Friday, September 2, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
September 11th is approaching...
It is Sept. 1, and that means we are once again approaching the anniversary of al Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the United States. In the 10 years that have passed since the attacks, a lot has happened and much has changed in the world, but many people can still vividly recall the sense of fear, uncertainty and helplessness they felt on that September morning. Millions of people watched United Airlines flight 175 smash into the south tower of the World Trade Center on live television. A short while later they heard that another plane had struck the Pentagon. Then they watched in horror as the World Trade Center’s twin towers buckled and collapsed to the ground.
America's Strategic Learning Disability
I have commented more than once that we as a nation has lost its Strategic vision, we do what is politically expedient versus what is right for the long term goals and security of the United States . We had the stones as a nation to defeat Germany and Japan and the pacific war with japan was particularly nasty with no quarters given. Since that we have performed half measures especially related to Vietnam and I believe now to Iraq and Afganistan. I remember U.S. Grant the Union General and later President of the United States had a comment" Better to pay the butchers bill now when it is cheaper than later where the price is higher." He believed in overwhelming force to crush the enemy to get the war over with sooner. We are more concerned about political fallout than what is proper course of action.
I got this from here
Via one of the most reliable conduits of truth about the Army — the mysterious stick figure known only as Doctrine Man — here’s a very interesting writeup: Retired Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik has a piece in this month’s Army magazine called ‘A National Strategic Learning Disability’ in which he wonders whether the United States has what it takes at the top leadership level in order to prosecute its national goals.
“Our national strategies and policies have dragged out operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing more in lives, sacrifices, money and political will than was necessary,” Dubik writes. The U.S. did not finish key jobs in Iraq or Afghanistan, he argues, because it mistakenly thought it had accomplished goals it hadn’t and didn’t have a full understanding of what it wanted. This leads him to ask four key questions: “Do we have the ability to construct and execute a coherent national strategy? Have we lost the ability to use force decisively? Do we confuse ending a war with an ‘exit strategy’ to leave a war? Do we lack strategic imagination?” Quick answers: Yes; yes; no; yes.
Still there? All right. If you want to keep reading, here’s much more elaboration: Dubik’s assessment about the American ability to contemplate and execute a master strategy is succinct but devastating, and it’s worth quoting in its entirety:
As for force, Dubik argues the U.S. has fallen into a trap of using the least amount possible, requiring commanders to re-learn the painful lesson that doing so doesn’t actually save you anything. “This apparent economy protracts war because it yields the strategic initiative to the enemy. They get to choose whether to ‘up the ante.’ In war, force should be applied in ways that reduce the options of one’s enemies and increase one’s own.” Presidents Bush and Obama eventually had no choice but to resort to “surges,” which appeared to help turn the tide in their respective wars.
This is the critical point: Wars are started by politicians, and the more troops in harm’s way, the more of a political risk to them. Sending more troops means there’s more of a chance average Americans might pay attention to what’s happening, also increasing the risk they might decide they oppose it. It’s just more effective politically to use the least you can of a comparatively small, volunteer force, especially when people ‘support the troops’ no matter what — just so long as they don’t have to do anything else, including sacrifice or serve.
As to Dubik’s next question, it’s difficult to confuse an ‘exit strategy’ with a legitimate end to a war. To return to his first point, the U.S. began its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without a specific, achievable end state in mind — a flawed strategy. Compare the state of Iraq today to 1991, when President George H.W. Bush set a discrete goal — eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eliminate them as a threat to their neighbors — and accomplished it deftly. It meant he endured slings and arrows from neoconservatives who wanted Saddam deposed, but in retrospect we can see its elegance: Iraq remained a stable, if hollow, version of its former self and a check on Iranian adventurism.
The current American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is about cutting losses and crossing fingers — both countries could devolve into violent anarchy within six months of the pullouts. But America is sick of war, broke and becoming resigned to the reality that after a decade and some $4 trillion, Iraq and Afghanistan are as good as they’re going to get. What stops insurgents from just hiding out until American troops are gone? How will both countries afford and maintain their U.S.-trained militaries over the long term? That would require perpetual commitments in both places, which some people support, but most Americans don’t.
