A Philosophical Question on Government

I was thinking about what questions I might ask a candidate if I were given a chance at a town hall meeting, press conference, or public debate, and what would be most important for me to understand in casting my ballot.  There are two questions I don’t think I’ve ever heard the press ask, although I tend to zone out and ignore most televised debates because of their Kabuki like presentation, and I am not sure most of the politicians from either party would answer simply, for in simple answers we would see their agenda too clearly.

The first question would be “What is the role of government?” 

In today's world of political and racial correctness this seems to be a most important question.  Is it the governments job to shape society, or is society and its standards only a medium in which government exists?  Unlike the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? We know society preexists government, but the two are inextricably intertwined as both are products of the humans involved. 

At our origin, the founders had, just ten years earlier, led a rebellion against a distant authoritarian government.  They were concerned with the rights and individual freedoms of the society, as it existed in the late 18^th century.  They built a central government with clear limits to its power through the system of checks and balances, and allowances for the rights of the several states to operate independently.

The preamble of the U.S. Constitution lays out four roles for government, they are “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare…” Each of these roles come directly from the shared experiences of the political leadership of that society.  Justice was first – for without faith in the equality of justice by the majority of society neither the society nor the government can long exist.  With the Confederation of States the framers learned that only a central power with sufficient strength to settle the inevitable disputes between states, or rebellious factions can ensure society can flourish.  Next, understanding the threats from external powers the need for some kind of standing Army and Navy was a cost best born by the central government and not the individual states.  Finally, they believed government should not interfere with the individual’s rights to health, happiness, and prosperity.

Over the years we have moved from the original vision of the signers to something much more powerful than what our founders could have ever imagined.  It was inevitable this would occur since the strong men of the day sought to expand their authority just as strong men and women of today do.  This leads to the natural question, is the evolution of centralized power a good or bad thing for the health of our society?

The second question I would ask is, how long do you intend to “serve” in office?

When our government began, the individuals elected to office did so with the understanding this was a part-time job and after a couple of terms they would return to private life.  It didn’t take long for those same politicians see they had found the goose that laid a golden egg.  This led to expanding their employment into full time roles and life-long careers where they were able to significantly improve the socio-economic outlook.  Along the way the created a civil service to support their law-making, creating a bureaucratic class that also benefits from the expansion of government.  While it is true there has been expansion and contraction of our government there are two facts that are inescapable.  A contracting government never returns to the same size it was before it was expanded in the first place, and since WW II there has been only a significant expansion in the size and scope of the central government.

Since we appear to have reached a point in our history where we seem unwilling to establish term limits for representatives and senators through the amendment process, our only avenue for limiting government growth is to hold ourselves accountable and not vote f0r incumbents after a couple of terms.  Unfortunately, this works against our self-interest so that is not a likely course of action either.  

 It looks to me as if the expansion of government is likely to continue until such time as it topples from its own weight.

Things are Changing at the EPA.

A memorandum from the EPA Administrator to his senior staff.  I don't know who made it public (I read it on the Powerline Blog), but it talks about ending a practice known as "sue and settle" where special interest groups and the EPA have worked to bypass public participation and Congressional oversight in rule making.  I am sure some who have supported this process will be concerned and perhaps outraged, but for me this what "open government" should be about.   We should not be formulating policies and regulations behind the closed doors when the law requires something else.  

I am not sure how long with will survive beyond the current administrator, but it is a refreshing piece of common sense.

p.s.  This memo has been altered only for formatting, all the footnotes were included in the original.

TO:               Assistant Administrators

                       Regional Administrators

                       Office of General Counsel

FROM:       E. Scott Pruitt

                       Administrator

DATE:        October 16, 2017

SUBJECT:  Adhering to the Fundamental Principles of Due Process, Rule of Law, and Cooperative Federalism in Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements

In the past, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sought to resolve litigation through consent decrees and settlement agreements that appear to be the result of collusion with outside groups.[1]  Behind closed doors, EPA and the outside groups agreed that EPA would take an action with a certain end in mind, relinquishing some of its discretion over the Agency's priorities and duties and handing them over to special interests and the courts.[2]  When negotiating these agreements, EPA excluded intervenors, interested stakeholders, and affected states from those discussions.  Some of these agreements even reduced Congress's ability to influence policy.[3] The days of this regulation through litigation are terminated. 

