Wednesday, January 31, 2018

I Thought We Were Better Than That.


“As a nation, I thought we were better than that!”  This is an expression we most frequently hear today as a condemnation of President Trump or one of his policies intended to undo something done through executive order or regulation by the former President.  It is a most curious condemnation coming from those who supported the past administration, and its attempt to impart a new social order.

As I’ve previously said, I was not a fan of President Obama’s leadership, or his decision to forego the traditional approach of having the Congress create legislation -- choosing instead to implement his policies through regulatory change and executive order.  Simply put it struck me as "style before substance."  What we see today is the outrage of those who were too short-sighted to see the folly of government run by grand proclamation, having those proclamations burned in the town square.

But I am just a single voice in a nation of 350-million.  Using the numbers of the last election, I was just one of about 130-million[1] who cared enough to cast their vote for the next leader.  For me the choice was so onerous I cast a non-vote (rejecting both main parties).  This meant I had to be willing to accept the outcome between a narcissistic neophyte who beat 16 professionals in open primary, and a career politician with so much suspect criminality and political abuse in her history that it took a rigged primary to get her to the general election.

Now let’s talk about what we are or are not better than.

As Americans growing up in a post-world war world we have been fed a steady diet of what the rock group Queen so eloquently said.  “We are the Champions of the World.”  This, of course, builds a hubris that we know what is best for the rest of the world.  It is this mindset that so many social justice warriors and President Obama see as an evil quality that must be destroyed.  Although I can never know for sure, I believe it was the basis for many of the former President’s decisions on what to support and what to condemn.  It is also the belief President Trump is attempting to rekindle after the past 8-years of vilification.  Perhaps it is really at the core of the growing polarization in our politics as those on the left seek a grander world vision, and those on the right seek a more stable and prosperous nation-state.

Those who condemn the President for his stance on immigration ask us to be empathetic to the plight of those who are here in the United States through decisions made by their parents or family.  The hardline right has rejected that argument and would have us deport the 800,00(ish) residents back to their countries of origin.  The President, in his State of the Union address, offered a proposal to allow them to stay, if we can fix the problems with border security and immigration laws.  On first glance it appears the hardline left is prepared to reject that compromise and wage an all or nothing political fight that would essentially eliminate all the laws on immigration and border security.  In the 1990’s President Clinton condemned the problem of illegal immigration, in 2009 President Obama told us there was a real problem with illegal workers affecting jobs for citizens.  During his terms, President Obama’s administration deported over 2-million illegals a year.  So, what exactly were we better at then - that we are not now? Is it the fact the debate is now in the open, rather than behind the closed doors of the White House with a willing press providing top cover?

Those who condemn the President will frequently point out we are a “nation of immigrants” we have a statue with the words “Give me your tired, your poor…”[2] and so on.  They seem to forget we are also a nation of laws.  If we choose to ignore one law, why shouldn’t we ignore all laws? 

Twitter is an interesting medium for social exchange.  I find little of real value on the medium, but like panning for gold every so often a nugget appears.  I don’t recall who sent this out but I found it humorous and on point.

Me – We need to fix the immigration problem
Liberal – We are a nation of immigrants, the Native Americans didn’t stop the original settlers
Me – How did that work out for them?

For all who think we are better than that… Please, please – tell me what we are really better than?  Should we abandon the idea of national sovereignty when no one else in the world seems willing to?


[1] On-line reporting varies widely on how many people actually turned out to vote.  Estimates range from 119-million to 135-million.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

I Wonder How They Felt at Fort Sumter?


Within the conservative blog-o-sphere, there is an increasing level of discussion on the movement away from traditional politics as a means of reconciling our differences and the potential for a civil war arising from one side's refusal to accept the legitimacy of our electoral processes, turning to the courts to thwart the executive.

We have certainly seen the courts move to create a climate where they believe it is their role to, directly and indirectly, govern social and political behavior.  Since the 2017 inauguration, they have willingly chosen to stop or restrict the President’s foreign policies, even after the Supreme Court said they probably shouldn't.

It got me to thinking about the last time the Democrats so adamantly opposed a Republican President.  Then we had 11 states decide it was better to strike out on their own rather than live with a President they didn’t like and policies they opposed.

