Monday, May 28, 2018

Organizational Needs versus Organizational Structure.


This is a question about the Air Force, the youngest of our military services which appears to be going through its mid-life crisis, brought on by a long war that offers no end.  It is, for me at least, a fundamental question upon which all other choices must ultimately rest.  What is the smallest force capable of sustained combat operations, the unit with the necessary operational personnel, maintenance personnel, logistics support, communications, and command and control to deploy and sustain combat operations for at least six months?  Whatever that is shouldn’t that be the type of unit we build our Air Force around.
The Army has wrestled with this same question for as long as I remember, and every time I think they have an answer some new General has a great idea and they reorganize.  Since we come from the Army maybe it is in our DNA that we would do the same thing.  At one point it was a regiment, then a division, and I think they’ve now settled on a Combat Brigade, but that could be outdated.
When I first came into the Air Force, just at the end of the Vietnam conflict, I was taught the wing was that unit, although our history in WW2 would suggest Groups were certainly capable of independent operations, but then Groups in WW2 were bigger than most wings in the post-Vietnam era.
It seems the consideration of sustainable combat capability always takes a back seat to the political, economic, or personnel considerations the CSAF and his staff find so much more interesting inside the beltway.
In the 90’s the CSAF, the SECAF and their staffs said Wing Commanders should be Brigadiers -- so they did away with the longstanding concept of Wing/DO and MA and created various groups so there were promotable O-6 billets who could justify promotion to BG and ultimately Wing/CC.  We did this with the knowledge we would be getting smaller as a service, although I doubt we knew how much smaller.  As we began to downsize and as much as we resisted eventually we ran out of Captains to RIF and ended up getting rid of O-6s and losing some of the O-7 billets they had worked so hard to justify.  So, we ended up going back to O-6 Wing Commanders, with a few high-vis and notable exceptions, but we retained all the Groups that had been created.
Somewhere along the line the AF came up with the belief that subordinate Commanders could only work for superior Commanders, unlike how it had been before we ran out of uniforms to change and began changing the wing organizational structure.  I imagine it was about the same time we came out with the “Commander Badge” that mimicked what the USN had.
As we move to this new “no Groups” concept – it will, I believe, create a real span of control issue for the Wing Commander.  What is their role now?  Do they focus on the air base and its infrastructure or do they spend their days in arbitration as the various squadrons compete for attention and endorsement?  His or her ability to actually know who a good commander is and who is toxic will be further masked as the squadron’s become more independent in their ability to disregard the wing staff, and the Wing Commander has to manage the Air Base as a whole.
The question then becomes does that squadron commander have all the resources necessary to accomplish their mission?  Will they “own” the aircraft, control the maintenance and have the logistics infrastructure necessary or will they have to negotiate for them with peer squadron commanders who have perhaps conflicting priorities?  When those inevitable conflicts arise will the Wing/CC be forced into the role of arbitrator?
Maybe this all isn’t a big deal, but as long as the exodus of officers of all ranks continues the number of qualified senior officers will dwindle and perhaps this is just a response to shrinking pyramid of qualified personnel.

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Memorial Day, 2018


“I am a warrior, so that my son may be a merchant, so that his son may be a poet.”  
 John Quincy Adams
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”   
Plato
We approach yet another Memorial Day, where we will remember those who’ve given their lives and their futures to keep the dreams of this country alive.  The Long War, or the Global War on Terrorism, continues and new names are added to the rolls of those we remember.
It would be nice if I could say we’ve added the last name and we’ve found a way to end the human conflict, but for now, that is only a wistful dream.  As you reflect on this day of remembrance think not only of the pain and emptiness of those we’ve lost but the joy and gladness they brought into the world by their simple presence.
Perhaps, and this is another wistful hope, perhaps accept that we are meant to be understanding as we deal with those who think differently than us.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

