Saturday, April 30, 2005
Flight of the Albatross
NASA recently made the decision to roll Discovery back to the vehicle assembly building to make additional fixes. The shuttle will not fly until July 13 at the earliest.
Such a move on NASA's part seems to indicate that safety is clearly a concern in the agency. Still, there are signs that all is not right. For instance, one of NASA's concerns when making the rollback decision was ice buildup around the bipod area of the tank (where the failure-prone foam was removed.) Although NASA has said that the first mission after return to flight will have heaters in this area, I have to ask why nobody put them in place for Discovery's mission. My guess is that somebody thought they were unneccesary and opted to leave them off to save some time from the schedule. If tha's the case, the move was counter-productive in terms of saving time.
It's clear by now that NASA will not be able to fit in the 28 flights required for ISS completion by the end of 2010. I suspect that NASA's administrator, Michael Griffin, has a plan to drastically scale back ISS and terminate the shuttle early. It's this kind of common-sense thinking that NASA needs if the agency is to be saved from its own institutional momentum.
Such a move on NASA's part seems to indicate that safety is clearly a concern in the agency. Still, there are signs that all is not right. For instance, one of NASA's concerns when making the rollback decision was ice buildup around the bipod area of the tank (where the failure-prone foam was removed.) Although NASA has said that the first mission after return to flight will have heaters in this area, I have to ask why nobody put them in place for Discovery's mission. My guess is that somebody thought they were unneccesary and opted to leave them off to save some time from the schedule. If tha's the case, the move was counter-productive in terms of saving time.
It's clear by now that NASA will not be able to fit in the 28 flights required for ISS completion by the end of 2010. I suspect that NASA's administrator, Michael Griffin, has a plan to drastically scale back ISS and terminate the shuttle early. It's this kind of common-sense thinking that NASA needs if the agency is to be saved from its own institutional momentum.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Hillary's not a rocket scientist
I couldn't have been more repulsed than when I read this pithy statement from Hillary Clinton regarding North Korea's long-range missile program:
In an interview on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's statement "the first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States," adding, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."
Put simply, Hillary Clinton is a moron. North Korea's long-range missile program isn't much better off than when she left the White House. It was during the era of the false North-South detente and the Madeline Albright visit that North Korea voluntarily suspended testing of Taepo Dong 2. North Korea's actual capability to launch such a missile remains unchanged due to the testing moratorium. Perhaps it has the range to reach the US, but the guidance system of the missile is much more difficult to build than the propulsion system.
The Democrats have made several attempts to blame George Bush for a seemingly-deteriorating situation with North Korea. The party line is that Bill Clinton made peace with Kim Jong Il, only for George Bush to screw it up. In reality, George Bush realized that Clinton policy towards North Korea was a clear-cut example of appeasement.
It's not George Bush's fault that North Korea has nukes; our CIA has been saying that North Korea had nukes since at least 1999, perhaps even before that. It's just that President Bush had the intestinal fortitude to put North Korea on the spot and hold them accountable. The Clintons covered up North Korea's labor camps and starvation in the name of peace talks, which were largely funded by South Korean appeaser-president Kim Dae Jung.
Perhaps North Korea has miniaturized nuclear warheads so they can be placed on missiles. It should also be noted that during the Bush Administration, the US has developed the ability to shoot down nuclear warheads launched by rogue states like North Korea. I seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have allowed Groundbased Midcourse Defense to continue.
I give our president high marks for his efforts at containing weapons proliferation in Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Initially I thought Jimmy Carter's 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea was a good idea, but it's now clear that North Korea was negotiating in bad faith. Negotiating with the North is useless, because they want nothing short of a Korea united under the Pyongyang government.
While there is plenty of room for debate in our foreign policy, all rational Americans believe that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea are a very bad thing. It's about time the Democrats stood in lockstep with our president on this issue instead of undermining our North Korea policy at every turn.
In an interview on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's statement "the first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States," adding, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."
Put simply, Hillary Clinton is a moron. North Korea's long-range missile program isn't much better off than when she left the White House. It was during the era of the false North-South detente and the Madeline Albright visit that North Korea voluntarily suspended testing of Taepo Dong 2. North Korea's actual capability to launch such a missile remains unchanged due to the testing moratorium. Perhaps it has the range to reach the US, but the guidance system of the missile is much more difficult to build than the propulsion system.
The Democrats have made several attempts to blame George Bush for a seemingly-deteriorating situation with North Korea. The party line is that Bill Clinton made peace with Kim Jong Il, only for George Bush to screw it up. In reality, George Bush realized that Clinton policy towards North Korea was a clear-cut example of appeasement.
It's not George Bush's fault that North Korea has nukes; our CIA has been saying that North Korea had nukes since at least 1999, perhaps even before that. It's just that President Bush had the intestinal fortitude to put North Korea on the spot and hold them accountable. The Clintons covered up North Korea's labor camps and starvation in the name of peace talks, which were largely funded by South Korean appeaser-president Kim Dae Jung.