"Sue and settle," as this tactic has been called, undermines the fundamental principles of government that I outlined on my first day:  (1) the importance of process, (2) adherence to the rule of law, and (3) the applicability of cooperative federalism.  The process by which EPA adopts regulations sends an important message to the public:  EPA values the comments that it receives from the public and strives to make informed decisions on regulations that impact the lives and livelihoods of the American people.  The rule of law requires EPA to act only within the confines of the statutory authority that Congress has conferred to the Agency, and thereby avoid the uncertainty of litigation and ultimately achieve better outcomes.  Finally, EPA must honor the vital role of the states in protecting the public health and welfare under the principle of cooperative federalism as prescribed by the Constitution and statutory mandate.

*                     *                     *

This memorandum explains the sue-and-settle directive that I established within the Agency and also describes how the past practice of regulation through litigation has harmed the American public.

Regulation Through Litigation Violates Due Process, the Rule of Law, and Cooperative Federalism

When an agency promulgates a new regulation or issues a decision, the agency should take that action consistent with the processes and substantive authority that the law permits.  An agency, therefore, should ordinarily zealously defend its action when facing a lawsuit challenging that action.  If an agency agrees to resolve that litigation through a consent decree or settlement agreement, however, questions will necessarily arise about the propriety of the government's determination not to defend the underlying regulation or decision.  Indeed, sue and settle has been adopted to resolve lawsuits through consent decrees in a way that bound the agency to judicially enforceable actions and timelines that curtailed careful agency consideration.  This violates due process, the rule of law, and cooperative federalism.

A. The Importance of Process

EPA risks bypassing the transparency and due process safeguards enshrined in the Administrative Procedure Act[4] and other statutes[5] when it uses a consent decree or a settlement agreement to bind the Agency to proceed with a rulemaking with a certain end in mind on a schedule negotiated with the litigants.  Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act to provide the American public with notice of a potential agency action, to encourage public participation in the rulemaking process, and to afford federal agencies with the framework to perform careful consideration of all the associated issues before taking final agency action.  Following the legal processes for agency action provides predictability for all stakeholders, ensures that the agency will receive input from all interested parties, and increases the defensibility of an action when facing a procedural challenge.

A sue-and-settle agreement, however, undermines these safeguards.  Using this tactic, the agency and the party that filed the legal challenge agree in principle on the terms of a consent decree or settlement before the public has the opportunity to review the terms of the agreement.[6] An agency can also use consent decrees and settlement agreements as an end-run around certain procedural protections of the rulemaking process.  Even when an agency attempts to comply with these procedural safeguards, the agency typically agrees to an expedited rulemaking process that can inhibit meaningful public participation.  This rushed rulemaking process can lead to technical errors by the agency, insufficient time for stakeholders to submit rigorous studies that assess the proposal, the inability of the agency to provide meaningful consideration of all the evidence submitted to the agency, a lack of time for the agency to reconsider its initial proposal and issue a revised version, and the failure to take into account the full range of potential issues related to the proposed rule.

Sue and settle, therefore, interferes with the rights of the American people to provide their views on proposed regulatory decisions and have the agency thoughtfully consider those views before making a final decision.  By using sue and settle to avoid the normal rulemaking processes and protections, an agency empowers special-interests at the expense of the public and parties that could have used their powers of persuasion to convince the agency to take an alternative action that could better serve the American people.[7]

B. Adherence to the Rule of Law

As an agency in the executive branch of the United States, EPA must faithfully administer the laws of the land and take actions that are tethered to the governing statutes.  The authority that Congress has granted to EPA is our only authority.  EPA must respect the rule of law.  The Agency must strive to meet the directives and deadlines that Congress set forth in our governing environmental statutes.  But we must not surrender the powers that we receive from Congress to another branch of government - lest we risk upsetting the balance of powers that our founders enshrined in the Constitution.[8] Sue and settle disrespects the rule of law and improperly elevates the powers of the federal judiciary to the detriment of the executive and legislative branches.[9]

In the past, outside groups have sued EPA for failing to act by a deadline prescribed under the law.  EPA would then sign a consent decree agreeing to take a particular action ahead of other Agency actions that the public and other public officials considered to be higher priorities.  We should not readily cede our authority and discretion by letting the federal judiciary dictate the priorities of the Administration and the Agency.