The Great Questions of Life



1.     Who decided the earth should rotate on its axis?
2.    Why is water wet?
3.    What would have happened if Christopher Columbus had sunk (or sailed off the edge of the world)?
4.    What is it about the equator that causes people not to pick up their trash?
5.    The first Presidential Library was created in 1939 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt left part of his estate to the Government – why did he really do it?  Does that mean most Presidents before him didn’t have enough stuff to have a library?
6.    Does water go straight down the drain at the equator?
7.     What did NASA do with all the stuff they had left over after the Apollo program was cancelled?
8.    Speaking of Apollo, what have we learned from all the rocks they brought back?
9.    Why are belt loop holes spaced at ½ inch intervals?
10. Why do men’s and woman’s shirts button on different sides?
11.  If environmental protestors care so much for the environment why don’t they pick up their stuff after a protest?
12.  If the Antarctic ice cap melts completely where will South Africa get its fresh water?
13.  How many swords have actually been turned into plowshares?
14.  Who decides how long a woman’s skirt should be to be “fashionable?”
15.  If a man makes a statement in the forest and there are no women to hear him, is he still wrong?

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

The Rule of Law


There are few things as sadly funny to me as hearing a politician or celebrity come out against something, or someone, with a claim the thing they oppose will discredit or destroy “the rule of law” in this country.  Senator Feinstein is just the latest to claim that President Trump’s calling for an independent investigation of the investigators will undermine our faith in the rule of law.
To see her say we are a nation of laws reminds me she and all her peers believe we are really a nation that chooses what laws we enforce and what laws we ignore when there are political advantages to be gained.  We see that most clearly in the immigration debate, although it is also obvious in the on-going rants on gun ownership.
The civil rights movement in this nation began with the recognition we needed to make laws equal for all persons, not just the rich, the powerful, and the white.  When the civil war ended the winners set out to do that, but it took a renewal of effort in the post-World War II period to overcome the institutional resistance we had built to ensure the white majority could still dominate the minorities. 
Unfortunately, I am not sure we have or ever will achieve the ideal of “blind justice” and have complete equality under the law, for those who are charged with creating, administering, and enforcing the laws are human and subject to the shortcomings of being human.  The interesting outcome of this human condition is now the elite among the minorities appear to be setting out on a path of reverse discrimination where they believe “separate but equal” is a viable option.  I wonder what Thurgood Marshall would think of this approach?  It is almost as if they have come to agree with the whites who really are racist, not just the ones they accuse of being so.
So for the foreseeable future, we will remain a nation that follows the rule of law, kind of, when it’s convenient and self-serving to do so.

Sunday, May 20, 2018

A Lesson Learned.


            In 2016 I cast a “non-vote” for all the candidates for President.  I understood at the time I was giving up my civic right, but I found all the names on the ballot either incompetent, criminal, or distasteful.  I shall not make that choice again.  The candidate I found distasteful has proven himself to be an effective leader, and if he had the traditional support most Presidents have from their party perhaps he would be even better.  The one thing that cannot be denied is he has worked to keep his campaign promises to a level unheard of in modern times.
            By their acts and actions, the Democrats (politicians, activists, would be social warriors, and loyalists), have proven their contempt for the Republic and the average citizen it is supposed to serve.  They have clearly shown their unwillingness to work with the legally elected representative of the people and choose instead to stand with the criminal gangs of the world while vilifying those who disagree with them as terrorists.
            We are becoming a one-party system where reaching a compromised middle-ground is increasingly unlikely.  If we are to be a one-party system then my vote will go to the party that supports capitalism over communism.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

When Will We As a Society End the Madness?



In the face of another mind-numbing school shooting I am watching the usual suspects say the usual things, but one question from someone who advocates for taking guns away caught my attention.  “When will we, as a society, end the madness and protect our children?”  That is a fair question, the only problem with it is the idea that society can end the problem as if there is some magic solution.  If we do X then everything will be okay.  That is the fatal flaw in the left’s approach, they think if they destroy the NRA and remove all the guns from society things will be better.

We have spent the last 60-years creating this society.  It has been formed through the social evolution of both the right and the left where we move to the extreme and each social group demands their supremacy and vilifies those who don’t support them.  We’ve funded an entertainment industry that makes billions of dollars off the violent nature of man while creating an economic elite who feel it is their right to tell the average person how life should be lived.  We’ve encouraged that same entertainment industry to vilify family and family values, suggesting on almost every medium the parents are stupid and if it wasn’t for the kid's everything would unravel, or that one race is superior to another.

At the same time, I see social postings from my generation who talk about how they were disciplined as children and today’s children have it too easy.  But where is their acknowledgment of their choice not to disciple their children, or condemn the social evolution that took place in front of their own eyes?

