GAO on the F-35: Deja Vu All Over Again (Updated)

The annual GAO 'Risk' dump on the F-35 is released.

And though it contains absolutely nothing new to any one who has been following the F-35 - only things we already know or would expect as a consequence of things we already know, the usual suspects post the usual  'over the top' interpretation to call out the same tired old buzzards. 

Gee, it seems..... all so familiar for some reason.

Only one question: Is this non-story being pushed by POGO or CDI?

UPDATE: Question Answered
Ahhh! Should have known. It is that haven for malcontents and 'misunderstood' military geniuses aka 'CDI'. Winslow Wheeler whines about no one buying his pseudo-reformist line.

Oh Canada! Minister Fantino’s F-35 Statement

What was said vs. what the jungle drums ‘report’

Yesterday, a headline at Defense News caught my eye: “Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister" . I read the article and immediately realized the missing part of the title was:
“Or May Not”.

A Modern Sorites Paradox:
How much ‘heap’ must be 'heaping' before it can be labeled a ‘widely interpreted’ heap? I mentally filed the piece under “Editorial License to Drum Up Readership” as there was nothing revelatory within the article aside from:

“Fantino was not available to confirm the comments, which were widely interpreted as a step back from Ottawa’s clarion defense of the costly F-35 program.” 

This passage only raises the dual question of: How many ‘whos’ were required to be thinking the same and how diverse would the group have to be to be considered ‘diverse enough’ before the Minister’s statement could be ‘widely interpreted’ -- one way or another?
The Defense News article didn’t go into a lot of detail about the facts, other than also providing the following bits (along with the usual ‘costly program!’ fillers):

“We have not as yet discounted the possibility of backing out of the program” 

“According to Canadian media, he said the government remains committed to buying the jet, but noted that no contract has been signed”

The above has been, is now, and will be materially ‘true’ until production contracts are signed. This information has been in the public domain from the program’s inception, so one must conclude from the article as it is written that the only thing that makes this ‘news’ is that ‘someone’ really wants it to be news. The article was good for a chuckle, that’s about it. I moved on to the next topic.

Minister Fantino

Photo Source: Canadian Forces

Today, the ‘news’ sources are buzzing with similarly titled pieces and in none of them can I find any information that indicates Canada is any more or less likely to buy or not buy the F-35 than they were a week, month, or years ago. I’m not asserting that their position is unchanged. I’m saying that there’s no indication of change to bother reading, much less writing about. Keeping away from the ‘interpretave dance‘ assertions of what the Minister’s statements ‘mean’ and sticking to what it is asserted he actually ‘said’:

The Chronicle Herald

"We have not, as yet, discounted the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program," Julian Fantino, associate defence minister, told the House of Commons defence committee Tuesday....

Fantino made the comment after a series of pointed questions from the opposition parties...  

"We’re going to, at some point in time, make the definitive decision," he said. "We have not, as of yet, signed a contract to purchase." .... 

Outside the committee, Fantino denied that the government is climbing down from its support for the jet. "I’m being realistic," he said....   

"Until such time as the purchase is signed and ready to go, I think the only appropriate answer for me is to be forthright. We are committed to the program....

The Star (Toronto)

“We have not as yet discounted, the possibility of course, of backing out of any of the program. None of the partners have. We are not,” he told the Commons defence committee Tuesday.  

“That decision will be made if and when those factors are known to us and the decision will be made as to whether or not Canada will actually enter into a contract to purchase the F-35,” Fantino said

Beyond the above, the articles get pretty redundant, pretty fast.

The ‘Someones’ come forward with….still nothing new.
Sticking to ‘pure’ news sources (yes –scare quotes around the word pure) we see more of the same. When you get into the blog and opinion piece worlds you see the opinions are split as to what the statement by Minister Fantino meant falls along the same fault lines that separate the anti-JSFers from the rest of the world. Those that are making hay over a perceived change in ‘tone’ are the same ones that WANT there to be a change in actual COURSE, Those that do not see a change in tone – do not. It would have been one thing if Minister Fantino or his party had previously stated that they could not change course-- his statements and under the conditions he made his statements are another.

This Sorites Paradox? Solved!
From review of the big and new media sources we will have at least learned one thing. To be ‘widely interpreted’ apparently means: “Lefty Canadian Politicians, Liberal media  and Anti-JSF Pundits believe 'something' about something else.
They see asserted claims of Canada's operational need for the F-35 as somehow in conflict with or contradictory to the Minister making a a public observation cocerning a long-time and publically known reality regarding contractual arrangements in the F-35 acquisition process.

The big question is: why is it surprising to anyone that a politician is ‘political’ and that everything they say or do is seen to be ‘political’?