Perhaps North Korea has miniaturized nuclear warheads so they can be placed on missiles. It should also be noted that during the Bush Administration, the US has developed the ability to shoot down nuclear warheads launched by rogue states like North Korea. I seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have allowed Groundbased Midcourse Defense to continue.
I give our president high marks for his efforts at containing weapons proliferation in Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Initially I thought Jimmy Carter's 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea was a good idea, but it's now clear that North Korea was negotiating in bad faith. Negotiating with the North is useless, because they want nothing short of a Korea united under the Pyongyang government.
While there is plenty of room for debate in our foreign policy, all rational Americans believe that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea are a very bad thing. It's about time the Democrats stood in lockstep with our president on this issue instead of undermining our North Korea policy at every turn.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
On Energy, the Prez Gets it Right
I totally agree with the rhetoric behind President Bush's energy speech today. I just hope that he backs up his words with action.
The irony is that a man who says "nucular" will be trying to jumpstart the stagnant nuclear power industry in this country. I have always been a huge fan of nuclear power (especially breeder reactors,) and my family has been deeply involved with the nuclear industry. We really need new nuke plants in this country. What we don't need is to wait around for so-called "safer" reactors. The current generation is safe enough. The next generation should be sodium-cooled "fast" reactors that either breed their own fuel or use reprocessed Uranium. There will be a major problem regarding the storage of waste and the depletion of Earth's Uranium resources; the only way to stretch it out is with reprocessing and breeding.
Thumbs up on diesel too. Hydrogen isn't ready for primetime. But if we run our cars on bio-diesel from plant oils, we'll be much better off, and we won't be manipulated by Saudi Oil Bastards.
More refineries are sorely needed. It's hard to imagine that our refining capacity has actually declined relative to the population growth over the past 30 years. Right now, the high price of fuel is mainly due to the high price of crude oil. But if we limit the nation's refining capacity, it's possible for the always-evil "Big Oil" to form a cartel and jack up the prices of refined gasoline. Ultimately we need to move away from gasoline entirely, but until that day comes it will be wise to make our petroleum infrastructure more cost-effective.
Our hope for the future is that our president will make America's energy independence a high priority, and will show real leadership in stimulating private industry in this direction. The biggest enemies are the faux-environmentalists who are so uptight about nuclear waste and radiation and genetically-modified corn that they'll ignore the benefits of emission-free nuclear power.
Energy independence is something we started talking about in the 70's but never acted on in an effective manner. I hope that George W. Bush doesn't resemble Jimmy Carter in this regard. I fear that the window of opportunity for America's energy independence is closing, and if George W. Bush doesn't do anything about it, future presidents will have no good options left. For my generation, this issue is critical, and if the wrong decisions are made now, America will not be a great nation when my generation comes to power in Washington.
The irony is that a man who says "nucular" will be trying to jumpstart the stagnant nuclear power industry in this country. I have always been a huge fan of nuclear power (especially breeder reactors,) and my family has been deeply involved with the nuclear industry. We really need new nuke plants in this country. What we don't need is to wait around for so-called "safer" reactors. The current generation is safe enough. The next generation should be sodium-cooled "fast" reactors that either breed their own fuel or use reprocessed Uranium. There will be a major problem regarding the storage of waste and the depletion of Earth's Uranium resources; the only way to stretch it out is with reprocessing and breeding.
Thumbs up on diesel too. Hydrogen isn't ready for primetime. But if we run our cars on bio-diesel from plant oils, we'll be much better off, and we won't be manipulated by Saudi Oil Bastards.
More refineries are sorely needed. It's hard to imagine that our refining capacity has actually declined relative to the population growth over the past 30 years. Right now, the high price of fuel is mainly due to the high price of crude oil. But if we limit the nation's refining capacity, it's possible for the always-evil "Big Oil" to form a cartel and jack up the prices of refined gasoline. Ultimately we need to move away from gasoline entirely, but until that day comes it will be wise to make our petroleum infrastructure more cost-effective.
Our hope for the future is that our president will make America's energy independence a high priority, and will show real leadership in stimulating private industry in this direction. The biggest enemies are the faux-environmentalists who are so uptight about nuclear waste and radiation and genetically-modified corn that they'll ignore the benefits of emission-free nuclear power.
Energy independence is something we started talking about in the 70's but never acted on in an effective manner. I hope that George W. Bush doesn't resemble Jimmy Carter in this regard. I fear that the window of opportunity for America's energy independence is closing, and if George W. Bush doesn't do anything about it, future presidents will have no good options left. For my generation, this issue is critical, and if the wrong decisions are made now, America will not be a great nation when my generation comes to power in Washington.
The Simpsons Already Did It
The Simpsons is about to air episode #350, and they have no plans of stopping.