Today I think we can see the nucleus of the next confederacy in the alignment of states that are intending to sue the government over the new tax laws limiting the amount of state taxes the federal government is willing to let individuals write off as a deduction (a de facto federal payment to the states).   Right now, only three states are onboard, NY, NJ and CT, but I assume MA, RI, CA, OR, and WA are just biding their time to see how the courts align with this new rebellion.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Looking In



The teenage years are inevitably filled with angst as a child leaves the comfort of youth and moves towards independence as an adult.  How much pain and struggle the individual has is affected by all the variables life throws at them.  While there are countless small variances I think the big ones are: how they view themselves, how they perceive others view them, how they relate to their parents, extended families, or guardians, and how those groups encourage, guide, or challenge the changes they are going through.

It seems to me the hardest thing for a good parent to do is watch their child fail, but it is also one of the most important things if they can let it happen and then help pick up the pieces their child's understanding of life is stronger.  For it is through failure that we learn the most lasting lessons, and develop the confidence to challenge ourselves to be better the next time.

If children see only the extremes, where they always succeed or fail then what qualities do they develop?  If in failure they are harshly condemned by those they trust, or in their success they are praised beyond reason do they grow to understand the values of such things in a healthy society?  I don’t think they do, and perhaps that is one of the factors that has led us to this day, where class and race warfare are once again emerging as primary political divisions within the social fabric.

I wonder, what will the current generation of parents choose as their model to help their children find their way through the transition from dependent to independent?  Will they be more successful than past generations or will all the new experts just befuddle them to the point they surrender -- leaving the children to find their own way?

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Life is More Than a Meme.


Ann Althouse has a couple of interesting blog posts today, the first introduces Sarah Pulliam Baily’s column in the Washington Post that talks about “Mommy Blogs” and how they are being replaced by Instagram and its sanitary filters, or Twitter.  The second is the real meat of Althouse’s discussion of Baily’s piece in Whatever Happened to Blogging, she talks about the evolution of blogging away from the grit into a stylized and glamorized depiction of Mommy’s life.
For what it’s worth I think Ann misses a couple of points in this whole rise and fall of blogging.
First, we tend to jump on board with fads.  It doesn’t matter what the movement is if someone tells us it is the “in thing” we jump on board.  But soon there is another “in thing” and we jump off the last thing to join the new thing.  Only the die-hards remain to carry on that last most-greatest fad.
I can remember back to the 1960’s when bell bottom pants, neon colors, and shoulder length men’s hair became the rage.  They lasted for quite a while, but eventually, they were replaced by different styles, colors and hair length, except for those who decided to hold out because they were individuals and didn’t follow the changing fads (except when they did).
With the advent of the blog-o-sphere as a forum for publishing your opinions, ideas, and photos it became the “in thing.”  With the evolution of FaceBook, Instagram and Twitter the blogs became old hat and the trendy people soon left it.  It takes far less effort to put a sentence on the new venues than it does to put together a blog.  As Ann pointed out blogging offered the ability to earn money from your writing, and who doesn’t like that?  But I suspect most people never earned more than a few pennies (like being a Tupperware hostess) and soon tired of the effort. 
I think the second reason is easier to understand, writing is, after all, hard work and routinely sitting down to write is an effort that requires some discipline.  People who enjoy the exercise will remain, those who don’t will find easier ways to express themselves.  The newest platforms allow us to seemingly express ourselves without effort.  We post a picture, we write a line, and we’re done, or we find someone who has already done that and we share it with friends to tell them “this is how I feel too.”  Knowing we’ve shared our true feelings, we can sit back and wait for people to like it.
If we want to engage in a political debate, all we have to do is find a meme that fits our emotion and plaster it on one of the modern platforms as if it were the most insightful and true idea ever.  The legitimacy of the words is hardly ever questioned and you can now move on to the next opinion or emotion you want the world to know about. 
But everything changes.  Even as I write, memes are being replaced by emoticons to simplify even further our communication process.  In the evolution, we seem to be returning to the origin of language with hieroglyphics and other pictographs carved in mud tablets.