Disclosure
It’s been quite a while since I’ve done an interest disclosure, and things have changed slightly since I last made one. Therefore, in case there are any new readers, please note the following. I do not now nor ever have been employed by Lockheed or Lockheed Martin or any of its predecessors. At the present time, I AM cleared on multiple LM programs including the F-35 as a subset of several programs led by multiple firms on which I am working or consulting. I do not coordinate my observations or confer with any of the interested parties in what I do write about or do not write about. I do not talk or write about inside information: work specifics on topics that I am currently working or have reason to believe I might be working in the foreseeable future. I take special care to ensure anything I do assert other than opinion is formally and acknowledged officially (vs. accidentally or malevolently) released material in the public domain. I further strive to clearly identify anything that I do assert as opinion as being same, and try to provide facts in evidence supporting my opinions when necessary.

McCain..Heh.What can you say?

All About.....Guess Who?

Having John MeMcCain in Congress is like having our very own PG* version of a megalomaniac dictator. You know the type: they're usually found north of the 38th parallel in other places. The ones whose standard move is to throw a temper tantrum whenever he's piqued because he thinks he's just not quite getting the attention or deference he 'deserves'.

His latest?

Sen. John McCain has worsened the Pentagon's cash flow problems by announcing he will no longer approve reprogramming requests that shift money between accounts.

Other than for emergencies, McCain said he will not support Pentagon requests to move money until he receives a detailed report on money transfers over the last two years

Hey, thanks for helping (yourself) Senator! C'mon AZ! 'Primary' this clown next time, will ya?

[Note: quotes were from original story that seems to have evolved or been redirected at the link]
*Rated PG for Poor Governance and Posturing Gratuitously

Occupy Fort Worth A Total Bust So Far

Or: 'Dude! If you are bald or gray ditch the ponytail - you're creeping out the children!
First - I'm not going to dive into the cognitive dissonance required for people to blame 'Wall Street' over the housing bubble bust  or the crap economy the last couple of years,  yet do not Grok the link between the Crony Capitalists and the Socialist-Left Democratic Party--Whom they SHOULD be blaming for most of our problems (with a relatively minor role played by the Quislings of the irritatingly clueless Republican Establishment).  I'm going to write a blurb here about the people involved in this 'Occupy' farce. A farce which I believe that when all is said and done, will be shown to have been blown all out of proportion, and someday someone will admit as having had the express purpose of furthering the Leftist subversion of America.

About 'Occupy Fort Worth'

So few people have showed up for this 'epic fail', the local newspaper was able to put a story up with pictures identifying by name what looked like a significant number of people (who weren't minors) who showed up. Article with photos here.

The cross-section was cliche. They had freshly-minted college grad 'filmmakers', angst-ridden musicians, full-bore vegans, retired 'teachers', and my favorite: Geriatric Hippies. I believe I've made it quite clear what I'm most looking forward to on the Hippie Question.

Geriatric Hippie 'Jack Smith' (If that is his real name)

(Crop of Star-Telegram/Rodger Mallison Photo. Find Original Here)

Outside enclaves of idiocy in Dallas, Houston, and most of Austin, Texas has an acute shortage of the type of people who have either the time or inclination to gather and bi*** about how unfair life is. This is true mainly because MOST people understand life IS unfair. From what I can tell of this so called 'movement' to date, it is largely populated by people who made life choices that didn't turn out as well as they thought they should have. Tough. There are some involved who ARE victims of fate, I'm sure - and creating a narrative to explain away misfortune is a human tendency and therefore understandable. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy into whatever story you built around your misfortune to cope with it. I'm more interested in being supportive of friends who are in dire straits and are working through the situation without giving up. My sympathy extends as far as your willingness to help yourself. Can't find a job where you live and there are jobs elsewhere? MOVE. Don't have the skills needed? Get them. I know people that are doing both and they're not wasting time at the park looking for handouts.

Army of JSF-Haters STILL Short of Logicians

I'm back home (as of 00:30 hrs) Thursday from a business trip. Blog-wise, my immediate aspirations are to try to 1) ferret out the real Next Gen "Semi"-Long Range Strike story and 2) close out a substantial CAS Mythology post in my little 'spare' time.

BUT! since someone 'asked' for a comment on the latest "F-35 is Evil" drumbeat (especially one so loaded with snarky false confidence) and it is such an easy request to fulfill....I figure, eh-why not?

Latest 'Isn't This Just Awful' F-35 scare headline from Flight Global: "Lockheed adds $771 million to early F-35 production bills."  I suspect Steve Trimble might not have written the original headline, but if he did.... 'meh'. Headlines, if done properly, should draw the reader in. If the story is boring, it is not unheard of to have the 'zing' come from careful phrasing of both headline and story. Such careful delivery allows interested and targeted readers to overwrite their own bias and beliefs into the piece.
This headline gets transformed into the less accurate: "Early F-35 costs increase $771M, Lockheed says" at DoD Buzz.