Dubik’s final point is that commanders’ lack of ‘strategic imagination’ has continued to trip up military campaigns over the past decade, and will keep doing so unless the brass overcomes it. He writes:
What do you think?
I got this from here
Via one of the most reliable conduits of truth about the Army — the mysterious stick figure known only as Doctrine Man — here’s a very interesting writeup: Retired Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik has a piece in this month’s Army magazine called ‘A National Strategic Learning Disability’ in which he wonders whether the United States has what it takes at the top leadership level in order to prosecute its national goals.
“Our national strategies and policies have dragged out operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing more in lives, sacrifices, money and political will than was necessary,” Dubik writes. The U.S. did not finish key jobs in Iraq or Afghanistan, he argues, because it mistakenly thought it had accomplished goals it hadn’t and didn’t have a full understanding of what it wanted. This leads him to ask four key questions: “Do we have the ability to construct and execute a coherent national strategy? Have we lost the ability to use force decisively? Do we confuse ending a war with an ‘exit strategy’ to leave a war? Do we lack strategic imagination?” Quick answers: Yes; yes; no; yes.
Still there? All right. If you want to keep reading, here’s much more elaboration: Dubik’s assessment about the American ability to contemplate and execute a master strategy is succinct but devastating, and it’s worth quoting in its entirety:
With respect to the war against al Qaeda, we have been out of balance from the start by not really deciding whether to treat al Qaeda as a war enemy or international criminals (it has elements of both) and overmilitarizing, at least initially, the strategy that we did execute. Finally, we have been out of balance from the start in that we have never figured out a way to pay for our operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and against al Qaeda—a key element of any national strategy.Nearly 10 years later, nobody remembers the voices after Sept. 11 that argued you can’t have a ‘war on terrorism,’ i.e., a tactic, and that cited examples in Europe and elsewhere where terrorists were treated as criminals, with a reactive, law enforcement-style approach, as opposed to an aggressive military campaign. But Americans were in payback mode and wanted revenge, so they did not want to just sit idle and settle for trying evildoers in court. (Many still don’t.) So the U.S. may have chosen the wrong strategy, but it can still build and execute one. Then again, there’s a case to be made that the current strategy of eliminating the threat posed by radical, anti-American Islam is flawed because it requires the impossible: eliminating an idea. At least in the Cold War, ‘containment’ was achievable. In fact, the West fared pretty well, even if there are a few stragglers here and there.
In sum, for a decade our national strategy has been ineffective. Two strategically important results have emerged. First, American military forces have been at war, but for much of this period neither the government nor the nation has been at war. Second, we have spent blood, money and national reputation to not accomplish our strategic aims.
As for force, Dubik argues the U.S. has fallen into a trap of using the least amount possible, requiring commanders to re-learn the painful lesson that doing so doesn’t actually save you anything. “This apparent economy protracts war because it yields the strategic initiative to the enemy. They get to choose whether to ‘up the ante.’ In war, force should be applied in ways that reduce the options of one’s enemies and increase one’s own.” Presidents Bush and Obama eventually had no choice but to resort to “surges,” which appeared to help turn the tide in their respective wars.
This is the critical point: Wars are started by politicians, and the more troops in harm’s way, the more of a political risk to them. Sending more troops means there’s more of a chance average Americans might pay attention to what’s happening, also increasing the risk they might decide they oppose it. It’s just more effective politically to use the least you can of a comparatively small, volunteer force, especially when people ‘support the troops’ no matter what — just so long as they don’t have to do anything else, including sacrifice or serve.
As to Dubik’s next question, it’s difficult to confuse an ‘exit strategy’ with a legitimate end to a war. To return to his first point, the U.S. began its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without a specific, achievable end state in mind — a flawed strategy. Compare the state of Iraq today to 1991, when President George H.W. Bush set a discrete goal — eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eliminate them as a threat to their neighbors — and accomplished it deftly. It meant he endured slings and arrows from neoconservatives who wanted Saddam deposed, but in retrospect we can see its elegance: Iraq remained a stable, if hollow, version of its former self and a check on Iranian adventurism.