We want the madness to end but believe it’s someone else’s fault it exists and it is someone else’s job to fix it.  Whose job is it?  Surely not the government’s?  It can’t even implement a simple thing like a reasonable immigration standard or agree on a budget before the government shuts down.  How about the teachers?  Don’t we now want them to teach morality to a generation of children, whose parents have spent a lifetime questioning the morality of their parents?  They are the ones who’ve allowed the bullying to take place while advocating for social justice for the misunderstood.  Clearly, they can fix the problem since, according to some, they’ve created it. If we just throw them some more money the problem will go away?

Maybe we can turn to the entertainment industry who are more than happy to weigh in on the evil of guns while guarded by armed security.  They will have an answer while pushing the latest gun-filled mega-epic.

How about all the millennials who fill the social media space with thought-provoking and insightful posts like “your [sic] a whore.”  I am certain they have the solution, unfortunately, it would require our abandonment of the Constitution.

Here is an idea I’ve not heard discussed much by the experts in the media.  Maybe we should think about the role of a family in society and how important the parents are to creating a good person and start with that as a way to change the narrative.

Silly me, that would never work.  How can you get a click-bait headline out of “Child successfully integrates into society thanks to good parents.”

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

A Lot Has Changed in Camelot


For those who lived in the time of Camelot (the new one, not the original) there sure has been a lot of changes, some good, some bad, and some just repetitive.

For those who were not around when Camelot occurred let me bring you up to speed.  Camelot was how the press referred to the White House and Washington when the Kennedy clan came into office, defeating the dark forces of the GOP and Richard Nixon.  The modern fiction is it was an overwhelming win for the democrat’s but that is not supported by the facts and in today’s vernacular would be classified as fake news.  The electoral college vote was 302 to 219, but the popular vote was only separated by 120,000 votes out of 68.5 million cast[i], or roughly the number of dead voters in Chicago.

When the Kennedy’s swept into Washington bringing the glamor of Hyannis and the Cape to replace the staid Kansas work ethic of the departing Eisenhower crowd, there was a new musical from Lerner and Lowe opening.  The musical Camelot[ii] with Richard Burton, Robert Goulet, and Julie Andrews was playing on Broadway that year and it made for a natural comparison and easy sales pitch for an adoring press. The new President and First Lady were young, vibrant, and had their children who could play on the White House lawn.  Jaqueline spruced up the White House and gave the public guided television tours of the historic rooms and art.  The press and the public ate it up.  Of course, back then there were only three television networks and a few independent stations so the media message could be controlled and shaped by those who knew what they were doing.

In the years that followed there has been so much revealed that only those who live in a fantasy now believe there was truly a renaissance with the arrival of the Kennedy’s.  Rather, like the musical, the glowing city on the Potomac was just an illusion that glowed brightly before it faded into reality.  Its King, like Arthur, remains a hero who while he lived set the table where all his knights were equal, and his adoring maidens fair.

In today’s Washington, we see all the muck of the stables and not the gleaming castle we had once viewed from afar.  The illusion of grandeur has been replaced by the nightly wails of the town criers bemoaning the fact the Royals have been replaced by a commoner who is not withholding to them for his fame or fortune.

To use another analogy from medieval England it seems as if King John has been replaced by Robin Hood and now the knights and friars are upset to learn he’s been living in Sherwood long enough not to be concerned with maintaining all their comforts as he rebuilds the castle.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

A Random Post... About Nothing in Particular


A Sunday Thought
As we move through time and space we see all that is before us.  We seek to know what is right and what is true.  But we are confronted by charlatans who would cloud our thoughts and change our path.  They seek their own gain at our expense, saying what was once true can be true no more, with promises of untold wealth if we but follow them.
They lay before us a path that seems wide and inviting, but in truth leads only towards our own destruction.  But the decision always lies with us.  What path do we choose?