Although The Simpsons has constantly evolved over its long history, it's taken a serious turn for the worse over the past year. I don't think that they've done a really funny episode since early 2004--the "I, (Annoyed Grunt) Bot" episode comes to mind. The witty satire and smart comic timing of the past has been replaced by vulgarity, outlandish plots, and extremely poor comic timing.
By now, watching The Simpsons is a lot like watching Dan Marino play in his last season or so. It was painful to watch such a great man playing at such a low level. His knees were so mangled that all he could do was stand in place, toss the ball, and hope that his hapless offensive line could hold.
While the voice actors are committed through season 19 (gasp,) funnier animated shows than The Simpsons have died premature deaths. Futurama is a prime example, and it will soon be joined by King of the Hill. We can only hope that the resurrected Family Guy and new episodes of American Dad will convince FOX that it's time to pull the plug on Homer, Bart, and the gang.
The Simpsons is pretty far gone by this point, with very little humor left to be found. Only Conan O'Brien can save the show now.
Although The Simpsons has constantly evolved over its long history, it's taken a serious turn for the worse over the past year. I don't think that they've done a really funny episode since early 2004--the "I, (Annoyed Grunt) Bot" episode comes to mind. The witty satire and smart comic timing of the past has been replaced by vulgarity, outlandish plots, and extremely poor comic timing.
By now, watching The Simpsons is a lot like watching Dan Marino play in his last season or so. It was painful to watch such a great man playing at such a low level. His knees were so mangled that all he could do was stand in place, toss the ball, and hope that his hapless offensive line could hold.
While the voice actors are committed through season 19 (gasp,) funnier animated shows than The Simpsons have died premature deaths. Futurama is a prime example, and it will soon be joined by King of the Hill. We can only hope that the resurrected Family Guy and new episodes of American Dad will convince FOX that it's time to pull the plug on Homer, Bart, and the gang.
The Simpsons is pretty far gone by this point, with very little humor left to be found. Only Conan O'Brien can save the show now.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Murphy's Law
At first I thought the hurting was about to stop. After a few all-nighters, I had completed my compressor project, the Turbine & Rocket take-home test, and the extra-credit assignment, with pleasing results. Harsh reality set in this morning.
I pulled off my third consecutive late-night marathon of working on the Design II project and studying for the statistics exam. I stayed the night at a friend's house, as we were studying and working together on the afforementioned subjects. When I woke up, he told me that one of his cats had died. The kitty, who had been acting playful and frisky just hours before, died unexpectedly sometime during the night.
Needless to say, I was profoundly stunned and saddened. Two-year-old cats just don't die all of sudden with no warning. I couldn't help but feel that something I did when playing with the cats might have caused it.
The event cast a long pall over the rest of the day. I didn't do very well on the statistics exam, the Design II presentation went 30 minutes too long, and the final paper for Design II was inadequate formeeting the professor's requirements (in my estimation.)
I pulled off my third consecutive late-night marathon of working on the Design II project and studying for the statistics exam. I stayed the night at a friend's house, as we were studying and working together on the afforementioned subjects. When I woke up, he told me that one of his cats had died. The kitty, who had been acting playful and frisky just hours before, died unexpectedly sometime during the night.
Needless to say, I was profoundly stunned and saddened. Two-year-old cats just don't die all of sudden with no warning. I couldn't help but feel that something I did when playing with the cats might have caused it.
The event cast a long pall over the rest of the day. I didn't do very well on the statistics exam, the Design II presentation went 30 minutes too long, and the final paper for Design II was inadequate formeeting the professor's requirements (in my estimation.)
Friday, April 22, 2005
Israel the Frienemy
The Pentagon is concealing some technical info on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from Israel. It's about damned time we told the Israelis "no."
Unlike many Conservatives, I am not a chest-beating Zionist. While I support Israel's right to existence and feel that a Jewish state is the only way to prevent the persecution of their people, I acknowledge that Israel has done a lot of bad things in pursuit of its statehood, and still needs some prodding to do the right thing in regards to the settlements that aren't supposed to be in the West Bank or Gaza. Most of my beef with Israel, however, stems from what they do with the military equipment we sell them.
Since the mid-60's, when France chickened out from being Israel's arms supplier, the US has been the go-to guys for Israel's armed forces. We supply Israel with more military aid than we do to any other nation, and the Israelis use our military equipment to create more Arab rage directed towards us. The Israelis have the industrial capability to arm themselves to an extent, so I don't see a good reason why we should sell them any more arms than, say, Egypt or Jordan.
More disturbing, however, is Israel's recent habit of selling American technology to another "frienemy," China. The best example is the Lavi fighter jet. During the 80's, the US pumped millions into the development of that Israeli fighter. Then Congress smartened up and decided that Israel can just buy our F-16's instead of developing its domestic industry. The Israelis then turned around and sold much of the Lavi technology to China. Now the Chinese have the J-10 fighter, which looks a lot like a Lavi and performs a lot like one of our F-16's.
