babbler’?

Update 8PM: Tucker has added an update from the JSFPO: 

Joe DellaVedova, Public Affairs Director F-35 Lightning IIJoint Program Office contacted Defense One about this story. He says that while previous versions of ALIS did not allow for a human override, ”this has been corrected in the latest fielded release (ALIS 1.0.3).”
He adds: “ALIS continues to mature per its development roadmap and we currently have it installed aboard the USSWasp today to support of an operational test and evaluation of the F-35B air system which will happen this spring. There is also a more portable, modularized version of the ALIS Standard Operating Unit server for shipboard and expeditionary operations that is currently in final integration and test. This version will support the U.S. Marine Corps initial operating capability later this year.”

Sounds like...

...to me!

Kudos to Mr Tucker for not playing a 'Pawn'.  

Why I took the time to lay this all out.  

It’s kind of anti-climatic, but this entire sequence of events was perfect for making the following point:

The Old Guard of Military Reform are feeling the end is nigh. They have been operating within a certain framework for years now:

Indirect (Dotted Lines) Influence on Lawmakers and Strong Parallel Coordination With Fellow Travelers

But this is not the model under that they wish to operate. In this model, they have no ‘insiders’ in elected government and it irks them (Just read some of their published ‘work’) They yearn for the heady days of the 70’s and ‘80s when their crazy ideas about weapon systems being 'too complicated', 'too costly' were actually considered within the halls of government (Desert Storm knocked them off their game for an election cycle or three). This is the model they USED  to operate under:

The Old Days: When Reformers had a Toe-hold with the 'Ins' (May they NEVER return) 

The 'Reformers' want this arrangement to return, so they don’t have to spend so much time distorting reality and duping the Hoi Polloi. They’d like to just have to whisper in some politician’s ear, and party with their Loyal Babblers again. There’s been some rumbling by some politicians lately about ‘reform’ again. If one or more of the Old Guard hasn't been 'working' them already, I’d be amazed.

We covered everybody I wanted to cover in the system except the 'Foot Soldiers'. those are basically Old Guard 'wanna-bes', whose primary interest isn't just providing a conduit for the 'Reform' Message, but instead want to generate the Message as well. Not a lot of those guys around these days thank goodness, Although Thomas E. Ricks, through his activities at the fake defense 'Think Tank' the Left has set up called Center for a New American Security and 'serious' writings for the self-perceived serious 'Foreign Policy' audience seems to want to fill the shoes of a loyal 'Foot Soldier' in his semi-retirement.    

Why this took so darned long

The Excel spreadsheet POGO offers had some 'delimiting' problems when I grabbed a copy. On top of that, The original post I did on POGOs numbers was based on what Flight Global had at their site, and their 'interactive graphs that were....aren't anymore. An interesting thing to note about the AF Comptroller numbers (as represented by POGO) is that they are subject to correction. For instance, in my first post, I wondered why the WC-135W had a spike in one year's $/FH:

2011 POGO Data: 2006 Spike in Cost for WC-135W 

In this year's version of the data, the 'spike' is gone, and the numbers are completely different. take a look at the data, I may point out some things I noticed in some detail in a later post. Quick observations are that if the F-16C/D O&S cost trend continues, it will pass the F-35's estimated $/FH by about 2020, and the low density aircraft have the most sensitivity to support costs, groundings and airframe losses--and it shows in the data:

Chart added 11 May 15 to illustrate point made concerning estimated F-35 O&S Cost vs F-16 O&S cost trend

   

Merrill McPeak (Blind Pig) Finds an Acorn

And Max Boot then Glenn Reynolds take issue with it.

Even a University of Tennessee Law Professor finds Gen Merrill McPeak 'unpersuasive'. (Even though the General for once in his political-military career is on the right side of the argument)

I would also ask Max Boot how those in today's military could gauge the 'corrosiveness' of women on the battlefield? Since none serving (active duty anyway) can remember what it was like before modern times - back when women were relatively scarce in the military?

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society at the moment, and there's a lot in the book relevant to most major modern societal issues. I would commend it to Max Boot and Professor Reynold's: especially as it concerns the observation that societal norms are not the product of ignorance and inattention, but the product of systemic processes.