The current American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is about cutting losses and crossing fingers — both countries could devolve into violent anarchy within six months of the pullouts. But America is sick of war, broke and becoming resigned to the reality that after a decade and some $4 trillion, Iraq and Afghanistan are as good as they’re going to get. What stops insurgents from just hiding out until American troops are gone? How will both countries afford and maintain their U.S.-trained militaries over the long term? That would require perpetual commitments in both places, which some people support, but most Americans don’t.
Dubik’s final point is that commanders’ lack of ‘strategic imagination’ has continued to trip up military campaigns over the past decade, and will keep doing so unless the brass overcomes it. He writes:
Ten years of evidence that war has more than one form seems to have been insufficient to prompt adequate adaptation—domestically or internationally. Current discussions often find adherents claiming that the conflict in Libya isn’t a war, for example, or that war cannot be waged in cyberspace. Without adequate strategic imagination, America perpetually risks not only applying a strategy that does not match the specific enemy and situation of a given case, but also having a set of institutions and procedures equivalent to attempting to fit a round peg into a square hole. Thus we risk more examples of spending our strategic capital— lives, sacrifice, money and will—in not attaining our strategic aims.This might be the toughest point of all — can you change culture? And can you change it quickly enough to respond to all of today’s threats?
What do you think?
Obungler and the 9-11 commemoration
I am disgusted that the Obungler whitehouse wants to minimize the Al-Qaeda involvement in the most devastating attack on the United States in recent history. I have heard that they want to make 9-11 a day of service for what ever leftist cause is espoused. Lets forget about the victims of Islam, and that they have sworn to destroy us. We will be politically correct. I have heard from several newspaper articles that the firemen and police are not allowed to participate and that priest cannot participate, but I am sure there will be an iman there to represent islam.
(Fox) — Top spokesmen for the Obama administration on Tuesday defended the White House’s issuance of “talking points” designed to shape how federal officials in this country and American diplomats serving abroad frame the upcoming 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The guidelines, which were first reported by The New York Times, encompassed two sets of instructions: one drawn up chiefly for domestic consumption, the other geared primarily toward foreign audiences and disseminated to U.S. Embassy officers throughout the world.
“This is not unusual,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, adding that the Bush administration had issued press guidance for federal officials on the occasions of the second and fifth anniversaries of Sept. 11 – which Nuland repeatedly referred to in her briefing from the State Department podium as “nine-one-one.”
Nuland said the advisory to overseas ambassadors and their consular staff was motivated “primarily to ensure that embassies are marking the event, that they are having joint events in their host country to stand together against terrorism, and ensure that the day is marked appropriately internationally.”
Still, the documents, as reported in the Times¸ contained some unusual elements.
One set of guidelines urged U.S. officials to “minimize references to Al-Qaeda.” The documents cited the killing of Usama bin Laden as evidence that the terror network that plotted and executed the Sept. 11 attacks is becoming “increasingly irrelevant.”
Another talking point instructed American officials overseas to seek to universalize the commemorative day by noting: “We honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation…whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.
Obama Admin Defends Issuing “Talking Points” To Officials Telling Them To “Minimize References To Al-Qaeda” When Speaking About 9/11…
(Fox) — Top spokesmen for the Obama administration on Tuesday defended the White House’s issuance of “talking points” designed to shape how federal officials in this country and American diplomats serving abroad frame the upcoming 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The guidelines, which were first reported by The New York Times, encompassed two sets of instructions: one drawn up chiefly for domestic consumption, the other geared primarily toward foreign audiences and disseminated to U.S. Embassy officers throughout the world.
“This is not unusual,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, adding that the Bush administration had issued press guidance for federal officials on the occasions of the second and fifth anniversaries of Sept. 11 – which Nuland repeatedly referred to in her briefing from the State Department podium as “nine-one-one.”
Nuland said the advisory to overseas ambassadors and their consular staff was motivated “primarily to ensure that embassies are marking the event, that they are having joint events in their host country to stand together against terrorism, and ensure that the day is marked appropriately internationally.”
Still, the documents, as reported in the Times¸ contained some unusual elements.
One set of guidelines urged U.S. officials to “minimize references to Al-Qaeda.” The documents cited the killing of Usama bin Laden as evidence that the terror network that plotted and executed the Sept. 11 attacks is becoming “increasingly irrelevant.”