Finally the Pentagon is getting wise and holding ack on info regarding the JSF. While I'm leery about all exports of a stealthy airplane like the JSF (even to trusted allies like the UK, Italy, Netherlands, or Australia,) I'm doubly concerned about exporting it to Israel. The Israelis should have to settle for upgraded F-16's, or better yet, build their own damned airplane. They can even buy J-10's from their Commie buddies in China. But the Israelis are big boys and girls who can defend themselves. There's no reason why the American taxpayer should have to piss away so much money on military assistance to a state that can provide its own defense.
Unlike many Conservatives, I am not a chest-beating Zionist. While I support Israel's right to existence and feel that a Jewish state is the only way to prevent the persecution of their people, I acknowledge that Israel has done a lot of bad things in pursuit of its statehood, and still needs some prodding to do the right thing in regards to the settlements that aren't supposed to be in the West Bank or Gaza. Most of my beef with Israel, however, stems from what they do with the military equipment we sell them.
Since the mid-60's, when France chickened out from being Israel's arms supplier, the US has been the go-to guys for Israel's armed forces. We supply Israel with more military aid than we do to any other nation, and the Israelis use our military equipment to create more Arab rage directed towards us. The Israelis have the industrial capability to arm themselves to an extent, so I don't see a good reason why we should sell them any more arms than, say, Egypt or Jordan.
More disturbing, however, is Israel's recent habit of selling American technology to another "frienemy," China. The best example is the Lavi fighter jet. During the 80's, the US pumped millions into the development of that Israeli fighter. Then Congress smartened up and decided that Israel can just buy our F-16's instead of developing its domestic industry. The Israelis then turned around and sold much of the Lavi technology to China. Now the Chinese have the J-10 fighter, which looks a lot like a Lavi and performs a lot like one of our F-16's.
Finally the Pentagon is getting wise and holding ack on info regarding the JSF. While I'm leery about all exports of a stealthy airplane like the JSF (even to trusted allies like the UK, Italy, Netherlands, or Australia,) I'm doubly concerned about exporting it to Israel. The Israelis should have to settle for upgraded F-16's, or better yet, build their own damned airplane. They can even buy J-10's from their Commie buddies in China. But the Israelis are big boys and girls who can defend themselves. There's no reason why the American taxpayer should have to piss away so much money on military assistance to a state that can provide its own defense.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
More blood on Kevin Sites's hands
Islamic militants murder survivor of helicopter crash
The Islamic Army statement said it killed the survivor "in revenge for the Muslims who have been killed in cold blood in the mosques of tireless Fallujah before the eyes of the world and on television screens, without anyone condemning them." It was apparently referring to the shooting by an American soldier of a wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque on Nov. 13 during a U.S. offensive in the city.
The Islamic Army statement said it killed the survivor "in revenge for the Muslims who have been killed in cold blood in the mosques of tireless Fallujah before the eyes of the world and on television screens, without anyone condemning them." It was apparently referring to the shooting by an American soldier of a wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque on Nov. 13 during a U.S. offensive in the city.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
A Hero with Spitballs
A message to Jane Fonda: how does it feel to be on the receiving end, bitch?
Scary as Hell
We'd better hope that Abu Musab al Zarqawi doesn't have a nuke or a dirty bomb. It underscores the need to kill him immediately.
My extended take on future weapons systems
1) The V-22 should have to prove itself to warrant extensive production. This means production should be stretched out so that the manufacturing capability will exist in later years to restart production. Perhaps the H-92 series of helicopters (which was unfairly passed over for the presidential helicopter contract) will prove to be more reliable for the same mission as the V-22. Only time will tell.
2) We need the F/A-22, if only as a silver bullet force, to counter advanced versions of the SU-27 Flanker series and Eurofighter Typhoon. This should be a higher priority than the Air Force JSF buy. More importantly, we need an FB-22 Strike Raptor as a supplement to our aging bomber force.
3) We are justified in cutting back submarine production, although it would be useful if we kept the ballistic missile boats around to use for special operations and cruise missile launches.
4) The stock version of the F-35 JSF does not offer the Air Force enough of an improvement over the F-16 to warrant production. The Air Force has floated proposals to buy a STOVL version of the JSF (similar to the one the Marines are buying,) and I feel that this version is worth acquiring in quantity to possibly replace the A-10. Further, I think we've started down a dangerous path by exporting the JSF, as we are allowing valuable stealth technologies to proliferate to other counties who could share them with our enemies. The highest priority should be the Naval JSF, then the STOVL variant for both the Marines and Air Force, and finally (budget permitting) a conventional version for the Air Force. If the AF can't afford JSF, they should go for newer F-16E's.
The important thing is to never let the doctrine or capabilities stagnate. The worst thing we can do is plan on fighting the last war again. If we think that we'll solely be fighting terrorists for the next thirty years, we are sorely mistaken. We need a variety of weapons that give us a variety of capabilities to wield against all potential enemies.