Systemic processes can bring into play more knowledge for decision-making purposes, through the interactions and mutual accommodations of many individuals, than any one of those individuals [participants] possesses. (p.16)

Max Boot, in his Commentary Contentions article trots out the old 'other militaries are doing it' argument [Did Moms stop using the Socratic "if everybody else jumped off a bridge would you do it?" stopper after my generation?]. He then goes off the deep end:

One would think that the presence of women would do even more than the presence of gays to undermine “male bonding.” Yet women have been granted admittance into almost all military occupations, in roles including flying fighter jets as McPeak once did. They are present on all major and most minor bases even in war zones. They frequently and regularly circulate on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. What evidence is there that their presence has undermined combat effectiveness? And if it hasn’t, why would the presence of un-closeted gays be more corrosive than that of women?

'Evidence'? Hmmm. I'll answer his first question, which will dispense with the second.

First it must be recognized that such 'problems' are real and ongoing:

Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a “lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,” according to a Naval Inspector General report.

Second, it must be recognized that there is evidence that, I assume for politically correct reasons, such information is routinely suppressed or played down, it has been going on for years, and is a current problem.

I'm not picking on the Navy here: it is just a more obvious problem when you are structured to live, deploy and fight in geographically discrete units (aka 'ships'). The problem is one that affects all the services to varying degrees.

I enjoy the writings of both Max Boot and Professor Reynolds: they both have pretty good instincts, but they are both wrong on on repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell". I am guessing both Professor Reynolds and Max Boot view this as some sort of 'equal rights' issue instead of a military effectiveness issue. It would help both of them to recognize the military as a unique sub-culture in America, with unique limitations on civil rights, freely acknowledged by its members in taking an oath and accepted for the duration of our service.

I would only add that I find Max Boot's attitude somewhat irritating, but only because he suffers from the same shortcomings found in so many of those analysts and historians that are involved with the military, but are not of the military: not a part of the continuum of "systemic processes" that "can bring into play more knowledge for decision-making purposes, through the interactions and mutual accommodations of many individuals", over two centuries of the American military experience.

This is not a case of 'special pleading'. I assume ALL subcultures within the greater American civilization have systemic processes that have evolved and are unique to their groups (why would they not?). I claim no insight of any to which I do not also belong. I merely insist others do not claim relevant knowledge of mine in return.

Almost forgot: 'Heh'.

P.S. Recommended reading on Women in the Military: Coed Combat

PJTV, American Exceptionalism and Elements of Power

Excellent! Bill Whittle at PJTV takes the President and the Pissant (Bill Maher) to school on American Exceptionalism, and does so hitting 3 of the 6 Elements of Power in proving his point via Military, Economic, Scientific and Cultural examples.

I believe his 'Scientific' examples have roots in the Cultural, Demographic, Organizational, Military and perhaps even Geographic Elements of Power (but that probably would have made the video too long).

"Surging" the Taliban

With my Daughter-in-Law now on duty in Afghanistan, I won't necessarily be thinking and reading more about what is going on there, but I will probably be writing more. In that vein, I highly recommend Frederick Kagan's (along with Max Boot and Kimberly Kagan) AEI short publication How to Surge the Taliban to give the reader some things to think about, that they might not have otherwise, to broaden their perspective. Need an example? How about:

"The civilian death toll in Afghanistan last year was 16 times lower than that in Iraq in the pre-surge year of 2006, even though Afghanistan is more populous."

It will be interesting to watch Team O's machinations if they really start trying to pull out of Afghanistan...while trying to look like they are not trying to pull out. (Yes I think that's what Team O would do if they thought they could pull it off).

Hmmmm. "Daughter-In-Law" is too wordy and not properly descriptive. She shall henceforth be referred to as D3, for Daughter Number 3. (Yes she's the oldest, but she signed up for the job last and there is no hope for advancement or escape.)

Updated 11pm: Fox News reports Gen Petraeus says pretty much the same thing, except their headline is a little more counter-intuitive. Must have been written by a former NYT employee.

Academes Gnaw on the Hands....

That feeds them, clothes them, etc.

Via Tigerhawk, I've just read a short, superb, exposition on an attitudinal problem that has apparently spread, though not universally IMHO, throughout academia. The problem is the odd notion that, as phrased by the author: "Some students and professors reject business as a morally responsible way to spend one's life".