Another talking point instructed American officials overseas to seek to universalize the commemorative day by noting: “We honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation…whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Contrast and compare
Washington Politician vs American Citizen
Arsenal of Weapons vs Gun Collection
Delicate Wetlands vs Swamp
Undocumented Worker vs Illegal Alien
Cruelty-Free Materials vs Synthetic Fiber
Assault and Battery vs Attitude Adjustment
Heavily Armed vs Well-protected
Narrow-minded vs Righteous
Taxes Your Fair Share vs Coerced Theft
Commonsense Gun Control vs Gun Confiscation Plot
Illegal Hazardous Explosives vs Dynamite for Stump Removal
Nonviable Tissue Mass vs Unborn Baby
Equal Access to Opportunity vs Socialism
Multicultural Community vs High Crime Area
Fairness or Social Progress vs Marxism
Upper Class or "The Rich " vs Self-Employed
Progressive, Change vs Big Government Scheme
Homeless or Disadvantaged vs Bums or Welfare Leeches
Sniper Rifle vs Scoped Deer Rifle
Investment For the Future vs Higher Taxes
Healthcare Reform vs Socialized Medicine
Extremist, Judgmental or Hater vs Conservative
Truants vs Homeschoolers
Victim or Oppressed vs Criminal or Lazy Good-For-Nothing
High Capacity Magazine vs Standard Capacity Magazine
Religious Zealot vs Church-going
Reintroduced Wolves vs Sheep and Elk Killers
Fair Trade Coffee vs Overpriced Yuppie Coffee
Exploiters or "The Rich " vs Employed or Land Owner
The Gun Lobby vs NRA Members
Assault Weapon vs Semi-Auto (Grandpa's M1 Carbine)
Fiscal Stimulus vs New Taxes and Higher Taxes
Same Sex Marriage vs Legalized Perversion
Mandated Eco-Friendly Lighting vs Chinese Mercury-Laden Light Bulbs
It's obvious we don't speak the same language . . .
Obungler and Hitler Youth comparison
I got this link from my Dad and watched it, it is a comparison of Obungler and Hitler youth. Both uses propaganda and children. The Children are the most impressionable in our society. What Hitler was doing with the HJ(Hitler Jungend) or as we called it "HItler Youth". You push a long term change of society starting off with the children. The Soviets did the same thing, especially with Stalin,
his NKVD
used the children to basically spy on their parents and if the parents were "disloyal" then the internal security apparatus would pay a visit and depending on the transgression, anything from a beating to making a visit to a Gulag for an extended stay at the behest of the state. I see this video and all I can think of with those little American kids, they were singing to make their teacher happy but it also is indoctrination. What will happen if Obungler gets reelected, will we have this stuff happening here? Can you imagine what it does for the traditional family structure when the kids can use the state to punish the parents? maybe that is what they want, having the new generation swear loyalty to a figurehead rather than their parents. the government will be both mother and father, can you imagine what the kids will turn out as?
his NKVD
used the children to basically spy on their parents and if the parents were "disloyal" then the internal security apparatus would pay a visit and depending on the transgression, anything from a beating to making a visit to a Gulag for an extended stay at the behest of the state. I see this video and all I can think of with those little American kids, they were singing to make their teacher happy but it also is indoctrination. What will happen if Obungler gets reelected, will we have this stuff happening here? Can you imagine what it does for the traditional family structure when the kids can use the state to punish the parents? maybe that is what they want, having the new generation swear loyalty to a figurehead rather than their parents. the government will be both mother and father, can you imagine what the kids will turn out as?
Reagonomics....