So.... 'why' are these 'early' bills/costs/whatever "increased"? Trimble's original Flight Global article contained the 'bottom line', faithfully parroted at DoD Buzz:

    The $771 million reflects the impact of the 2004 weight reduction redesign on the Lockheed’s production system, the company said. The redesign carved off thousands of pounds of excess weight, but suppliers could not keep up with the flow of design changes. That led to late delivery of parts, then extra labour hours to install them outside of the normal manufacturing sequence, the company said.
    As the F-35 continues to be developed even as the first production models are delivered, the $771 million bill also includes the cost of future modifications to make the aircraft standard with jets delivered after the development phase ends in 2016.
    It is possible that the bill for LRIPs 1–3 could be reduced in the future. “The F-35 team is focused now on any opportunity to reduce the concurrency estimate and improve the final cost-to-complete on these early production lots,” Lockheed said.

Ahhh....so the cost of the 'production system' weight-reduction redesign, for building all three variants in the entire fleet built between then and the last F-35 to be delivered someday probably decades from now , as well as its impact on the aircraft built during the weight reduction redesign effort, is 'billed' in the present time, and this 'bill'  might even be reduced in the future, since it assumes future costs included in the 'bill' as well?

At the end of the DoD Buzz article, the fever swamp known as the 'comments section' does its usual 'kill the witch' thing until a commenter "Another Guest"  tries to inject a little sanity:

    I'm sure an Australian, other fighter manufacturer marketing rep, or nauseus dog will try to correct this uninterested observation. Trimble's article implies these costs were related to 2004 weight reductions to meet F-35B STOVL requirements by shaving weight off parts common to all variants and unique to the Marine model.
    An assumption then follows that this is a one-time expense...caused by the Marine requirement that no other aircraft can duplicate. It constitutes one quarter of one percent of total program costs while ensuring better performance of all aircraft types to include decreased fuel consumption that may retrieve some of the cost.
    From LRIP 5 on, LockMart will assume more, if not all over and above costs. BTW, a Gripen/Raptor/F-15SE (or F-16, F/A-18) mix would be nowhere near as effective with most aircraft obsolete against future threats at far higher acquisit[i]on costs than Tee claims. Seen any F-22s flying lately, bombing Libya or Afghanistan, being sold to allies, or replacing Naval service aircraft?

Well said.  Of course now the denizens of the fever swamp are furiously trying to 'down-rate' his comment, as if that means anything. But let us look at the hard numbers behind 'Another Guest's cogent observation on the costs involved in this 'bill'.

Compare these two charts:

 Extract from a Canadian briefing on the F-35

How the $771M 'Bill' breaks down over the whole program 

From these two charts we can readily see that even with a massively reduced F-35 buy, the 'cost' of the weight reduction re-engineering amortized over the number of units built comes under a piddling $1M/unit. In any case the end cost is still far, far, (millions $ for the A model, and I would guess similarly for the B and C) below the unit cost difference between 'actuals' and internal estimates.

In short: Add the cost of the weight reduction and to-date you are still delivering aircraft well under internal cost estimates on the curve and those costs are trending orders of magnitude lower than the bulls*** CAPE estimates.

Thus we now understand what the 'bill' is.

Now Let's Talk "Value"

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

--Oscar Wilde

What did we as taxpayers get in return (Besides ensuring an 'executable' STOVL version)? We could do an analysis of the design changes to see where lower weights translate into lower stress and wear and tear and in turn higher reliability and fewer failures and balance that against the ledger where reduced weight may have increased probability of failure or loss, but we don't have sufficient data. I would suspect the balance is positive in 'reliability', but cannot prove it. All I do know is that the entire program is being managed to constrain Total Life Cycle Costs.

What we CAN easily perceive is that since the airplanes weigh 'thousands' of pounds less at the lighter weights, the fleet will almost certainly burn BILLIONS of Dollars LESS fuel over the operational life of the fleet. A common aircraft design rule of thumb that shakes out from the Breguet range equation is that for every 1.00% of aircraft weight removed, ~0.75% less fuel is required.  3000 aircraft, 8000 hr operational life, SFC ~.7 as basis for fuel consumption......do the math.

BTW...
The 'McCain' angle is just a red herring. McCain is (still) just a self-aggrandizing, hot-headed a**hat. What else would anyone expect from him?

Hat tip Solomon at SNAFU: Heh. Bill Sweetman 'double-downs' on the topic. I should have used the words 'Anti-JSF drumbeat' more. Honestly, what brand of stupid do you have to sniff to try to amortize the total 'bill' for re-engineering production capability for the entire fleet against just the first 31 aircraft?   Whomp, Whomp, Whomp.