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Flying to the DEW Line (or Taking Oil to the North Slope)



In the fall of 1975 I was a freshly qualified C-130E Navigator in the 773rd Tactical Airlift Squadron, 463rd Tactical Airlift Wing, Dyess AFB, Tx.  The C-130s had been transferred from TAC to MAC a year earlier, while I was in survival school, and our squadron was tasked to provide three or four aircraft to help resupply the Distant Early Warning Radar sites along the northern perimeter of Alaska.  It seems the summer thaw for that year came late and the barges that would normally be used couldn’t get to the sites and return before the winter freeze set back in.  I was on one of the crews chosen to support the operation.  This is just a simple "there I was" tale.

Our deployment was a simple two-day trip.  Day 1 was from Abilene to McCord AFB, WA, with Day 2 a straight overwater shot from McCord to Elmendorf AFB, AK.  McCord was my first experience with a MAC (now AMC) command post and it taught me that for a CP controller -- having all the squares filled was actually more important than having the right information in the squares. 

When we had arrived the evening before I had worked out the flight plan and the fuel loads, adding a few thousand pounds of gas just to be on the safe side.  I had done this with the performance charts we carried.  For us, at Dyess, we had not yet been fully MACemsized so we used the C-130E 1-1.  MAC had taken the data from the 1-1 and put it into an approved MAC book (whose number escapes me).  When we submitted our planning to the Command Post (CP) the only question they asked was what page in the MAC book I had used?  I had to go find the book, find a chart that approximated my fuel load, and then give them that page number.  Once that square was filled we were approved to step to the aircraft, crank up the mighty Allison T56 engines and wing our way northward.  After about six hours, we arrived at Elmendorf where our newly issued winter parkas proved to be a critical piece of gear.  The temps were just above freezing and a C-5A stood off at the end of the ramp bleeding hydraulic fluid from a number of points.

We checked in with CP and told we would get our orientation brief the next day, and we should head to billeting to check in.  Since we were all pretty new to this MAC thing we thought about how the C-141 and C-5 crews always seemed to get off-base hotel quarters and were pretty excited about spending time in downtown Anchorage.  Sadly, we learned there was Big MAC and Little MAC and we were in the wrong one.  We were billeted on base, but right next to the O’club and it was King Crab night!  All you could eat for about $12 (if I remember correctly).

The next day all the crews from Little Rock, Pope and Dyess assembled as they laid out the plans for resupplying sites with names like Barter Island, Lonely, and Oliktok.  We would be carrying all the stuff they needed to sustain operations until the next thaw in late spring.  This included foodstuffs, toilet paper, and heating oil (carried in bladders that filled the floor of the aircraft like a big waterbed).  We would fly from Anchorage to the northern sites, offload and then return to Eielison where we would refuel and reload to make a second sortie.  Some of the crews would RON at Eielison and fly from there the next day with their second sortie returning to Elmendorf.

A couple of days later we were on our first sortie.  Elmendorf to Lonely, back to Eielison, then to Barter Island with a return to Elmendorf.  It would be about a 12-hour day and I think half of that was in the air.  If I recall correctly, takeoff was about noon and with sunset at about 2 or 3 pm at Anchorage, most of the flying would be in the dark.

The things that stand out in my memory are pretty simple.  The Alaskan pipeline was being built and there was a highway of white lights that went north from Fairbanks for a hundred miles or more.  When you were 200 miles out from the DEW line site you could easily identify the stations on the radar since they were the only returns you saw.  The night was completely dark and the heavens so close you could touch them, except on the nights the aurora was present -- when the show was unforgettable.

It was during this operation that I knew I had chosen the right profession and had somehow stumbled into the right aircraft for me.

Friday, May 11, 2018

Senatorial Grandstanding vs. Intelligence (i.e. The morality of relative morality)