For the Record
"If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama. The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus. By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would 'overheat.' In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a 'double-dip' recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight. My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't." --columnist Stephen Moore
"When a business or an individual spends more than it makes, it goes bankrupt. When government does it, it sends you the bill. And when government does it for 40 years, the bill comes in two ways: higher taxes and inflation. Make no mistake about it, inflation is a tax and not by accident." --Ronald Reagan
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
9-11 rememberance
I am watching the NATGEO 9-11 interview with President Bush. Listening to him talking about 9-11 and the people that would never forget that day. I remembered what I was doing on that day. I was asleep since I was working the evening shift at Ford Motor Company building cars and we were on overtime so I had gotten home late and was asleep. I remember getting a call from my wife after the first plane hit the tower. I turned the TV on just in time to see the second plane hit the tower. I was in shock and I knew that we were at war. I had told people for years that the terrorist would strike here because we are considered the "great satan" by the squirrels of islam. After watching the news , I had to go to work and sign in, Ford was shut down, but if I wanted to get paid, I still had to sign in. As I was driving in, there was absolutely no planes in the air, the plant was right off I-75 next to the airport. I was used to seeing and hearing airplanes all the time coming in for landing. But there was absolutely nothing in the air, and it was a bright blue sky. It was surreal.
When I see the pictures or see the footage, it still hurts for the sheer loss of life and the shock.
When I see the pictures or see the footage, it still hurts for the sheer loss of life and the shock.
monday music
here is a new installment of Monday Music
Torn
Also Nickleback
Figured I give a break of the 80's music
Torn
Also Nickleback
Figured I give a break of the 80's music
Monday, August 29, 2011
A Democrats guide on Emergency Preparedness and the Zombie Apocalypse
H/T to Morlock
A Democrat's Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse
1. A giant Zombie Hoard is approaching. What do you do? First you need to ascertain if these are actually zombies. A giant swarm of mind numbed automatons could be just some of the Democrat base. Check for signs or t-shirts with the following logos: AFL-CIO, ACORN, SEIU, PETA, MoveOn.org, Teamsters, Amnesty Intl., CAIR, ACLU, or anyone from Berkeley. This could avert a lot of confusion and you may choose to join the marchers in their chants and monotonous din.
 |
| May or May not be a Zombie |
2. Ok so you have discovered that these creatures are actual zombies. Well, you can't just go and label these as creatures bent on eating you. Try to understand them. They're people too, or at least they once were. What motivates them? Is it just an unquenchable thirst for brains or are they too a victim of our corrupt society's obsession with greed? Maybe you could appoint an ambassador to represent the zombies. If Al Sharpton is a zombie, now would be a good time to give him a megaphone.
 |
| Zombie Al |
3. These Zombies apparently mean business. Well, your next course of action should come naturally: Sanctions. Yes a trade embargo on brains should teach the zombies that you mean business. If they continue on their current course toward you, they need to know that they will no longer get the brains they so desire.
 |
| Typical Protest Sign seen at Zombie Rallies |
4. Now would be a good time to find shelter. Do not build anything unless you have the proper permit. This could be dangerous to do without a government agency overseeing the construction of said shelter. Also off limits are the following: Historical Sites, Endangered species habitats, Potential Endangered Species Habitats, Forests, Beaches, Mountains, Hills, or pretty much anywhere that might disturb wildlife. Poor Neighborhoods should also be avoided. This would not be fair to them. Rich Neighborhoods and Corporate buildings are OK if you can get passed the Armed Owners. The most logical decision is where Democrats always run to solve a problem: Government Buildings.
 |
| Only sanctioned Zombie Shelter. Hope you don't live far from DC. |
5. Protection is a necessity. But under no circumstances are you to use Firearms. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about protecting yourself against Zombies. Knives, Swords, Machetes, or Axes are also dangerous and off limits. Use a stick that is no thicker than your finger and no longer than your arm. This will have the desired effect of protecting oneself from the zombies while keeping safety a number one priority.
 |
| Don't even think about it! |
6. When defending yourself against the onslaught of brain hungry golems, you should keep the following rules of engagement in mind: Never strike the zombie on the face. This could cause damage to the Zombie which would result in a potential lawsuit. This is also true for Hands, arms, neck, legs, groin, feet, or buttocks. Only light body blows should be considered.
7. If there are people with brains around you, then you should immediately volunteer them for a shared sacrifice approach. They share their brains and you sacrifice your time in contributing in this. Fellow democrats do not make suitable brain donors so look for a nearby republican, if there are any left in the vicinity. Most Republicans will be in Non-sanctioned Zombie shelters and armed with shotguns. Don't worry we will give them all fines later.
 |
| Nugent: Leader of the Republican Zombie Resistance |
8. At this point you may have been bitten. You should immediately bite as many people as you can while you are still semi-aware. This would be unfair if some of the ones around you are not zombies. The Zombie ACLU may assist you in this.