2) We need the F/A-22, if only as a silver bullet force, to counter advanced versions of the SU-27 Flanker series and Eurofighter Typhoon. This should be a higher priority than the Air Force JSF buy. More importantly, we need an FB-22 Strike Raptor as a supplement to our aging bomber force.
3) We are justified in cutting back submarine production, although it would be useful if we kept the ballistic missile boats around to use for special operations and cruise missile launches.
4) The stock version of the F-35 JSF does not offer the Air Force enough of an improvement over the F-16 to warrant production. The Air Force has floated proposals to buy a STOVL version of the JSF (similar to the one the Marines are buying,) and I feel that this version is worth acquiring in quantity to possibly replace the A-10. Further, I think we've started down a dangerous path by exporting the JSF, as we are allowing valuable stealth technologies to proliferate to other counties who could share them with our enemies. The highest priority should be the Naval JSF, then the STOVL variant for both the Marines and Air Force, and finally (budget permitting) a conventional version for the Air Force. If the AF can't afford JSF, they should go for newer F-16E's.
The important thing is to never let the doctrine or capabilities stagnate. The worst thing we can do is plan on fighting the last war again. If we think that we'll solely be fighting terrorists for the next thirty years, we are sorely mistaken. We need a variety of weapons that give us a variety of capabilities to wield against all potential enemies.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The Third Terrorist
Today we mark the tenth annivarsary of the attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and remember the 189 souls who were lost on that day. We should also ask ourselves how such a dastardly attack could happen on our soil, and why we didn't act to prevent it again.
I suggest that everybody who hasn't done so should check out Jayna Davis's website devoted to her book on the bombing, The Third Terrorist. She makes a compelling case that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholls were not criminal masterminds, but merely the tools of Islamic militants in a pre-911 attack against the United States.
At first I was very suspicious about her claims. My mind began to change when Susan Lindauer (a relative of presidential Chief of Staff Andy Card, who is being prosecuted for being an unregistered Iraqi agent) claimed that she learned of Islamic militant ties to the attack from her contacts in Iraq's Mukharabat.
Jayna Davis was on the Coast to Coast AM radio program and really got me to think. The depths of her research are astrounding. Not only does she believe she's identified John Doe #2 as an Iraqi national who was part of an Islamic militant cell in Oklahoma City, but she obtained phone records linking Terry Nicholls to a boarding house in the Phillippines that was frequented by terror master Ramzi Yousef. As you may know, Yousef was behind the 1993 WTC attack, and wrote the first draft of the 911 attacks in 1995 as "Operation Bojinka."
It's a shame that none of this was taken seriously by the FBI back in spring 1995. But it served the political motivations of the Clintons just fine. Imagine how people would have reacted if the government said, "The United States has been attacked by Islamic militants." How would the public react? They would demand retaliation against the culprits, violating the Clinton tenet of protecting religious minorities. They might also blame the Clintons for making the nation less safe.
Instead, Janet Reno and her ilk get on television to say that crazy right wingers blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Guilty by association are Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Bill Clinton's political star, sagging after the 1994 congressional elections, restarts its meteoric rise. And the terrorists regroup, with Yousef's uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed taking the Bojinka Plot and carrying it out on 911.
Check out The Third Terrorist yourself and see what you think. I'm still skeptical about the claim that the Iraqi government or intelligence services were in on the plot. But she's planted enough doubt about the conventional "crazy right wingers" theory for me to demand a new investigation, and regret the execution of Timothy McVeigh.
I suggest that everybody who hasn't done so should check out Jayna Davis's website devoted to her book on the bombing, The Third Terrorist. She makes a compelling case that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholls were not criminal masterminds, but merely the tools of Islamic militants in a pre-911 attack against the United States.
At first I was very suspicious about her claims. My mind began to change when Susan Lindauer (a relative of presidential Chief of Staff Andy Card, who is being prosecuted for being an unregistered Iraqi agent) claimed that she learned of Islamic militant ties to the attack from her contacts in Iraq's Mukharabat.
Jayna Davis was on the Coast to Coast AM radio program and really got me to think. The depths of her research are astrounding. Not only does she believe she's identified John Doe #2 as an Iraqi national who was part of an Islamic militant cell in Oklahoma City, but she obtained phone records linking Terry Nicholls to a boarding house in the Phillippines that was frequented by terror master Ramzi Yousef. As you may know, Yousef was behind the 1993 WTC attack, and wrote the first draft of the 911 attacks in 1995 as "Operation Bojinka."
It's a shame that none of this was taken seriously by the FBI back in spring 1995. But it served the political motivations of the Clintons just fine. Imagine how people would have reacted if the government said, "The United States has been attacked by Islamic militants." How would the public react? They would demand retaliation against the culprits, violating the Clinton tenet of protecting religious minorities. They might also blame the Clintons for making the nation less safe.