I have seen both professors and students display the outward trappings of this philosophy over the years myself. My college attendance was sporadic in my early years, but I've been a student almost continuously since my early 30's (Gack!, has it been that long?). Perhaps I was sufficiently inoculated against such sentiment, but I've always found it incredibly self-important and a blatant sign that those afflicted really had no idea from where the wealth of this nation actually comes.

I would guess in one way, my experience is somewhat different from the author's. I experienced a few Profs carrying this kind of baggage in my English, Art, and other softer elective and non-science classes I took. But as most of my classes were math and science (including what were essentially a lot of 'do-overs' because of credits lost in transferring to new schools) and since most of my classes were of the 'evening ' variety mostly made up of fellow 'seasoned' students, it was the eager and young-ish among us that stood out the most in this way. I chalked it up to them being young and naive for years, but these days I suspect it was the result of programming they were getting in other classes.

Stupid PETA Tricks

On the heels of rolling out the overt "Sea Kittens" propaganda campaign, the Emoters of PETA provide us with another example of willful inanity: "saving" George the Lobster!

The quote coming from the mouth of the leader of the PETA Inanity Brigade, co-founder and president Ingrid E. Newkirk is precious:

"We applaud the folks at City Crab and Seafood for their compassionate decision to allow this noble old-timer to live out his days in freedom and peace" [emphasis mine].

Peace? This kind of of ignorance simply HAS to be willful. The ocean is the one place where the food chain is best known and most visibly in action. Even if Ms. Newkirk has never spent an hour snorkeling on a reef, at some time she should have seen at least one Cousteau-like documentary where some ocean creature ate another one. PETAism could be just another manifestation of the Hippie Effect, in which case we just have to wait for them to die off - 'cause there's no hope for stupidity.

Here's something for the Emoters to roll around in their spacious skulls. Releasing 'George' in strange waters probably took away the one thing that allowed him to live so long in the first place: the great hidey-hole he had in Newfoundland. George may be a Striped Bass' dinner before the end of his first day off Kennebunkport.

Feh. This Ain't My First Long National Nightmare

While I really don't have time for posting at the current time, I know a very few people who might be wondering what I think of the Presidential election, given that I thought the 'O'-Man was going to win, but in the spirit of HOPE! was hoping for a less-disappointing McCain 'victory'.
I'm still PO'd at Huckabee and the Brain-Dead Branch of Southern Baptists, as well as the weak-ass Republicans, who became weak due to the pathetic state of their rival Democrats - all are root causes of this tragic turns towards Socialism. But hey! - Like the title says "this ain't my first National Nightmare": I have memories of Clinton, Carter AND Johnson. It is just this gets more tiresome the older you get and the more you know this is just SO unneccessary.
On a lighter note, here's a challenge for the world. As far as I can determine, from this POV there were only four types of reasons that people had for voting for Obama: 1. Ignorant, 2. Irrational, 3. Stupid and/or 4. Evil. See if you can come up with a reason that can't be placed into one or more of those boxes. I just hope the majority were "Ignorant" - that can often be cured in time.
To get us through these dark days, Instapundit passed along this little poster that kind of says it all:

About that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" So-Called 'Study'

It was a 'study group' of retired senior zeros. THEY CONDUCTED SURVEYS OF PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. I'll get to the so-called 'bipartisan' bit in a minute.

I recently told a late commenter to an earlier post of mine:

I believe one should always argue the data and judge the source by the data, not the data by the source.

The 'study' report gives no REAL data that supports the repeal of the DADT, but that doesn't stop them from asserting that it should be repealed because there is no real data (as they see it) that supports its continuance. This report is at the very least a mere issue advocacy PR release. Is it something else? Let's see.

Now having judged the 'data' (what the source had to say) let us look at the source a little more closely and with some earned skepticism.

I've never heard of the source of the study before: The Palm Center. Nice, friendly, name....What is it?

From their website:

The Palm Center, formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Our data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high quality information is available.

The Center promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces by forging a community of scholars, creating a forum for information exchange and debate, offering itself as a launching point for researchers who need access to data and scholarly networks, and supporting graduate student training.