From "The Hill" --Think tank to Obama: Defense budget not your domestic ATM

H/T Instapundit.

From an article at The Hill ...
The Heritage Foundation marks the moment when President Obama lets the mask slip and reveals his real priorities:

“The nice thing about the defense budget is it’s so big, it’s so huge, that a 1 percent reduction is the equivalent of the education budget,” Obama said, immediately noting he was “exaggerating” the exact numbers.

 Only by an order of magnitude Mr. President. Only by an order of magnitude (~13X).

Mr. President, the 'nice thing' about the defense budget is that it is one of the few things in the Federal Budget that actually belongs there....unlike all that other crap you want to spend it on.

The Heritage Blog Post that was the source of The Hill's article also mentions some specific problems with how "Defense" is (not) managed by the current Administration:

What the President left out is the impact his “modest changes” are having on our men and women in the Armed Forces. The poster child for stupid defense budgeting is the F–35: how the Administration has stretched out, exaggerated the costs of, and played politics with funding for the military’s next-generation fighter aircraft. Today’s air forces are the oldest in the history of U.S. air forces. Replacing old airframes and ensuring the U.S. maintains its superiority over potential adversaries is a national security priority.
Yet Obama has done little to show he takes the challenge of modernizing the air fleets seriously. Particularly troubling is his penchant to let the Pentagon slow-roll the fielding of the F–35B (the vertical takeoff and landing version of the fighter for the Marine Corps). The answer may be, as one defense analyst notes, “Put the Obama Administration on Probation, Not The F–35B.”
Today, the Marines are stuck with aging airframes that have limited capabilities and are expensive to operate—a double problem. In contrast, the “B is a winner on both counts. The impact on the fleet is significant. The Marines go from three to one aircraft; and it gets a new aircraft with significant reductions in cost of maintenance.”
The fate of the F–35 is a case study in the President’s penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to defense spending. 

President Obama's early successes depended on enough people believing "He surely doesn't mean that!" when every stupid idea was brought forth. His problem now is that more people take his Regime's machinations at face value.
P.S. I had NO idea there was an F-35 story at the end of this string when I started pulling it.

On the Death of Evil Ones: Enemies Within and Without

H/T Michael Totten posting at Instapundit.

Being military-minded and somewhat experienced in these sort of things, I find no "joy" in Osama Bin Laden's death. I do find satisfaction and relief in the way his death was brought about, and wish my brothers-in-arms in the long continuum of those who have served, are serving, and will serve, continued safety and success in this long war against those who would bring upon us another Dark Age.
On the other hand, when this guy finally croaks (hopefully through natural causes) I'm throwing a freakin' party.

Read his opinion piece at the link. We could play either 'Logical Fallacy' or 'Delusional Leftist Meme' Bingo with his drivel.

 Noam Chomsky. Intellect not only held captive by Ideology, but Intellect perverted by Ideology. The ultimate Useful Idiot.
If you're too busy or lazy to follow the link at the top and read Totten's Yon's comment, it was a short one:

JUST ONCE I’d like to read an article by Noam Chomsky that isn’t faux brilliant in its moral and political idiocy, one that suggests he does, in fact, live in the same world as the rest of us, but he can’t even manage it after Osama bin Laden is killed

Don't hold your breath Michael..

19 Jun 12: Correction on source who was guest-blogging at Instapundit at the time. Thanks to the commenter who just pointed this out, .

Stars and Stripes Lets the Military Down… Again

S & S has a ‘Flack’ at Misawa Air Base

As if anyone need any reminding that today’s Stars and Stripes is NOT the same paper of World War II fame, here’s a list of articles that a Stars and Stripes ‘reporter’, the delightfully-named J.D. Flack, has written since the Sendai Quake occurred.

One of these Headlines is Not Like The Other…
Can you tell which one? The list is from oldest to newest:
  • Misawa residents stock up on supplies as they await electricity 3/12/11
  • Power restored in Misawa City; base still down 3/12/11
  • American rescue teams arrive at Misawa 3/13/11
  • Base up and running, Misawa now faces off-base heating oil shortage 3/16/11
  • Misawa leaders want quick answer on how many residents plan to evacuate 3/18/11
  • First flight carrying U.S. families out of Japan expected to leave Yokota Air Base on Saturday 3/19/11
  • First military evacuation flight leaves Japan 3/19/11
  • Misawa's 14th Fighter Squadron looking to deploy to stay sharp 3/20/11
  • Misawa residents pull clean-up duty at nearby fishing port 3/17/11
  • Relief supplies rolling into Misawa 3/20/11
  • Misawa educators reach out to students as base schools reopen 3/21/11
  • Navy crews reach quake victims with life-sustaining humanitarian aid 3/23/11
  • Reagan air crews pause relief operations to decontaminate 3/23/11
  • Snow slows Navy relief efforts at Misawa 3/26/11
  • Navy races to clear port so needed supplies can reach land 3/25/11
  • Families who choose to return to Japan do so at their own risk, military officials say 3/29/11
  • Voluntary departure program: A safe haven or a free vacation? 3/29/11
 That’s right. This S & S 'reporter' managed to string together about 2 1/2 week’s worth of actual articles on what was going on in Japan in general and Misawa specifically, before caving in to the more base instincts of the ‘profession’.