Instead, Janet Reno and her ilk get on television to say that crazy right wingers blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Guilty by association are Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Bill Clinton's political star, sagging after the 1994 congressional elections, restarts its meteoric rise. And the terrorists regroup, with Yousef's uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed taking the Bojinka Plot and carrying it out on 911.
Check out The Third Terrorist yourself and see what you think. I'm still skeptical about the claim that the Iraqi government or intelligence services were in on the plot. But she's planted enough doubt about the conventional "crazy right wingers" theory for me to demand a new investigation, and regret the execution of Timothy McVeigh.
Benedict-ion
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been chosen as Pope Benedict XVI, leader of the Roman Catholic church. At this point, many questions are swirling in my head about this man. Is this the ass-clown who said he felt sorry for Saddam Hussein? Can we trust a Krauty German to lead the church?
I feel zero confidence that Pope Benedict XVI can resolve the problems that made me abandon the Catholic church. If the church truly believes in peace and human dignity, it needs to clearly and unequivocally condemn the tyrants who hold us back from that goal, like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. If the church wants to solve the problems with the dwindling priesthood, it needs to lift its silly rules on celibacy (especially because priests of the Eastern Rite can marry, and Protestant ministers who join the Catholic church can become priests in spite of their families.) If the church wants to preserve its moral authority, the Vatican needs to end the policy of denying and covering-up sexual abuse by priests (which puts them at odds with U.S. bishops, who want to get tough with pervert priests.)
The prophesy of St. Malachy predicts that the current pope will be the second to last. I fear that the election of Bernard Ratzinger will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I feel zero confidence that Pope Benedict XVI can resolve the problems that made me abandon the Catholic church. If the church truly believes in peace and human dignity, it needs to clearly and unequivocally condemn the tyrants who hold us back from that goal, like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. If the church wants to solve the problems with the dwindling priesthood, it needs to lift its silly rules on celibacy (especially because priests of the Eastern Rite can marry, and Protestant ministers who join the Catholic church can become priests in spite of their families.) If the church wants to preserve its moral authority, the Vatican needs to end the policy of denying and covering-up sexual abuse by priests (which puts them at odds with U.S. bishops, who want to get tough with pervert priests.)
The prophesy of St. Malachy predicts that the current pope will be the second to last. I fear that the election of Bernard Ratzinger will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Monday, April 18, 2005
The value of an Embry-Riddle degree
With a degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, you can achieve greatness and lasting fame. Heck, you can even get locked away in Gitmo with your sack-of-shit terrorist buddies.
Another [detainee,] identified as an Al Qaeda weapons supplier, studied at the Embry-Riddle flight school in Arizona and earned a graduate degree in avionics management. Before Sept. 11, the FBI had picked up indications that Bin Laden was sending flight students to Arizona to learn how to commandeer U.S. aircraft.
Really comforting to know, isn't it?
Other than that, the article is a good read summarizing why we need to keep these bastards locked up for good.
Another [detainee,] identified as an Al Qaeda weapons supplier, studied at the Embry-Riddle flight school in Arizona and earned a graduate degree in avionics management. Before Sept. 11, the FBI had picked up indications that Bin Laden was sending flight students to Arizona to learn how to commandeer U.S. aircraft.
Really comforting to know, isn't it?
Other than that, the article is a good read summarizing why we need to keep these bastards locked up for good.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Holy War
More evidence that the insurgents don't care who they kill, as long as they're killing somebody. Civilians, children, and humanitarians aren't safe.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
More men, less machines
That's what Brookings fellow Michael O' Hanlon is saying. Cut back on weapons systems and add more soldiers and Marines. I generally agree, with a few caveats.
I'm concerned that the V-22 will not be dependable enough in combat situations. The spate of crashes in 1999-2000, under peacetime conditions, tarnished the aircraft's image. The Osprey will be just as vulnerable at low level as normal choppers, too. I think O'Hanlon's mention of midair refueling is fallacious (I think the V-22 has it too, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't be too hard to add.)
I love submarines, but the importance of blue-water navies is diminishing. Cutbacks in the sub fleets and future production are only inevitable.
Do we really need the JSF? The Navy has the most pressing need for the plane, as it has no stealth planes, and the service largely lost its deep-strike capabilities when the great A-6 Intruder was retired (prematurely) in 1997. The Marines have a moderate need for the plane, as it's less vulnerable and more capable than the Harrier. Still, the Harrier has come into its own in Iraq, proving good enough to "get her done" in urban combat.
Of all the services, the Air Force (who has the biggest JSF order) needs the plane the least. It's doing the same job as the F-16, except that it's stealthier. If we want to replace our F-16's, we can always settle for the F-16E-60 now geing delivered to the United Arab Emirates. The stealth strike role can be taken by the F/A-22. The irony of it all is that Air Force leaders are vocally calling for cuts to the JSF program so the money can be diverted to buy more F/A-22's. When the F-16 is ready to be retired, lower-cost UAV's will be more than ready to do the job.