Friday, January 26, 2018

It Seems Kind of Ironic


I was thinking about our history as I took the trash out to a chilly morning.  It was a chilly December night in 1773 when the radical group “The Sons of Liberty” went to the Boston harbor to protest the imposition of tax on tea imports.  This was the last of the duties (taxes) imposed by the Townshend Acts of 1767.  The intent of Charles Townshend’s duties was to help defray cost to the crown for maintaining and defending the colonies.  Those affected by this burden saw it as governmental overreach.
Today, as we look at the descendants of those radicals we find the radical spirit still remains.  Only now they are in favor of higher taxes (as long as it’s not on them), and greater government control (as long as it is by people they agree with).  When others come to disagree and suggest the original Sons of Liberty had the right idea, that perhaps there is too much government and the spending of the government is really overreach -- those views are yelled down.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

So Tell Me Captain - Other Than That How Was the Flight?


            No CSO’s were harmed in the telling of this story.

Fairly early in this Global War on Terror, AFSOC expanded its airlift fleet with what was referred to as non-standard aviation.  Small commercial aircraft intended to move special operations forces to their destinations without much fanfare and at costs far below that of using a C-130 to carry the half dozen to a dozen people on a SEAL team or A-Team.

While USSOCOM was busy buying the Dornier 328’s used today, AFSOC leased a few interim aircraft (I think they were DeHavilland Dash 8s) to jump-start the program.  We built up the crew force from a number of sources, primarily from AMC.

Two of the aircraft were deployed to Africa to support the newly created AFRICOM, whose headquarters is in Stuttgart.  Periodically one of the aircraft would make the journey from their forward operating location to the HQ to coordinate and shuttle personnel and material back from Germany.

On the way back from one such trip the aircraft needed to stop for gas.  If I recall correctly it was somewhere around Sierra Leone or the Ivory Coast.  They had some problems with the local officials and the AC made the decision to press on without the gas.

When they got to altitude the flight management system showed they did not have the fuel necessary to make it home.  They started a gradual descent and the FMS said they could make it, then they leveled off and it said they wouldn’t. They played this game a number of times, always ending up where their fuel flows were worse than when they started due to the lower density altitude.

Rather than look for an alternate (they are few and far between in Africa) they pressed on until it was clear they could not make it, declared an emergency, and began to divert to an alternate (that was actually just as far away as home).  I think they skidded to a power out halt about ten miles from the runway they were trying to reach, and 12 hours from a rescue team.

The AC was a former KC-135 pilot and the co-pilot was (I think) much less experienced.  If I recall correctly both had less than a hundred hours in type.  There are two lessons I think should come from this cautionary tale.

Don’t let hubris cloud your judgment.  Admit mistakes early, review options quickly, and commit to a best course of action, even if you think someone will yell at you.

Know how your FMS works and keep in mind reducing altitude is unlikely to extend your range unless you are near your service ceiling, or can start a reduced power descent all the way to the runway.

BTW, the 12 cases of German beer stowed onboard all survived the crash… so at least we have that...

Whataboutism


Merriam-Webster has an brief discussion of this term “Whataboutism” here, it has gained increasing popularity as a tool in modern political discussion as a means to deflect criticism by bringing up an equally egregious wrong on the part of the accuser.  It is an especially useful tool in propaganda, and after all isn’t that what modern political debate has really become?
Wikipedia describes it as a “tu quoque” logical fallacy that pushes back against the opponent as being hypocritical rather than addressing the critic with a logical response.
Merriam-Webster defines tu quoque as “a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others.”
In reflecting back on my writing, I know I am guilty of employing this as a basis for my criticism of many of the movements on the left, but does the fact it is a logical fallacy really mean the criticism is not valid and true?
I don’t think so, it just makes it easier for the people who disagree with the criticism to brush it off.
Let’s take a case in point.  If I point out the hypocrisy of one sides angst about the candidate from the other side’s social behavior, yet acceptance of similar transgressions on the part of their own candidates am I guilty of whataboutism?  I am not defending either side here, I am just remarking on the double standard.  It doesn’t feel like whataboutism to me, but then again, I am not that into the logic branch of philosophy.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Marches


January must be the time for only slightly organized parades, also known as “Marches.”

First there was the national March for Life in Washington DC, along with 70 local marches across the land.  Crowd estimates seem to be in the 50 to 100-thousand range for this pro-life demonstration in the Capital.  By all reports the march was pretty well organized and respectful as you would expect for people who support life.