Hit Piece
Flack’s latest amounts to little more than a hit piece on the families (from all the bases in Japan) who elected to accept voluntary evacuation. No deference to or insight into survivor psychology. No enquiries into the benefits to the well-being and effectiveness of the active-duty personnel who can now focus on the mission instead of worrying about loved ones. No questions as to the ‘net’ costs or benefits: the costs and benefits of maintaining a dependent population in a disaster zone with a strained infrastructure vs. the costs and benefits of getting the dependents away from the area. No consideration as to what kind of strain such a callous article might place on the military communities at Misawa et al as things otherwise return to a new ‘normal’.
The ‘article’ was apparently executed with the help of a S&S someone named ‘Sam Amrhein’, whom I suspect was the ‘juice-boxer’ doing the leg-work in Hawaii trolling for those upbeat impressions on fun-seeking ‘Quacationers’.
‘Congratulations’ to Stars and Stripes.
I hope you enjoyed the story access you had up until now, Mr. Flack, because I suspect from here on out most of the U.S. military community in Japan will be telling you EXACTLY where to put those pursed, red lips of yours.

J.D. Flack, S & S Reporter

Update 1April 23:48 Hrs: When my family in Misawa was offered the 'voluntary' evacuation (they have stayed) and I learned it was only for 'up to 30 days', I thought: "What's the use of that if the reactor situation actually gets much worse?" But I forgot about the psychological effect that the ongoing aftershocks might have until I saw this map. I was reminded of the sinking feeling I felt with every aftershock experienced after the Northridge Quake in SoCal, and the swarms of tremors we would experience at Elmendorf AFB from time to time in the mid-70s. As of this update, Japan has had 884 quake/aftershocks since March 11, and just under half of them (409) have been over 5.0 on the Richter Scale. Watch the map linked to above as the timeline progresses and tell me most people, especially the children, couldn't use a break from the shakedown they're getting and ask yourself how such a break can be oversimplified by a media outlet to the point someone could accuse them of having "too good" of a time getting away.      

Another Chuckie Schumer Moment

H/T: Instapundit

From the NY Times:

"Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process."

Chuck Schumer: Smartest man in the room......as long as everyone else is attending by phone.

Read the whole thing.

Middle East Burning = Bad.

In case anyone was wondering why I don't seem all hep on our latest military adventure (but I'm willing to "get it on" over military efficacy during/over/in any conflict), it's just that I'm not crazy about toppling tyrants to make the world safe for Radical Islamic fascists, be they Muslim brotherhood or AlQueda or whatever. The title says it all:

Rebel Commander in Libya Fought Against U.S. in Afghanistan

Is this 'hope' or is it 'change'? Oh yeah.... it's 'Smart Diplomacy'!

Chuck Schumer Watch: Vol. 1, Ch.1

In a bid to become the Senior Ranking Clown on the Senate Select Committee for Hybris, Chuck Schumer trots out yet another, horrible, ill-conceived, moronic and yes even 'stupid' idea. 'Former Spook' has the whole sad story.


...And yes! I've decided to give Chuckie his very own special ''watch' category for a while.

Long Range Strike Moves Forward.....Finally?

...and is it in the right direction? Tech. Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo / Air Force

I'll reserve judgement until after the details inevitably emerge.

In today's announcement President Obama's Most Useful Idiot (why there seems to always be someone who until asked is NOT-generally-a-tool willing to be the front-man giving cover to Administrations that are malevolent and destructive to the national defense , I'll never understand) had this to say at least:

Finally, a major area of new investment for the Air Force will be a new long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber. This aircraft, which will have the option of being remotely piloted, will be designed and developed using proven -- using proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity.

It is important that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before the current aging fleet goes out of service. The follow-on bomber represents a key component of a joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities, an area that should be a high priority for future defense investment, given the anti-access challenges our military faces.

Of what was explicitly stated, I would only call the 'optionally-manned' criteria as 'gross stupidity' - and probably a product of an internal AF/DoD political schism . Being of a highly suspicious nature on this topic for some reason, we'll see what the emphasis on 'existing technology' means: could be 'good' but with this crowd one never knows.