I'm concerned that the V-22 will not be dependable enough in combat situations. The spate of crashes in 1999-2000, under peacetime conditions, tarnished the aircraft's image. The Osprey will be just as vulnerable at low level as normal choppers, too. I think O'Hanlon's mention of midair refueling is fallacious (I think the V-22 has it too, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't be too hard to add.)
I love submarines, but the importance of blue-water navies is diminishing. Cutbacks in the sub fleets and future production are only inevitable.
Do we really need the JSF? The Navy has the most pressing need for the plane, as it has no stealth planes, and the service largely lost its deep-strike capabilities when the great A-6 Intruder was retired (prematurely) in 1997. The Marines have a moderate need for the plane, as it's less vulnerable and more capable than the Harrier. Still, the Harrier has come into its own in Iraq, proving good enough to "get her done" in urban combat.
Of all the services, the Air Force (who has the biggest JSF order) needs the plane the least. It's doing the same job as the F-16, except that it's stealthier. If we want to replace our F-16's, we can always settle for the F-16E-60 now geing delivered to the United Arab Emirates. The stealth strike role can be taken by the F/A-22. The irony of it all is that Air Force leaders are vocally calling for cuts to the JSF program so the money can be diverted to buy more F/A-22's. When the F-16 is ready to be retired, lower-cost UAV's will be more than ready to do the job.
Friday, April 15, 2005
So do you love peace or do you just hate America?
Radical anti-war activist Ramsey Clark will be defending Saddam Hussein. Clark, as you may know, works with International ANSWER and its Marxist allies in organizing global anti-war rallies.
It just strikes me as farcical that somebody like Ramsey Clark could defend Saddam Hussein. For somebody who purports to "Stop War and End Racism" (as the ANSWER acronym alleges,) shouldn't he be offended by Saddam Hussein? What was so great about Saddam's racist war against the Iranians? What about his war for oil when he invaded Kuwait?
The so-called peace movement is filled with hypocrites like Clark. Sure, everybody has the right to oppose war. War is hell, in spite of what you may see in old movies. Yet real liberals, if they want to be ideolocially consistent, are supposed to fight for human dignity everywhere. Very few of these moonbats said a peep about Saddam's mass graves or the diversion of food money for palaces and weapons.
Clark and his ilk love to villify the president, yet they lecture us on "who give us the right to judge Saddam?" Somebody should ask them, "Then what gives you the right to judge George Bush?" Gratuitous killing is wrong no matter who is doing it. Were Saddam's actions necessary or moral? Hell no. Was President Bush's decision to invade Iraq moral? That is too early to judge, but if he delivers on his promises of freedom and representative government for Iraq's people, I will have to say "yes" in retrospect.
It just strikes me as farcical that somebody like Ramsey Clark could defend Saddam Hussein. For somebody who purports to "Stop War and End Racism" (as the ANSWER acronym alleges,) shouldn't he be offended by Saddam Hussein? What was so great about Saddam's racist war against the Iranians? What about his war for oil when he invaded Kuwait?
The so-called peace movement is filled with hypocrites like Clark. Sure, everybody has the right to oppose war. War is hell, in spite of what you may see in old movies. Yet real liberals, if they want to be ideolocially consistent, are supposed to fight for human dignity everywhere. Very few of these moonbats said a peep about Saddam's mass graves or the diversion of food money for palaces and weapons.
Clark and his ilk love to villify the president, yet they lecture us on "who give us the right to judge Saddam?" Somebody should ask them, "Then what gives you the right to judge George Bush?" Gratuitous killing is wrong no matter who is doing it. Were Saddam's actions necessary or moral? Hell no. Was President Bush's decision to invade Iraq moral? That is too early to judge, but if he delivers on his promises of freedom and representative government for Iraq's people, I will have to say "yes" in retrospect.
Eye of the Tiger
This morning I had my final (and not so tearful) physical fitness test as a cadet. I maxed the pushups and situps but only managed a 10:24 in the1.5 mile run. Still, I have to ask how pitifully I could have finished if I didn't do all of that running with Dartt during spring break. Most importantly, it's behind me now, and there should be no barriers between me and Albuquerque in July.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Wingman
It's been one full year since Private First Class Keith Matthew Maupin was abducted by insurgents during an attack on his fuel convoy. To this day, and despite a grainy video purportedly showing his execution, nobody knows what happened to the young man from Batavia, Ohio. For the faithful, we can only hope that he will come home one way or another.
Matt Maupin's story really resonated with me. He was born eleven days and two states apart from me. He also went to school to be an aerospace engineer. And that's where our paths split. He dropped out of school and enlisted in the Army to support his wife and child. I took the easy route, staying in school without being burdened by a family.