Next came the Woman’s March which should really be called the “anti-Trump” march, since the last time they felt compelled to march prior to President Trump was in 1997 when they got together in Philadelphia to bring attention to the marginalization of African-American Women during the Clinton presidency.  Finding an estimate for crowd size in DC seems to a bit of a problem.  The march permit was cancelled by the organizers[1] but the news covered the event and there were people in the streets, as well as a number of other cities across the land.  My search for the Woman’s March 2018 generally took me to websites that offered to sell me a T-shirt, so I will leave it to you to figure out exactly how many turned out to condemn the President and call for his death.

The two marches obviously have different drummers.

 


How Far Can a U-28 Glide?


-->
One day, long ago, as AFSOC’s U-28 program was getting underway the initial cadre were developing the tactics, techniques, and procedures needed to bring game-changing ISR to the ground forces and theater commanders.
As part of that build up, and given the fact it was a single engine aircraft the flight crews began working on flameout procedures for the aircraft.  Although the procedures were in the manuals, some felt it was much better to keep the aircraft in a clean configuration until just prior to landing, and at the last moment drop the gear and flaps.  This way their glide ratio would be optimized and they would cover a greater distance.
Unfortunately, they failed to consider the negatives of crew workload, changes in learned behavior and stress.  When they were practicing this technique one day someone forgot to put the gear down at that “last moment” and they came to a rather abrupt stop shortly after the flare.
My take away was… it can glide all the way to a full stop.  The nature of that stop depends on the aircrew's situational awareness.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Climate Change


“Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Environmental Disaster,” all terms we hear fairly often in the news, across social media, and in government positions.  As in most things in today’s America we’ve chosen to make this a political issue that rages on, but is really about the size and role of government, the desired priorities of spending, and just who should be in charge since they know best what to do.  Actual effective action is never really part of the script.
There are certain truths, certain fictions, and undeniable consequences to modern society.  This post will give my views on those three things as I see them.  I tend to believe my views are rather centrist on this whole climate change battle.
Truth 1:  The climate is changing.  Anyone who says it’s not -- has no concept of the reality of the earth.  The questions that swirl around this truth deal only with the speed of change, and its root cause.
The earth has gone through vast ranges of temperature change during its existence.  At one point the northern polar ice cap reached down to central North America, Southern Europe and into what is today China.  The glaciers carved vast swaths of land as they moved forward with the cooling and left behind wide valleys and deep channels as they receded.  We, the western civilizations, have studied the weather in a scientific or near-scientific manner for what, about 200 years?  Prior to that, we have anecdotal data derived from the few scattered scientists (after they invented the thermometer), and the other earth sciences like geology and paleontology.  But prior to the advent of advanced computers, we could not accurately model something global in nature like the interaction of the various weather patterns?  The best we could do was observe localized weather and make predictions on what those localized patterns would do over the next several days.  A hundred years ago, or even 50-years ago we heard little about the long-term projections of what the climate would do and the environmental impacts of those projections.
The U.S. Department of the Interior has an interesting publication on the Great Ice Age,[1] published in 1992 before the great polarization of views, it makes an interesting statement about temperatures during the Great Ice Age.
After a period of warm and equable climate, a worldwide climatic refrigeration initiated the Great Ice Age glaciers. At times during the Great Ice Age, the climate was cooler and wetter and at times warmer and drier than today.  Many attempts have been made to account for these climatic fluctuations, but their ultimate cause remains unclear.  Although we cannot predict a period of climatic cooling, another Ice Age in the future is a possibility.”
Truth 2:  Our ability to accurately predict future outcomes is, at best, limited. 
Because of the lack of verifiable historical data, the computer models and predictive tools used by scientists must, of necessity use assumptions to fill in the blanks.  As errors in data are found and corrected the questions surrounding those decisions lead to legitimate questions regarding their value in the computational models.
Also because of the polarization of views and the geo-economic/political implications of those views, the dialogues over how the models are affected and what variables actually have the greatest effect on change has been shut down.  On the one side, we have those who defend the models claiming those who question them are science deniers, and on the other side we have those who question the models accusing the defenders of fake science.  Nothing highlights this foolishness better than the statement “The science is settled.”
Truth 3:  The human population has skyrocketed since the pre-industrial era.
If we accept the industrial revolution began in the late 18th and early 19th centuries then it is striking to see the magnitude of the population growth linked to it.  As noted in the World Population Clock[2] “At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D., it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.”  It had reached 1-billion by 1800.  Today it stands at about 7.6-billion, with the greatest change coming in the 20th century, where growth rates were close to 2.0%.  Although growth rates are declining they are still around 1%.
To say an exponential growth in mankind does not have an impact on the global climate would seem to fly in the face of logic.
Truth 4:  The modern industrial nations have moved from the natural packaging of natural products to petrochemical-based packaging of increasingly synthetic products.
In the 20th century, we began to fully exploit the chemical possibilities of petroleum to make synthetic polymers that are today used in everything from nylons to the plastics that make up much of our world.  The unfortunate by-product of these materials is the fact they do not break down in nature when disposed of.  We see this in modern awareness campaigns that talk about all the plastic drifting around in the oceans, and its adverse effect on marine wildlife.
Truth 5:  The modern industrial nations have become societies where consumer consumption has skyrocketed and all products have relatively short lives before disposal.
It can be argued that the modern industrial nations have become ones of consumer excess where products are routinely thrown away rather than repaired and reused.  Consumer electronics is a wonderful example of this.  As a boy, I remember having to occasionally replace the tubes in the television, or if something more serious was wrong having the repairman come to fix it.  Today I am not sure television repairmen even exist.
The entire world economy now revolves around the production of raw material, like crude oil, into these disposable items demanded by consumers with sufficient funds to meet not only their needs for shelter and food but their desire for entertainment and connectivity.
Truth 6:  There are more truths (but I don’t feel like spending more time on them).
While there are undoubtedly more facts that can be laid out I think I’ve touched on the major ones with a possible exception of what all the climate alarmists focus on, which is the use of petroleum as an energy source.  There is enough information about that you can form your own opinion and won’t be persuaded by anything I say anyway.
Fiction 1:  Signing a UN agreement is a vital first step in solving all the world’s climate problems.
The United Nations is a wonderful ideal.  Unfortunately, that ideal has not been realized because of man’s greed and ambition.  As an organization, it is capable of good things, but as often as not, the political agendas of the various nations get in the way of effective action.  Take, for example, one of its founding purposes: to end wars between nation-states.  I suppose it could be suggested it has limited war, but one could equally argue it has stood idly by while various wars have been waged.  What is often forgotten are the wars it has actually approved of, like Korea, Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom.
At the basis of this fiction is the belief that a central world power would be able to marshal the world's resources to engage in what must be a unified effort if there is to be any hope to succeed.  Unfortunately, nothing in the history of the UN suggests it has either the will or power to actually do that.
The Paris Accord is little more than a wealth redistribution plan with no ability to actually lower the petrochemical emissions at all.  True – it sets targets for a reduction in climate temperature increase, but it leaves to the signatories the actual implementations to meet those goals.