Taken to its extreme, the sue-and-settle strategy can allow executive branch officials to avoid political accountability by voluntarily yielding their discretionary authority to the courts, thereby insulating agency officials from criticisms of unpopular actions.  Equally troubling, sue and settle can deprive Congress of its ability to influence agency policy through oversight and the power of the purse.  Sue-and-settle agreements can also prevent subsequent administrations from modifying a particular policy priority, approach, or timeline.[10]  The founders of our nation did not envision such an imbalance of power among the federal branches of government.

EPA must always respect the rule of law and defend the prerogatives of its separate powers.  EPA, therefore, shall avoid inappropriately limiting the discretion that Congress authorized the Agency, abide by the procedural safeguards enumerated in the law, and resist the temptation to reduce the amount of time necessary for careful Agency action.

C. Embracing Cooperative Federalism

Many environmental statutes empower the states to serve as stewards of their lands and environments.[11] Embracing federalism, EPA can work cooperatively with states to encourage regulations instead of compelling them and to respect the separation of powers.[12]  Past sue-and-settle tactics, however, undermined this principle of cooperative federalism by excluding the states from meaningfully participating in procedural and substantive Agency actions.

When considering a consent decree or settlement agreement to end litigation against the Agency, EPA should welcome the participation of the affected states and tribes, regulated communities, and other interested stakeholders.  This should include engagement even before lodging the decree or agreement, where appropriate.  These additional participants to the negotiations can voice their concerns that the agreed-upon deadlines will be reasonable and fair, permitting adequate time for meaningful public participation and thoughtful Agency consideration of comments received.  EPA must also seek to collaborate with the states and remain flexible when ensuring compliance with environmental protections.

Conclusion

By emphasizing the importance of process, adhering to the rule of law, and embracing cooperative federalism, EPA increases the quality of, and public confidence in, its regulations.  Through transparency and public participation, EPA can reassure the American public that the rules that apply to them have been deliberated upon and determined in a forum open to all.  Finally, the federal government must continue to improve engagement with the states, tribes, interested stakeholders, and regulated communities, especially when resolving litigation.  The steps outlined in my directive today will help us achieve these noble goals and continue to improve us as an Agency.

---

[1]  When litigants enter into a consent decree, they agree to resolve the litigation through a judicially enforceable court order; if one party fails to abide by the terms of a consent decree, that party risks being held in contempt of court.  A settlement agreement generally resolves legal disputes without a court order; if one party fails to abide by the terms of a settlement agreement, the aggrieved party must petition a court for a judicial remedy.

[2]  These outside groups often file lawsuits in federal district courts that the litigants believe will give them the best chance of prevailing - not necessarily in the forum where the agency action at issue is most applicable - and ask the court to enjoin the agency action on a nationwide basis.  Nationwide injunctions, in general, raise serious concerns about the validity and propriety of these district court actions

[3]  The sue-and-settle phenomenon results in part from statutes that empower these outside groups to file a lawsuit against a federal agency when that agency fails to meet a statutory deadline and then reward these individuals by allowing them to recover attorney's fees for "successful" lawsuits

[4]  Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency must publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and include the following information:  "(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rulemaking proceedings; (2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved." 5 U.S.C. SS 553(b).  Additionally, the agency "shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through a submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation."  Id. SS 553(c).

[5]  The statutes include the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. SS 3506), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. SS 603), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. SS 1535).