9. Well you are a full fledged zombie at this point. You are a Brain Dead Putrid Moaning hideous Creature that only reacts to its base needs while sucking the life out of those around you. In other words, You're a Democrat, nothing much has changed.
 |
| Zombie-in-Chief |
MD88s and MD 90's to remain with Delta
I don't work on MD88's MD 90's and Boeing 717's. They basically are the same series of aircraft. When Delta placed that order for 100 737's some media speculated that Delta will finally get rid of their MD fleet. I saw this on one of the aircraft blogs that I check out and figure I would post it since I like airplanes.
Despite media speculation about the future of Delta’s MD-88 and MD-90 fleet, the airline has no plans to retire the domestic aircraft.
“MD-88s and MD-90s are the workhorses of our domestic fleet,” said Nat Pieper, v.p.-Fleet Strategy. “They are flexible, cost-efficient aircraft, and we will be flying them for many years to come.”
On Thursday, Delta announced plans to purchase 100 new Boeing 737-900ER aircraft between 2013 and 2018, to replace domestic Boeing 757s, 767s and Airbus A320s that retire during the seven-year delivery period.
A story published by Dow Jones Newswire suggested that the new aircraft could also replace MD-88s and MD-90s. But Nat stressed that there are no plans to phase out those aircraft, which have been upgraded with new roomier interiors, extended overhead bins, in-flight Wi-Fi, additional first class seats, and other customer amenities.
Delta has 117 MD-88s in service, as well as 28 MD-90s. Delta has an additional 30 used MD-90s in the process of being upgraded or under contract, all of which are projected to join the fleet by 2013.
| August 26, 2011 |
Despite media speculation about the future of Delta’s MD-88 and MD-90 fleet, the airline has no plans to retire the domestic aircraft.“MD-88s and MD-90s are the workhorses of our domestic fleet,” said Nat Pieper, v.p.-Fleet Strategy. “They are flexible, cost-efficient aircraft, and we will be flying them for many years to come.”
On Thursday, Delta announced plans to purchase 100 new Boeing 737-900ER aircraft between 2013 and 2018, to replace domestic Boeing 757s, 767s and Airbus A320s that retire during the seven-year delivery period.
A story published by Dow Jones Newswire suggested that the new aircraft could also replace MD-88s and MD-90s. But Nat stressed that there are no plans to phase out those aircraft, which have been upgraded with new roomier interiors, extended overhead bins, in-flight Wi-Fi, additional first class seats, and other customer amenities.
Delta has 117 MD-88s in service, as well as 28 MD-90s. Delta has an additional 30 used MD-90s in the process of being upgraded or under contract, all of which are projected to join the fleet by 2013.
Airplane stuff
I work in the aviation field and here in Atlanta the hometown airline, Delta announced plans to purchase 100 new Boeing Boeing 737-900ER's from Boeing to replace the older Boeing 757, Boeing 767 and Airbus A319/A320's. I work on both Boeing and Airbus as part of my job and I am pleased that they will buy the new Boeing airplane. My experiences with Airbus, yes it is a good airplane, but parts are more expensive and you have to get them from Airbus and they tend to be difficult to deal with. With Boeing we can get the parts very easily, but with Airbus, we invariably have to get the parts from Airbus in France and that cost more money plus we get charged a VAT. That adds up the total cost and as a personal quirk, I like the pilot to be in total command of the aircraft. In 2009 when the miracle on the hudson happened, the plane involved was an Airbus A320-214 type of airplane. When Capt Sully flew through the flock of birds, the pitot tube which measures air temperature and pressure inside the engine was clogged with bird guts and the computer immediately idled the engines, as it was programmed to do because it detected no air movement or pressure. Capt Sully performed an incredible feat with a crippled airplane. But I am of the mindset that if he was in a Boeing 737 instead, he would have landed at LaGuardia because the pilot being aware would have overidden the computer and the plane would have limped in and landed on a runway rather than a river landing.