The issue as to what kind of long range platform is needed and the open questions surrounding it were covered fairly well in a recent Air Force (Air Force Association) magazine article. The same source has a pretty good backgounder on the status quo here.

I might comment on the remaining gems and turds in this punchbowl of an announcement elsewhere. Alas, there's a few of the former and piles of the latter.

Howard Zinn FBI Shocka! .. He WAS a Commie!

FBI: Yep, he was a Commie.

No doubt there will be those that will attempt to claim that because there is no video of him admitting it, or a smoking gun consisting of something like his signed party membership form (yet), that the released documents means he wasn't a member of the Communist Party (of any country). But by any reasonable interpretation of the "walks like a duck" test, Zinn was an unapologetic, Marxist, anti-American POS -- the released FBI documents merely drive the truth home.

Yes, Howard Zinn is dead. Unfortunately, he's just not dead enough,....yet. With a fatuous Zinn.org website updated regularly (including proud links to the FBI documents), and seemingly no shortage of Omega-columnists providing carefully selective references to the released files, (including avoiding any mention of the record showing he was filmed teaching Marxism to ACP members, nor of his associating with just about every ACP front group that came along) his legacy will no doubt 'struggle' on for some time, carried by the latest crop of equally despicable fellow travellers.
Update: Some observations on Zinn and his fan base from Ron Radosh.

Awwww. Prius Drivers Lose Their Perk

(H/T Jalopnik)

The 'State' giveth. And when your behaviors have been sufficiently altered, the 'State' taketh away.

Of course, my feelings concerning 'hybrids', especially the Prius, and the insentient emoters that tend to buy them, have been expressed before.

At least the Prius is 'better' than the last Honda Insight, although what Jeremy Clarkson wrote about the Insight applies pretty much to all 'hybrids' (just change some locations):

But I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.
The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.

To be honest, I have seen one 'hybrid' I really liked. I was on a business trip to California earlier this year and saw this one:

Sweeeet...

'Carpet Bombing' vs CARPET BOMBING!

Etymological Observations: A Safari into the Semantics of the Left

From the back and forth in my last adventure in the threads at Defense Tech here, it was driven home that industrious but small minds had sometime succeeded in perverting the English language (once again) to suit their purposes. In this specific instance I am referring to the use of the term: 'Carpet Bombing'.

From the thread at the referenced link, two individuals identify air strike activity conducted in wars after Vietnam as 'carpet bombing'. I ruminated as to why this must be, since I distinctly remember interviews and briefings with senior DOD civilian and military leaders where they corrected such mis-perceptions...repeatedly. I specifically remembered the 'repeatedly' part because it seemed that the questioners/interviewers seized on the term in Desert Storm and seized upon it again early during Operation Allied Force. It then reappeared again for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. The term was not originating within DOD and NOWHERE is it spoken of in military community as an acceptable, much less preferred 'technique' in applying force through Airpower.

It did not take much researching to verify my memories of on the topic during the wars from Desert Storm forward were correct. From a 15 March 1991 briefing during Desert Storm (emphasis mine):

This is the 117, you've seen it. It's been operational now for nearly 10 years. It still represents the state of the art as far as operationally fielded technology. As far as we know, it's never been tracked by any Iraqi radar. It has certainly never been touched by bullets or SAMs or anything else. We operated for 43 days with this aircraft completely invulnerable,so far as we know. As it says, never touched by target defenses.
I want to make a little more on this point here, because with the combination of stealth and precision attack capability in the 117, we were able to attack targets very discretely. We did not carpet bomb downtown Baghdad. As a matter of fact, it's obvious to anyone who has been watching on television, the pictures of Baghdad neighborhoods untouched,people driving around, walking around on the sidewalks, and so forth. We took special care to make sure that we attacked only military targets, and we attacked them quite precisely.
Aircrews were informed to bring home the ordnance if they weren't sure they were locked to the right targets. We made very few mistakes. I'm quite proud of the fact that we achieved high levels of destruction against military targets with minimum collateral damage.

The statement reads as if someone was out there claiming that the US was 'carpet bombing' Baghdad doesn't it? Such claims must have happened more than once: From an article in the Spring 1997 Airpower Journal (emphasis mine):

When news from Basra in early February suggested carpet bombing, Pentagon spokesmen seemed increasingly exasperated. “We never said there would be no collateral damage,” Lt Gen Thomas Kelly complained at one of his afternoon briefings:
What we did say is that our pilots scrupulously adhered to good targeting . . .and in fact flew that target profile to the best of their ability. We go to great lengths . . . to avoid collateral damage. But war is a dirty business, and unfortunately, there will be collateral damage. There's no way one can prohibit it.
Iraq wasn't claiming even five hundred civilian casualties, yet military spokesmen were practically admitting hidden damage. One might have thought Dresden or Tokyo had occurred.