We are a nation of laws, hopefully based on a shared sense of what is right and just.  Laws come from politicians, elected to represent us, not from the bureaucrats hired to run the government or enforce the laws they are given.  More and more frequently we see a loss of that shared sense of what is right and just as our morality is changed by those forces active within society who rebel against the status quo.  As our morality changes so do the choices we make with regard to the law.
I’ve never been a prisoner of war, nor have I had to attempt to gain intelligence from those who have been captured as a part of a military or intelligence operation, but I have been through military survival school, and its resistance training.  I am fully aware of what the North Vietnamese did to US prisoners in the Vietnam war, as well as what the Japanese did to their prisoners in the Second World War.  During this long war I’ve had a number of conversations on the subject of “enhanced interrogation techniques” with my colleagues, what follows summarizes my thoughts, as well as an opinion of Senator Kamala Harris during her question period of Gina Haspel.
With the horrific attack on America by Islamic terrorists on 9/11/2001 this nation’s politicians reacted with the outrage we would expect of a group who found out we were not as immune to the terror as we had been led to believe we were during the 1990s, when the attacks on the US were all against interests outside the homeland or were from isolated domestic terrorists.
They reacted with the only tools they had.  They passed legislation allowing us to attack the country that harbored the terrorists, approved and funded the ability of the government to use its technology to monitor the activities of its own citizens and authorized the use of all means and methods necessary to find and bring Osama bin Laden to justice.  Some of this was done by the Congress in the form of legislation, and some of it by Executive Order.  There were few dissenting voices during those early days, just as there were few dissenting voices when the government approved the detention and relocation of Japanese-Americans at the start of the Second World War. 
The CIA, of course, was central to the process.  It failed to stop the attack and, I assume, was under a lot of pressure from the President, his Vice President, and a whole bunch of concerned Congressional members to fix the problem of finding Waldo, err Osama.  Everyone who had oversight and control pulled out all the stops to get them the tools and funding they wanted.  Among those efforts were the establishment of a number of undisclosed detention and interrogation centers, imprisonment in foreign countries where CIA accountability was masked, almost unlimited cash for “rewards,” development of a new generation of UAV and technology to track and target individuals, and of course the “enhanced” interrogation techniques like waterboarding.  Tracing the CIA back to its earliest days in the cold war there is a long history of it exploring ways to extract information from those it captured, just as other countries have.  It seems to be a foundational quality that if a little fear is good, a lot is better.  Wasn’t it the CIA who developed LSD as a tool to enhance the interrogation and quality of information a subject may provide, only to discard it when it was proven ineffective?
From the beginnings of this long war, I’ve found the use of these “enhanced” techniques unappealing and inappropriate for a society and a government that made such vocal condemnations of the brutality of others against our combatants in various conflicts.  For those who know me, I find the hypocrisy of saying one thing and then doing another a most unforgivable shortcoming.  That being said, I often found myself a distinct minority in the discussions.  Most of my peers, both younger and older felt that any tool available should be used if it meant we would gain a tactical advantage in the global war on terror.  My concern focused simply on the quid pro quo potential of our hypocrisy, but my friends pointed out the other side wasn’t playing by the rules so why should we?  For me, that argument was always the crux of a moral choice, going all the way back to that earliest childhood admonishment from your mother.  “If your friends jumped off the bridge, would you?”  Just because someone else does something does that mean it is moral?  It seems in these days where the morality of all sorts of things are called into question we have opened the door to the individual making his or her own choice.
Let’s take a moment to talk about these interrogation techniques and decide if they are torture or not.  Are these enhanced techniques torture?  Good question.  What is torture anyway?  The Oxford Dictionary (online) defines it as “The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.”  The beauty of that definition is you can choose to limit or expand your definition by qualifying the words like severe pain and then debating whether or not it deals with just physical or does it mean mental as well? Is the use of phenobarbital against a subject’s will torture?  You can certainly make the case it is since it will cause mental anguish.  Does waterboarding cause severe physical pain, or is the fear of death from drowning a cause for severe mental trauma?  At the end of the day it really boils down to an individual choice, doesn’t it?  From a technical standpoint, the real question is “is it effective and does it fit within the legal parameters of international law?”  The documentation I see is that “torture” is viewed as an absolute ban in international law, yet it is rarely enforced or condemned by the international tribunals for what I assume is a variety of political reasons.  So, the bottom line on waterboarding is it could be torture if you want to call it that, but it might not be if you think you can get away with it and it meets your immediate need.
There is an interesting dynamic in the post-Reagan society where the condemnation of the past takes on a smug moral superiority and those who participate in this reflection of hindsight feel empowered to condemn the decisions of the past as if they were all morally reprehensible and the people who made the decisions, or executed those policies were and are evil.  We see that approach pretty routinely in today’s social discourse.  I believe it is simply a strategy to gain a superior position and shut down legitimate debate, especially when it would call into question the broader moral questions of one’s own positions.
Other than what I’ve seen in the news, I know very little of Gina Haspel.  Apparently, she is a career CIA analyst/operative who has risen through the bureaucracy to become Deputy Director and is now nominated as its Director.  Since she is a Trump nomination, her qualifications are pretty much irrelevant as she becomes just another political football.  She is either the greatest thing since sliced bread, or she is evil incarnate based solely on your political point of view.
 What I did see in the questioning by Senator Kamala Harris was an adult, being questioned by a snobbish, uninformed, and self-serving child who asked a complex moral question dealing with past events, and then demanded a yes or no answer.  Her position on the appointment was decided the instant the nomination was made, and there was nothing in any of the answers of Ms. Haspel that would ever remotely persuade her to change her mind.  Her 5-minutes before the camera was there to showcase her opposition and set the stage for what she undoubtedly believes will be a run at a higher national office.  Unfortunately, she failed to show any qualities that commend her to a broader electorate than she already has.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Reminders of the Past