What it does do is effectively create fiction 2
Fiction 2:  Creating another bureaucracy will ensure all nations remain focused and committed to action.
Bureaucracies seem only to grow, they become self-serving and ultimately focus more on their own long-term survival than implementing the visions for which they were created.  There is nothing in my personal experience to suggest they ultimately are either extremely efficient or timely.
For this, I will draw on my experience in military acquisition for an example.  Almost everything we do today with regards to the acquisition of a new weapon system comes as a result of some corrupt act that Congress felt needed to be corrected and remedied through legislation.  We have moved the act of buying equipment from the people who will use it into a vast bureaucracy of acquisition “professionals.”  These are men and women trained to comply with the myriad of laws and regulations we have put into place to ensure no one can defraud the government (although that seems to happen fairly routinely) while getting the “war-fighter” the best possible weapon.  What this organization does very effectively removes personal accountability except in the grossest cases of mismanagement.  Even then, the person who ultimately failed is probably protected from any real penalties other than reassignment or resignation.
As a result of these new regulations and the organizations created to deal with them, as well as the federally approved destruction of competition in the aerospace business the cost of a C-130 has gone from roughly $3M in 1975 to a little over $70M today.  Although some of that can be attributed to inflation (actually only $10.6M) [3] the majority of the cost is from regulatory compliance, new engineering standards and corporate profiteering due to a lack of competition.
Fiction 3:  Government rules and regulations can force a change in human behavior.
Many people believe if we just right the right laws, rules, and regulations then everything will change and all the problems will go away.  Looking at society I believe nothing can be further from the truth.  We are for the most part a law-abiding society, until such time as those rules and regulations get so burdensome people begin to ignore them.
A case in point is the increasingly popular view by some communities that the consumers are drinking too much sugar-based soda and that it is in their best interest for the government to step in and make it illegal to sell or consume the offending product.  A case in point was NYC’s decision to outlaw the “Big Gulp” size soda, or the Obama administration’s rules on what was acceptable for the school lunch program.  The most recent example was Seattle soda tax that effectively doubles the cost of a case of soda.  Costco made the news with its pricing that shows consumers what they would pay, the taxes they must pay and the new total for a case.  It was also rumored Costco advised patrons where they could go to circumvent the new tax.
Finally, as we’ve seen with our sixty-year war on drugs effort, if the government were to ban the use of popular plastics I believe all we would do is create an underground market for those who find a use for them.  But at this point is it really possible to replace the cheap petrochemical-based products with environmentally sound organic solutions?  This leads to fiction 4.
Fiction 4:  Climate change regulation will help the poor.
The NAACP has recently decided to join the bandwagon of climate justice warriors with their statements that “Environmental injustice, including the proliferation of climate change, has a disproportionate impact on communities of color and low-income communities in the United States and around the world.”[4]
A wonderful statement that turns a blind eye to the actual injustices levied on the poor by government regulations that increase the cost of living and industry so the poor will never achieve a viable living wage.  Oh sure, we have movements pushing for something called a living wage, but all it really does is raise the minimum wage for the unskilled worker, causing job opportunities to diminish and the consumer cost index to rise, again trapping the poor in a no-win situation.
How much did the move to ethanol in our gasoline cost those at the poverty level who needed their car?
As we force the move to renewable energy sources how much will the average utility bill go up, forcing the poor to choose between warmth and food?
Do we expect that the government should cover all the cost increases so the poor see no change due to climate change initiatives?  If so, what incentive do they have to participate?
Oh sure, if we could without reservation quantify the cost of a series of actions and define their specific effect on the climate then perhaps the cost/benefit analysis would show us the best course of action, but we have moved far away from logical discussion on what we can and what we should do.
Undeniable Consequences
If the polar ice caps (both north and south) recede in the long term, there are undeniable changes that will occur over the coming years. What is questioned is exactly what those changes will be, and how best to respond to them.  I believe the problems we human beings face is our timeline of concern is measured in years, decades, and sometimes centuries.  While actual climate shifts are measured in centuries, millenniums, and eons.
The changes in coastlines would seem to present the biggest immediate risk if the oceans rise, but because of the nature of the modeling, the complexity of the variables and the shutdown over debating the issues; it is unlikely we will ever have a clear and understandable cause-effect-options-solution discussion presented for public understanding. 
If we banned the use of petrochemical-based products like plastics and eliminated the use of oil as an energy source would it actually stop the climate change?  If so, what would be the cost to our global economy?  Would life as we appreciate it today continue or would we return to the golden days of ox-drawn carts around the world?  One of my favorite experiences was being on a huge cruise ship steaming up to a glacier in Alaska and being told how man is destroying the environment.  On the way in and the way out we must have passed a dozen other ships doing exactly the same thing.  Maybe if those concerned with the environment would forsake their money making efforts and stop cruising up to the glaciers they might not recede quite as fast?
A generation of young seems to have bought into the fear mongering campaigns of the alarmists.  I’ve seen comments where they say it is already too late to fix the planet.  If they are right then we can end the debate today, and go along our merry way until the earth is flooded, the sky turns red and the current species are turned to dust (or mud) if that is what will actually happen?  In the end, the cycle of existence will start over again as the earth appears to be self-healing over the long term.  That is, of course, assuming the sun keeps burning at its current rate.
Finally, the poor will bear the greatest cost to whatever course is chosen.  This is a simple fact, it may be debated but it is inescapable.  They are the economic class least able to handle change, and they are the largest of the population groups.  Therefore through sheer numbers alone they will be impacted to the greatest degree.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