The vigil we keep for Matt Maupin cuts to the heart of Colonel Woodward's address from last week. Matt Maupin, and all of the warriors who have gone missing before him, are our wingmen. The Colonel brought up the case of Capt. Fredric Mellor, who bailed out over North Vietnam in 1965 but disappeared before the rescue choppers could find him. And yet his flight training class from 1956 regularly holds reunions in his honor.
It is important that we never forget our wingmen, and do everything we can to pull them from the ether.
Matt Maupin's story really resonated with me. He was born eleven days and two states apart from me. He also went to school to be an aerospace engineer. And that's where our paths split. He dropped out of school and enlisted in the Army to support his wife and child. I took the easy route, staying in school without being burdened by a family.
The vigil we keep for Matt Maupin cuts to the heart of Colonel Woodward's address from last week. Matt Maupin, and all of the warriors who have gone missing before him, are our wingmen. The Colonel brought up the case of Capt. Fredric Mellor, who bailed out over North Vietnam in 1965 but disappeared before the rescue choppers could find him. And yet his flight training class from 1956 regularly holds reunions in his honor.
It is important that we never forget our wingmen, and do everything we can to pull them from the ether.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Boredom
I went to Dr. Weiner's lecture on Radar Clutter today, thinking that it was going to be interesting. Instead, I got an hour-long ramble about non-Gaussian probability distributions. Yeah, I guess he succeeded in linking the boring subject of statistics to something important, like separating good radar returns from background noise. But I get enough of that during Structures and Instrumentation class. I can't help but feel that I wasted my afternoon.
Rocket Serendipity
I should have used my Sunday for catching up on my long-term assignments. Instead, I did the responsible thing: I shot off rockets with 'Buda. We ended up breaking one (on its second flight) and losing two.
After returning to the dorm and pulling off my socks (which were saturated from a slog while chasing after 'Buda's big rocket that drifted away,) I found a dead grasshopper that must have gotten into my shoe.
'Buda got even luckier: he returned to the launch site and found the big rocket in a ditch across the street. He'll probably do something about the parachute, but I think that both of us are ready to drop a "D" motor in that bad boy and fly again.
After returning to the dorm and pulling off my socks (which were saturated from a slog while chasing after 'Buda's big rocket that drifted away,) I found a dead grasshopper that must have gotten into my shoe.
'Buda got even luckier: he returned to the launch site and found the big rocket in a ditch across the street. He'll probably do something about the parachute, but I think that both of us are ready to drop a "D" motor in that bad boy and fly again.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Medal of Honor
The Congressional Medal of Honor has finally been bestowed, posthumously, upon Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, exactly two years to the day after he was killed in action.
Accepting the award on his behalf is his eleven-year-old son. I can barely imagine what that must mean to a boy so young, and how difficult it must be. Then again, he was only nine years old when his father was killed, so he's been through more suffering than many of us will know.
SFC Smith was a true soldier. He didn't care about the politics. He was a professional all the way through. He cared about the mission, and he cared about bringing his men back home alive. On April 4, 2003, he did exactly that. By manning the machine gun on the disabled M113, he may have saved the lives of a hundred lightly-armed soldiers in the rear of the formation. God bless you, Sarge.
Accepting the award on his behalf is his eleven-year-old son. I can barely imagine what that must mean to a boy so young, and how difficult it must be. Then again, he was only nine years old when his father was killed, so he's been through more suffering than many of us will know.
SFC Smith was a true soldier. He didn't care about the politics. He was a professional all the way through. He cared about the mission, and he cared about bringing his men back home alive. On April 4, 2003, he did exactly that. By manning the machine gun on the disabled M113, he may have saved the lives of a hundred lightly-armed soldiers in the rear of the formation. God bless you, Sarge.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
In God's Hands
Although I have spent the past two years of my life trying to distance myself from the papacy and the Catholic church, I have to admit that I am profoundly saddened by the death of Pope John Paul II. He will perhaps be remembered as the quiet Cold Warrior, although he would have wanted to be remembered for much more than that.
He confronted death with bravery and great dignity, affirming his teachings about life's preciousness. He knew that his time was up, and he resigned his fate to God's hands. With no hospitals and probably no machines (aside from an oxygen mask,) he faced fate and slipped away peacefully and with a quiet dignity, much like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin did in 1997. His pain was apparent to all, but it is gone now.
We should all aspire to carry ourselves with the grace of John Paul II, and learn to be at peace with ourselves and our world like he was.
He confronted death with bravery and great dignity, affirming his teachings about life's preciousness. He knew that his time was up, and he resigned his fate to God's hands. With no hospitals and probably no machines (aside from an oxygen mask,) he faced fate and slipped away peacefully and with a quiet dignity, much like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin did in 1997. His pain was apparent to all, but it is gone now.
We should all aspire to carry ourselves with the grace of John Paul II, and learn to be at peace with ourselves and our world like he was.