Now we skip forward to 1999, and Operation Allied Force. From a May 1, 1999 Pentagon briefing (again, all emphasis mine) where the briefer describes precision attack against area targets, and specifically how sticks of unguided bombs are laid down in very defined target areas:

One of the things that's been talked about a little bit is targets and collateral damage. We've talked about that a lot. There's some discussion about B-52s being used in carpet type bombing. We don't do that with B-52.
I mentioned yesterday that our B-52s have changed over the years dramatically, with increases to their avionics capability, increases to their GPS capability, increasing in their overall avionics.

[Chart - Prahovo Petroleum Production Storage Facility, Serbia]

This is a target, you've seen many of these before. This is about 1,000 feet long in this area, probably, maybe a couple of hundred feet wide. It's not an atypical target. We have several of those we've seen before.
Next slide.

[Prahovo Petroleum Production Storage Facility, Serbia]

This would be about the lay down pattern of the B-52 today at whatever altitude we want them to fly at. So you can see that, basically, this is not carpet bombing. This would be a perfect target for that type of weapon to hit. There are other targets, assembly areas we could use with the B-52, and it has a very, very capable delivery method with their avionics they have today to attack a target like this with very little collateral damage. As you can see, there wouldn't be much of a problem with anything around here being in the category of collateral damage.
So as we talk about the B-52, it has the capability to attack with standoff weapons or gravity weapons, and these gravity weapons are not dumb bombs anymore because of the avionics we have in the aircraft to make sure that we do, in this case, what would be called precision on that area target.

But it seems there is 'movement' out there who insists on perverting the term 'carpet bombing' for reasons of their own - perhaps as part of a fey attempt to evoke some emotional response among the weaker and more unprepared minds among the masses. I have to conclude as much because the knee-jerk response of crying 'carpet bombing' again emerged in Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. First, from a 31 October 2001 DOD briefing (still my emphasis) on operations in Afghanistan:

Q: Admiral, of all the strikes south of Mazar-e Sharif -- the airstrikes on the Taliban positions, have they all involved precision-guided weapons? Or have the B-52s started to drop strings of 500-pound unguided bombs -- colloquially "carpet bombing" -- now that you have better information on where these divisions are.
Stufflebeem: I'm not sure if it's -- if it's necessary to get into specific mission by mission, but it is -- it is fair to say that we're using both precision and non-precision weapons while attacking Taliban forces -- you know, while they're deployed.
Q: Could use [sic] deterrent carpet bombing and the strings of the unguided bombs against those positions around Mazar-e Sharif?
Stufflebeem: I'm familiar with the term "carpet bombing." I think it's an inaccurate term. It's an old -- an old expression. Heavy bombers have the capacity to carry large loads of weapons, and oftentimes if a target presents itself either in an engagement zone, or when directed, it's possible to release an entire load of bombs at once, in which case -- the real formal term for that is called a "long stick," which has also been called carpet bombing.

So now 'carpet bombing is a 'colloquialism' versus a highly defined term? It is a slippery slope that we seem to be riding.
Now, from an interview that Paul Wolfowitz gave to the BBC in November the same year (more of my emphasis) we see further refutation of the the term 'carpet bombing':

BBC: Can I just ask you first of all about the latest developments in the war in Afghanistan which is that positions north of Kabul are being now carpet bombed,we hear. Is that a change of strategy?

Wolfowitz: I don't think it's a change of strategy. That's a journalistic term, I believe. We are certainly putting very heavy effort against Taliban positions. The strategy from the beginning has been to empower the opposition forces inside Afghanistan to be able to undermine and eventually hopefully overthrow the Taliban.

BBC: But moving from a position where clearly the strikes were one off from surgical to B-52s going in and it looks like carpet bombing to anyone who saw the pictures.

Wolfowitz: Again, I find it -- this is not carpet bombing a la Dresden and World War II. It is one of the reasons, by the way, we did not send (inaudible) from the beginning is, it is twice the size, it covers a significant area, but it's areas that are chosen quite precisely to be front line units. When you're going after front line units you don't take out one soldier at a time.

So even the civilian leadership gets the difference between bombing a city and bombing 'front line' units in the field. A fine point as to why Dresden doesn't meet my high standard for the term 'carpet bombing' is one I will put aside as 1) irrelevant for this argument and 2) a more complex issue than can be tackled in a blog post - Heck, I have read books that have fallen short on the issue.