The Center's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell Project’ will continue to be its first priority under its new name – The Michael D. Palm Center. The goal of the DADT Project is to improve the quality of information available to public deliberations about the military policy.

So, the center's whole reason for its existence is to promote this kind of s*** as science (I love the hilarious claim of 'rigorous social science' - who says engineers don't have a sense of humor?). All the while hiding behind the 'bipartisan' disclaimer. How much press would this tripe have received if it the press release read "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military Study Calls For the End of DADT"?

George Carlin once said something to the effect of: "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."

That sounds about right. Oh, and unless study techniques and data are forthcoming very quickly, I will have to call this BS 'study' PROPAGANDA!

Update 9Jun08 @2300Hrs: I've been commenting on this topic over at Box Turtle Bulletin, and have been waiting patiently for someone to pick up on the ramifications of my asserting the 'study' has a propaganda stink. Why? Because I am OF the surveyed population, and am a part of it at least as much if not more than a lot of retired generals: I am still close to my once-2lts who are now approaching flag rank, my Son is now on a base in Japan, and another significant other (don't know if this is still sensitive info and so will not reveal the relationship at this time) is headed for Afghanistan very soon. Are my opinions and reasons for them a form of bigotry? Hardly. I assert that the insistence that I must think other than I do under some PC mandate could be viewed as a form of fascism. (thank you, Jonah Goldberg). Oh, and as anyone who has read this blog for any length of time is well aware, some of my thoughts on DADT can be found here.

Update 2, 20Jul08, 2107hrs. Visited the Box Turtle Bulletin to see if any more comments of interest had materialized. Saw only one worth replying to. Saw another one from some swell guy(?) calling himself 'Ben in Oakland' who went off on a long tirade about something. I think he's upset just because I and other heterosexuals in the military don't want to sleep with him. Evidently that makes guys like me evil.

First They Came For My Hat

Subtitle: No One Expects the Yorkshire Jackboots!

Fascist Yorkshire? This story just begs a good mocking. Hmmm...I wonder what 'Yorkshire Fascists' look like?

(H/T Instapundit)

Mastectomies: Insurance Companies Only Know What is Best For Their Bottom Line

If you haven't already, go to Lifetime's website and sign the petition supporting the prevention of "drive-through" mastectomies.

The only people who should be involved in deciding how long a post-op hospital stay should be is the patient, or their representatives and the caregiver. Anyone else will bring with them motives not related to what is best for the patient.

If the idea of "drive-through" mastectomies is troubling to you, Nationalized Health Care (socialized medicine) must scare the bejeezus out of you.

Not everyone thinks highly of the petition, like whoever does Fast Company's weblog, who seems to forget the maxim: 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough'. (I think the article at the link is caviling). I'm not a big fan of estrogen-laden Lifetime, and think far to little attention is paid to other cancers (like prostate) because of breast cancer's prominance in the fund-raising parade, but I CAN get behind this petition.

Still Remarkable

At Former Spook's "In From the Cold" blog: Happy Birthday Mr. Allingham.

See also my post two years ago.

More and more remarkable.

GOP Votes AGAINST McCain in South Carolina

Geez. Some ‘winner’.
(Up front: I’m with the Discerning Texan and FOR Thompson.) South Carolina was really the first test of Republican candidates with a Conservative ‘factor’ and nearly 70% of Republicans voted for someone other than John McCain in yesterday’s primary.

How many of those 67% had McCain as their SECOND choice? How many had him at or near their LAST choice? Well let’s think about it. Here’s the breakdown:

Almost as many for Huckabee, and Thompson and Romney split an almost equal amount, with Giuliani and Paul picking up the change. What would drive most of the other Republicans to McCain in future contests? His stand on illegal aliens? His support for so-called 'Campaign Finanace' reform?

McCain is a classic RINO, and I see nothing to discern him from a pro-War On Terror Democrat. I see nothing-- NOTHING that would make me want to vote for McCain, and a lot that would make me vote against him.

McCain got only 33% of the vote in a state where he had an established organization? Except for the ‘bandwagon’ types, McCain is at his peak. That peak will only be good enough if the opposition remains fractured. If McCain wins the Republican nomination via the fragmentation of his opposition, a small majority of Republicans will vote for him holding their nose in the General Election. The rest will stay away in a funk and the next President will be a Democrat in a landslide.