One Step Forward, Two Steps (not forward)




This post is a recollection of a couple of stories from an IP I flew with once upon a time.

I was told he had gotten a C-47 out of UPT.  It was an aircraft whose speed ideally suited his thought processes.  It always seemed to me he was just a touch behind the aircraft at the blazing speeds found in a C-130.

Taxiing at NAS Cubi Point

One day we made a wrong turn down a taxiway that had no outlet.  We went about a hundred or so yards down it before tower called and asked us where we thought we were going.  We had a co-pilot in the left seat on his very first AC upgrade ride and Milton (not his real name), in the right seat providing the instruction. 

The taxiway was not wide enough to turn around so we would have to back up about 100 or so yards until we could turn and get onto the right taxiway.  This is ordinarily not too big a deal as long as it’s not too hot and the engines don’t overheat.  We would lower the ramp, and the pilots would follow the directions of the loadmaster who was scanning behind us.  There was one cardinal rule “DON’T TOUCH THE BRAKES.”  Speed was controlled by using the engines and the prop pitch. 

We started to back up with the loadmaster doing a great job of telling us how far we had to go, and when to begin slowing down.  Unfortunately, Milton was busy telling the co-pilot all the things he should be doing, like listening to the LM, that he wasn’t paying attention to the spiel about “straight back, 50-yards, begin slowing down, slow down, we need to slow down, we need to STOP.”  It was that last word that finally broke through and got his attention.  At that time both pilots stepped on the brakes.

I was standing behind the IP (in the right seat), and as we came to a stop the nose of the aircraft rose up until the ramp hit the ground and stopped further travel.  All the sudden I was in the air and the roof of the cockpit smashed me on the head as we came crashing back down.

We limped into parking, noted there might be a small problem with the nose gear and headed off to the club for lunch.  I think it took a couple of days to fix that problem of a compressed nose gear and how it attached to the rest of the airplane.

Air Intercepts over Korea

Our electronic warfare officers had a semi-annual requirement to train against air-to-air threats.  Usually, this was a simple sortie where a couple of F-4s from Kadena would come out and intercept us. Occasionally, we could get some good training at Cope Thunder or head up to Korea to play with them.  There were, I recall, three levels of threat maneuvering we could do, depending on the adversary and what we had briefed.  Level 1 was pretty benign, level 2 more aggressive, and level 3 allowed us to maneuver pretty aggressively (aggressively being a relative term in a C-130).

  Any who, we were sent up to Korea to be a target for some unidentified fighters.  It was a crappy day on the surface but beautifully clear above 10,000 feet, so that was where we went.  A big black and green aircraft about 4,000 feet above a solid white cloud deck.  We were cleared for level three maneuvers allowing 45-60-degree banking, a couple of thousand feet in altitude change, and use of our chaff and flares.

We droned around for a short while, when all the sudden our EWO called a threat break to the right.  We rolled smoothly into 10-degrees of right bank while Milton explained to the co-pilot how important situational awareness was.  The EWO called a break to the left and we rolled smoothly into a 10-degree left bank.  I think this was about that time the pitch on the EWO’s break calls went up just like the RWR gear.

I was looking out the right windows for the threat when I saw an F-15 come screaming down at us.  I heard “Fox 1, Fox 2, Fox 3, off target.”  Then his wingman called out “Fox 1, Fox 2, Fox 3.”

The AC’s comment was along the lines of “That went well, if we hurry we can still make lunch at the Osan O-club.”  I don’t think the EWO was especially happy.

Monday, January 15, 2018

Reflections on Civil Rights (1/15/2018)