As we returned home from visiting our children and grandchildren we were driving along Interstate 81, a lovely north-south passage that keeps us well clear of most major metropolitan areas and their traffic.  We had just passed Bristol Virginia/Tennessee and were enjoying the lush green countryside when I saw two reminders of the past.
There, standing high on a hill just to the west was a huge Confederate Battle Flag, overlooking a sign announcing we were on the Al Gore Sr. Memorial Highway.  It struck me how closely these two signs of the recent past were connected. 
On the one hand, we see a symbol of the civil war, but it stands today as a reminder of the racism that still remains within the human heart, the other is a reminder of how close he and the Democratic party of the South were linked to that symbol.
Al Gore[i] was a career politician who came to the Congress in the mid-1930s, and with a brief exception for a late wartime enlistment, remained there until he lost the 1970 reelection bid.  In those years he seemed to take a rather centrist approach, at least for his time.  Some of his more notable accomplishments were: suggesting we use nuclear contamination to separate the two Koreas, not signing the “Southern Manifesto” but filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act, and being instrumental in the Highway Act that created the interstate system.  He lost his 1970 reelection bid when he was accused of being a part of the “liberal conspiracy” for his anti-war stance on the Vietnam conflict.

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

To News or Not to News... That is the Question.


Since the advent of candidate Trump, we’ve heard much about “fake news.”  On the one side is a bias media claiming since they all report the same thing they are real news and everything else is fake, and on the other we have those who disagree with the mainstream media claiming the mainstream reporting is fake and the only real news is what they say.  The reality is no one reports the news anymore, everyone reports their opinion of an event and we as consumers now cherry pick the opinions we like as real, and the opinions we don’t as fake.
For example, President Obama entered into an agreement with Iran.  It was never sanctioned by the Senate so it was never more than an executive agreement to release funds held by the US since the original Iranian Crisis in 1979 and place his faith in the Iranians they would live up to their promises.  This week President Trump chose to rescind that agreement.  I assume to support the desires of more reliable allies in the Middle East, as well as send a message to Iran that we don’t believe them to be operating in good faith. 
In the preceding paragraph, the only news was President Trump undoing a previous President’s decision.  The rest was opinion and conjecture.  The media reports opinions as if they are news and everyone reacts with the same shock, disbelief, or support as if the pundits, politician’s, or even their own opinions have been carried down from a mountain etched in stone tablets.
What we see today is a direct result of an administration that made a calculated political choice and lost.  The Obama administration chose to by-pass the constitutional process and govern by executive fiat.  He was not the first to do this, but his choices to do so were carried a lot further than previous administrations.  He went so far as to brag about his phone and his pen as if they were all that was necessary to govern.
It was obvious, at least to the Democrats, they would remain in power at least through the coronation of HRC, but somehow, they miscalculated and DJT stepped in.  Now as his pen and his phone undo the legacy of the Obama years there is a cry from the politically displaced that the end of the world is at hand.  The one glimmer of hope for the Democrats is that at some point the Donald will leave office, and it is historically safe to say the population will grow weary of the Republicans and they will elect another Democrat.  That is assuming the DNC can find one that appeals to the independent voters as being somewhat reasonable (at least on the surface).  Right now, no one I see in the DNC meets that criteria.
As you read this opinion I welcome you to view it as either fake or real news.  Your choice.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...