Huckabee will fade like a Marine haircut. Thompson and Romney will pick up parts of Huckabee’s support. Giuliani will hang in there collecting ‘moderates’ and Ron Paul will remain a sideshow.

For all the hoopla the press creates, you'd swear McCain has some kind of momentum. Two points:

1. There's only been about 150 delagates of over 1900 to the National Convention declared so far.

2. If Fred Thompson keeps doing better every time out, the media can’t continue ignoring him: and he’s the only candidate that actually looks better the more you look at him.

I’m with Fred as long as he's in the fight.

Update 01/22/07: Well it didn't take long. Fred is no longer in the fight. Crap. Looks like it will be between Romney and Giuliani for me. Romney is ahead.

"Where Y'all From?"

I get that a lot here at home...

I don't usually go for these online quizzes, but this one brought out my curious streak. I'm a Texan. My Mom was a San Antone girl with Texas roots back to the days of the Republic and who had never left the state until she married my Dad. My Dad's Mother was a West Texas Girl (believe it: there is a distinct sub-group) and she met my Granddad in Texas. I lived in North and South Texas for about half my school-age years, and have been back home now about 5 years, after trying to get back ever since I retired from the Air Force.

But because my Father was first in the military and then a 'Migrant Aerospace Worker', between my childhood and adult lives I've also LIVED in Oregon (Born there - a Texan born 'overseas' as it were), Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Kansas, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, Utah, and Iceland. I've visited Canada, Europe, and the Carribbean and have actually visited every state except Hawaii. Everywhere I've gone in the States EXCEPT the South, people usually assume I'm a local (But after five years my "Y'all" is starting to come naturally again).

THIS is what happens when you live everywhere:

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Midland "You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio.
Philadelphia
Boston
The Northeast
The West
The Inland North
The South
North Central
What American accent do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

You sound like you are from anywhere.

My Wife is just as bad or worse. Born in Maine into a career Air Force family, she slips from one speech pattern to another as easily as anyone I've ever seen or heard. We visited my folks in England in the early 80's and everyone thought we were Canadian at first. After a month in the 'Shires', I think everyone we met assumed I was a Canadian who had married a Brit.

I do love answering local friendly cashiers who seem to doubt my Texian origins and who frequently ask us "Where are Y'all from?". I usually have to throw in a few gratuitous "Y'alls" and "fixin' to's" to convince them that I really am a local boy.

The only downside I've experienced as the oldest child and the only one who followed my Dad's 'Aero Bracero' ways, is I sometimes have to ask for a translation from my siblings who haven't moved around nearly as much or as far.

Conservatives at the Gates

And only the ‘”Tenure Ramparts” are keeping them out!
Note: Part of this is also cross-posted as part of a comment at Greg Mankiw’s Blog.

Volokh Conspiracy has a great series of fresh analytical posts on the latest numbers (referenced by someone in an earlier comment) defining the liberal-conservative-libertarian divide.

My favorite parts:

A Title:

IDEOLOGY AND ACADEMIA – LIBERAL DOMINANCE ONLY IN THOSE FIELDS WHERE IT MATTERS

And an ‘Update’:

“Among actual scientists, in the physical and biological sciences, the percentage who identify themselves as Marxists is zero.””

Loved the ‘actual’ reference.

What shall we do M’Lord?
As to the defenses that liberal academics have erected to conservatism on campus. I’m still not too worried about it.

An Open Letter to Trent Lott

Senator Lott,

Caught your statements today on the Senate floor regarding the "Amnesty" bill.

You obviously care more about the harmony of your little "Club Senate" than perpetuating the Civilization that IS these United States.

I will be contributing to the election campaigns of only two Republicans for certain next time around. The beneficiaries will be John Cornyn and whoever runs against you in the primaries.

I will not be alone.

That is all.

Murtha Watch: Possibly Part 1 of Many

I've been considering making the UNHon. John Murtha the object of a running theme for quite a while now and haven't yet decided to definitely take on the task (Since I'm way behind on what I've already publically promised I will remain undecided for a while). The first part of deciding whether to take this on is to really evaluate and get to know your enemy -- and as retired military man, parent to a once and possibly future military man as well as in-law to military personnel, make no mistake Murtha IS my enemy. So I've been asking myself what kind of people would vote for this, this....well, whatever he is I can't really tell, but I suspect 'deranged' might be one of the adjectives.