Obungler fatigue
Obama Fatigue
By Alan Caruba
It occurred to me (and probably a lot of others as well) that it’s just over for Obama. It doesn’t matter that he intends to present yet another “plan” to get Americans working again after his Martha’s Vineyard vacation.
Whatever plan Obama puts forward will simply repackage his failed “stimulus”, his “tax the rich”, and other idiotic socialist notions of how to “fix” the economy. They didn’t work during the Great Depression and will not work now.
Like a female preying mantis that eats the head of the male who mates with her, just about everyone that has had any contact with Barack Obama suffers as a result. It didn’t matter if it was his white grandparents who took him in when his mother abandoned him---after having gone through two husbands. It didn’t matter if it was his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in whose church he learned the fundamentals of black liberation theology. He has a habit of abandoning or denying relationships. His marriage appears to be the exception.
Presidents, though, are judged on their accomplishments and Obama has so few it’s becoming an embarrassment. Like the woman who told him she was “exhausted” from trying to defend him, a lot of die-hard liberals are looking for cover as he hits the campaign trail to secure the nomination for a second term. If there is such a thing as an honest Democratic Party consultant or strategist, they would surely tell you that Obama is going to be overwhelmingly defeated.
A former Louisiana Governor, Edwin Edwards, famously said that the only way he could be defeated was if he was found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. The only way the Republican candidate will be defeated would involve similar indiscretions. That has not stopped liberal scum from advertising for “dirt” on Gov. Rick Perry.
This is likely to be one of the dirtiest, if not the dirtiest, campaign ever waged against whoever is the Republican choice to run against Obama. That’s the “Chicago way.”
Come September, policy wonks will be looking to see what Obama has to say about the one issue that will surely defeat him, unemployment. Let me save you some time, the ill-famed “stimulus” devoted much of its billions as transfers to states so teachers, police and fireman could be retained and pensions paid, to ill-fated “green” enterprises, and to a few infrastructure projects after Obama discovered there weren’t many that were “shovel ready.”
The other part of his plan was to expand the size of the federal government through the creation of some truly monstrous bureaucracies such as those associated with Obamacare and the passage of the Dodd-Frank oversight of banks and financial firms.
Simply stated, government does not create jobs in the private sector. It just creates government jobs. Even The New York Times took note of a Brookings Institution report that found “clean-technology jobs accounted for just two percent of employment nationwide.”
To which I say, “Duh!” If you want to know where solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured, Google CHINA. In the U.S., they are merely assembled for sale. So-called “green” companies are filing for bankruptcy with predictable frequency, taking taxpayer subsidies and grants with them.
What I confess I find astonishing are the continuing reports of the President’s fund-raising success. Notably Obama has already scheduled far more such events than the last four presidents who preceded him. Hollywood gives gobs of money and so does Wall Street. The latter has always struck me as odd if only because it represents a hotbed of capitalism while, in reality, its denizens tend to be raving liberals.
What worries me more than anything else about President Obama is the fact that he has sixteen months left in which to inflict as much damage on the economy and the nation’s future as possible. I have little doubt that is his intent.
He just issued an Executive Order as an end-run around the illegal alien amnesty issue that Americans have defeated a half dozen times when Congress tried to get it passed. The new fuel economy standards his administration has announced will add an average of $11,000 to the cost of buying a new car.
Another recent executive order tells the heads of departments and agencies to make sure their hiring practices involve “diversity” which is another way of saying pass on qualified whites and hire blacks and Hispanics. His Supreme Court appointee, Sonia Sotomeyer, once ruled that a local fire department had to lower its hiring standards because no blacks passed its application exam. Whatever happened to color blind hiring?
A President is expected to provide leadership and Obama has provided none, domestic or foreign.
Americans cannot begin to fathom how much other nations around the world look to America to set the tone and provide direction in the conduct of their affairs with each other. We have seen what happens when foreign leaders and troublemakers conclude the President of the United States of America can be ignored with impunity.
America is experiencing Obama Fatigue. He has worn out everyone with endless speeches. The man lies. He lies all the time. He lies more than Bill Clinton during the awful Monica Lewinsky scandal or Richard Nixon during Watergate.
His job plan will be another lie, another pathetic liberal concoction in which the government just spends more money it does not have. Or worse, intends to tax people for money they cannot spare.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)