Today marks the national recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a federal holiday.  It seems only appropriate to spend a few minutes in reflection of his legacy.
Reverend King was both the face and moral courage of a movement towards the civil rights and hopeful equality for the negro in America. (I use that term because that was the racial description in use when Dr. King was alive).  We, as a nation, had fought a civil war over a state’s right to enslave its population, but in the 100-years that followed, bigotry, discrimination, and racial separation had still held the negro as something less than a full citizen. 
While the South was most infamous in their treatment, the discrimination of African-Americans was quietly and not so quietly going on all across the nation.  It might not have been quite as obvious as in the Southeast, but it was there in the types of jobs available, promotion opportunities, or places where African-Americans could live.  Up until President Truman, the African-Americans of this land could not fight alongside his white brothers-in-arms.  Integration in the military came at a begrudging pace as life-long prejudices still remained, hidden by the very men who were charged with implementing the President’s orders.
Dr. King, was the most vocal and visible voice of both the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as they confronted the discrimination and second-class treatment of the negro population.
I believe it is safe to say without Dr. King’s activism and leadership we would not have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Without either, it is reasonable to assume we as a nation would have continued to repress the rights of African-Americans to the point where the election of an African-American President would be an impossibility.
The question I struggle most with is what has happened to us, and our nation following his assassination on that April night in Memphis?  Of course, this single thought leads to many other unanswerable questions.
I often wonder, would Dr. King agree with those who accuse half this nation of being racist because of our political disagreements? 
Would he agree with the tenants of Critical Race Theory that hold the white man and his institutions are incapable of equal treatment of blacks under the law, and will forever marginalize the black man? 
Would he accept the exploitation of race as a central defense of urban decay in major cities like Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington? 
What would he say about the loss of family and the increase in black on black violence that accounts for the staggering number of African-American deaths in urban America?
Using the tactics of civil disobedience developed by Mahatma Gandhi in his fight for Indian self-rule, Dr. King set the conditions for the civil protest that would ultimately gain the fundamental rights promised to all men by the U.S. Constitution for most of a disenfranchised minority. 
Today, almost 50 years after his assassination, the racial protests flourish in the NFL, are exploited by a BLM movement, and are cited in a number of other venues to make political statements.  For example, when Congressional Democrats are offended they will stay home from work to protest the President.  My question now is, are they just reactive as a political tool, or do they still become a proactive effort to improve the conditions of the average man and women?  Do they actually serve as a vehicle for constructive change, or have they become contra-productive?  Does anyone really think the NFL “take a knee” effort, where millionaire athletes attempt to mimic the courage of Tommie Smith and John Carlos in the 1968 Olympics carries the same risk?   Is it truly about racial equality, or is it about pushing for a particular agenda's political domination?
If Dr. King was still alive he would be 89 years old today.  Consider how far we’ve come, how far we’ve yet to go, and whether is it possible to have true equality when one side begins with a belief equality is impossible.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

"Don't Drive Angry"


One of my favorite lines from the movie “Groundhog Day” is when Bill Murry, as Phil the weatherman, has stolen Punxsutawney Phil the groundhog and intends to commit suicide by driving off a cliff at the quarry.  Along the way he puts the groundhog behind the wheel and as they go barreling through the quarry Phil cautions Punxsutawney “don’t drive angry.”
We seem to be in our own inescapable version of that movie, where each day repeats itself.  Nothing changes, or if there are changes they are so minute we miss their significance. 
In the movie, Phil slowly makes the changes necessary to escape his day.  So too will we, but unlike Phil, I wonder if we will learn the lessons to make tomorrow better?
My advice this winter morning – don’t drive angry.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Time Control? We Don't Need No Stink'n Time Control.

--> I was just a 2Lt (or maybe a 1Lt) in a six-ship formation that was supposed to do a pay drop for elements of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy.   We had flown down from Rhein Main to pick up the troopers at Aviano AB.  Load time was noon, take off was 1330 and drop was supposed to be 1430. 
We had a one-hour route planned, but it really only took about 15 minutes to get to the DZ.  So, we had a number of cutouts where if we took off late we could still hit our TOT.

Loading went smoothly, and we were actually ready to go at 1300.  The lead had this bright idea we would take off early, get approval from ATC to shorten the route and hit the drop zone at 1345.  He checked with the Army and they were all for getting done early.  So off we go.

The only problem was nobody bothered to talk with the Italian controllers.  When we showed up on their screens early they were just a little miffed, and when lead told them the new plan they weren’t buying into this let’s get done early idea.  We flew the route to the IP, but when we got there they said, “Okay you hold now until your scheduled drop time.”

We had 45 minutes of holding at 2,500’ on a hot Italian afternoon.  I don’t think a single trooper on my aircraft managed to keep his lunch down.  We had about 50 guys really happy to leave the plane by the time we hit the green light.

Life was a lot simpler in West Texas where if you were below 3K’ and not in controlled airspace no one cared.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...