Tonight I visited the Desp. John Murtha's House website and found a link to a map of his district here. (There is also a huge .pdf file on his site that will make an excellent reference for further study). A less detailed representation is below:

Fascinating! - And the Dems took Texas Republicans to task (and court) for Gerrymandering?

The demographics of Murtha's district deserve close analysis all their own, but at first blush it looks like his district was designed to avoid paved roads and cable access as much as possible. I suspect Murtha's base is largely poor, comparatively uneducated, and has statistically less access to a broader world view than some other places [update: based on the last election I have to also wonder about Pittsburgh]. (Oh! And his base includes a lot of people on his pork gravy train of course). I'll bet the vote in that district split largely along the Greedy-Ignorami Alliance vs. the Informed Patriot Defenders lines. Too bad the Greedy-Ignorami got out the vote last time outnumber the Patriots 2-1.

Another Update:

Maybe I'll just read Murtha Must Go and provide practical support to their effort. Catch their latest observations here.

Coming Russian Decline

in population, that is....

Power Line has a good post about and link to a Washington Times article on the future of Russian demographics. According to the post, at this birth rate, there will be 1/2 as many Russians in 2050 than today.

How 'Russian' will it be, when they aren't making any more Russians? I wonder who will be replacing them? Let's see, what cultures and nationalities are on their borders....

I can't blame the Russian people though: I wouldn't want a "Putin" future for my kid either.

The Demographic Element: An Introduction

Six Elements of Power: Demographic
Winding down here to the last two elements, and (wringing my hands) I'm saving the Cultural Element for last. Use of the phrase "Demographics is Destiny" has become somewhat of a cliché, but it is no less true because of it. The Demographics of a Nation- State have a great influence on its well-being and continued success. I could wax ad infinitum about how important Demographics are, or link to an almost inexhaustible pile of resources that do the same thing (Just see how long the list is when one Googles 'demographics is destiny' or 'demographics are destiny'), but this one example that follows should more than make it clear how important Demographics are to National Power.

A Case Study in Demographics as Weakness: Saudi Arabia

With 26 million people living in Saudi Arabia, 1 in 5 are foreign ‘guest workers’. Services essential to maintaining the current civil structure of the Kingdom are performed by these foreign workers: most working under deplorable conditions that persist only because of people fleeing desperate situations elsewhere are duped and then trapped. If the pipeline of ‘guest workers’ performing the dirty work should dry up from the word getting out in the right places, or the higher-paid technical talent get tired of dealing with the Kingdom and its ways, the Saudi economy would be crippled. Saudi Arabia’s already thin social fabric would likely disintegrate (with the most virulent wahabists on top no doubt) as 99.9 % of the remaining native population asserted their dissatisfaction with the top 1/10th of 1 percent that makes up the House of Saud ...and especially the 1/10th of 1 percent of the House of Saud that wield any real power.

Saudi Arabia is an excellent example of multiple forms of Demographic weakness: overdependence on foreign labor for even the most mundane tasks, insufficient number of native workers with technical skills, and poor distribution of talent and skills in the general population. And we won’t even delve into the existence of insufficient (by design) educational, social , and business systems that forever prevent the full development of a full half of their potential talent pool (women) But perhaps the House of Saud doesn’t worry about these things at all….as long as the oil and money keeps flowing.

Of course, we shouldn’t think this kind of thing is unique to Saudi Arabia. What about the willingness of many in the United States to turn a blind eye to the problem of the uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens? (Yes, if someone is here illegally they are still an alien - they did NOT ‘immigrate’, and I refuse to surrender this point to the PC language police) What is the true cost/benefit of ‘illegals’ to not only the economy but to the American society? As a Nation, I believe we are only beginning to understand the nature and scope of the problem.

And then there is Western Europe. Among other things, like the murder of Theo Van Gogh and last year’s rash of violence that spread across France, I would also wonder if they perhaps are reconsidering their historically laissez-faire approach to immigration and assimilation?