Finally, we note that the 'carpet bombing' meme survived to OIF, and that the press refuses to make/see the distinction between precision use of unguided weapons and 'carpet bombing' as a convenient scare term. From a March 3, 2003 briefing at the Pentagon we find the now-retired General McChrystal jumping in to correct a questioner on the topic:

Q: Torie, on the use of the heavy bombers -- and I address this to the general primarily -- the B-1s, B-2s and B-52s, can you tell what kind of ordnance they're dropping? The B-52 is dropping dumb bombs, what we used to call carpet bombing, on the Republican Guard troops?

McChrystal: Sir, they are not. They are dropping a combination of munitions, a large number of precision munitions. So there's really not carpet bombing occurring.

I would have loved to know who asked that question. The phrasing dismisses the distinction that exists between carpet bombing and techniques into a simple change or terms for the same thing.

You don't have to look hard for where the MSM gets their ideas on 'carpet bombing'. Just enter the terms "carpet bombing" with the name of the war you are interested in in your search engine and you get such lovely link suggestions:

"Operation Desert Slaughter": http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Oper_Desert_Slaughter_1991

PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/b52.html

Rabid Montclair State University faculty (A Stalinist-English Teacher?-ROFLMAO!):
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/gulf-war-fingrut.html

Project on Defense Alternatives:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html

...you get the drift. All the usual 'Blame America First' scumb...er...suspects.

ANOTHER "Conservative= Bad Person" Study?

Déjà vu... all over again.

The summary of yet another...ahem...‘study’ at this link finding correlation between one's personality and ones politics has a strangely similar feel to one that was a pretty hot topic back at Dr. Helen’s blog back in 2005 (disclosure: I was a commenter) .

From the latest:

Researchers at UofT [Toronto] have shown that the psychological concern for compassion and equality is associated with a liberal mindset, while the concern for order and respect of social norms is associated with a conservative mindset.

One wonders if the 'researchers' ever considered how their own bias may have caused them to miss a few key questions and answers, such as: What if liberals seek 'equality of outcomes' while conservatives seek 'equality of opportunity'? And how does their bias affect how they decide which philosophy is more 'compassionate' and just?

Is it just me, or are these things coming out even more frequently these days? I can hardly wait for Iron Shrink and/or Dr. Helen to weigh in on this one.

Ann Althouse Debunks Media Wailing on Texas Curriculum

So I don't have to. (Hat tip: Althouse via Instapundit)

Prof. Ann Althouse picks apart another breathless (and deceitful) report from the mainstream media on how Texas is somehow subverting the education of Texas youth.
Thanks Professor! (And my closing statement at the bottom of this post still rings true.)

Updated and Bumped from and earlier post titled:
Leftard Reporter April Castro Shocked! Shocked!
...that the Texas Board of Education moves to De-Leftardize School curriculum.

My Original Post:
In an AP article just published and titled Texas ed board vote reflects far-right influences, 'writer' April Castro breathlessly reveals her bottomless ignorance of all things American.

A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

'Far right faction... injecting conservative ideals' - Got it.
I'd have to review the litany of changes that the Texas Board of Education is making in the 'original' before I would pass judgement of them, but Little Ms. April helpfully provides a few (with obligatory leftist bias I'm sure) examples of the 'radical' moves being made in Texas Ed. My favorite is one of the first ones:

Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic,"...

Gee. ah... April honey? The United States IS a frickin' "constitutional republic". See here, here, and here.
I suppose just about everything looks like it is 'far right' to someone if they can be habitually found grazing in the deep left field.

Update: I knew there would be more breathless and vapid criticisms of Texas Board of Education's making changes to the curriculum and I was right. Seems the Freakonomics twit has poor search engine skills that lead him to some poor conclusions (thanks for the info Volokh!) concerning F.A Hayek.

You couldn't write marketable fiction with characters as dumb as those found in the MSM.

Philip Coyle III is baaaack?!

This is not good.
I'm kicking myself now for not saving an old OSD web page where Philip Coyle as Director of Operational Test and Evaluation demonstrated an absolutely superficial understanding of the Kill Chain in making his case for universally requiring Live Fire Testing without allowing for opportunity cost impact variations by program. The guy's intellect is consistently hamstrung by ideology.

Now we have an Obama Administration nominating a long-time missile defense critic to run missile defense. Hey! What could go wrong? Nothing that isn't intended by the subversives in charge, that's for sure.

Coffee Party: This is CNN....

Astroturfing!

More Evidence!

and More...

Update 03/15: and More...

The usual Koffeeklatchura suspects: aging hipsters, echo hippies, etc, etc. - all pretending to be a new 'grass roots' movement.

Sad...

Nancy Pelosi & Dr Evil: Separated at Birth?

The AP/Ben Margot pic shown with the latest AP propaganda "Pelosi confident House will pass health care bill" just begs photoshopping. But not much...

'Nuff said...