[6] In certain circumstances, the Agency must permit the public to comment on the proposed settlement.  See, e.g., Clean Air Act Section 113(g), 42 U.S.C. SS 7413(g) (requiring that "[a]t least 30 days before a consent decree or settlement agreement of any kind under [the Clean Air Act] to which the United States is a party (other than enforcement actions) . . . is final or filed with a court, the Administrator shall provide a reasonable opportunity by notice in the Federal Register to persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the action or matter to comment in writing").  While the Agency has made changes to proposed consent decrees in response to comments receiving during this process, the Agency understands that numerous stakeholders lack faith in the effectiveness of this comment opportunity because the Agency and the settling litigants have already agreed in principle to the proposed settlement.

[7]  "The greatest evil of government by consent decree . . . comes from its potential to freeze the regulatory processes of representative democracy.  At best, even with the most principled and fair-minded courts, the device adds friction. . . .  As a policy device, then, government by consent decree serves no necessary end.  It opens the door to unforeseeable mischief; it degrades the institutions of representative democracy and augments the power of special interest groups.  It does all of this in a society that hardly needs new devices that emasculate representative democracy and strengthen the power of special interests."  Citizens for a Better Env't v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117, 1136-37 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Wilkey, J., dissenting).

[8]  In The Federalist Number 47, James Madison wrote: One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct.  In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty.  The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner, as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form; and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts. No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded.  The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.  Were the federal constitution therefore really chargeable with this accumulation of power or with a mixture of powers having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.  I persuade myself however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies, has been totally misconceived and misapplied.  In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense, in which the preservation of liberty requires, that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The Federalist No. 47 (James Madison) (emphasis added).

[9]  "The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary of each other."  Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. FE 9:59 (emphasis added).  "The Constitution intended that the three great branches of the government should be co-ordinate and independent of each other.  As to acts, therefore, which are to be done by either, it has given no control to another branch. . . .  Where different branches have to act in their respective lines, finally and without appeal, under any law, they may give to it different and opposite constructions. . . .  From these different constructions of the same act by different branches, less mischief arises than from giving to any one of them a control over the others."  Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:213 (emphasis added).

[10] "The separation of powers inside a government - and each official's concern that he may be replaced by someone with a different agenda - creates incentives to use the judicial process to obtain an advantage.  The consent decree is an important element in the strategy. . . .  It is impossible for an agency to promulgate a regulation containing a clause such as 'My successor cannot amend this regulation.'  But if the clause appears in a consent decree, perhaps the administrator gets his wish to dictate the policies of his successor."  Frank Easterbrook, Justice and Contract in Consent Judgments, 1987 U. Chi. L. Forum 19, 33-34 (1987).

[11]  Both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act contain specific provisions that enlist the states to take primary responsibility of environmental protection.

[12]  In Federalist Number 51, James Madison wrote: In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.  Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.  Second.  It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.  Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens.  If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) (emphasis added).

I Wonder...

If we know gold can be found in the collision of two neutron stars will there be a gold rush to space?  (Stars collided 150 million years ago, so this is a recent event in the age of the cosmos, but the light is just now arriving in our little corner of it.)

Why the NFL doesn’t move to robot players?  They had it in the Jetson’s so the technology must exist.  As a first step, we could go to exoskeletons and remove the need for 300+ pound behemoths. 

Why the NFL defenses can’t use tiny surface to air missiles as part of their aerial defense?  In open air stadiums, it would make the blimp ride much more exciting.

If a “non-binary” individual goes missing how will they be described?  Missing, a 37-year old what?  If they are found, will they have to prove themselves with a non-binary ID?

A Faustian Bargain, and Buyer’s Remorse

The idea of Faust comes from a German legend, where Faust was a great scholar who was unhappy with his life.  In a bargain with the devil he exchanges his soul for unlimited knowledge and pleasure.  Faust, with the aid of Mephistopheles, corrupts those he comes into contact with. [i]

Isn’t this the storyline we see playing out in today’s reporting of the Weinstein scandal?  In this case, the only question is who is playing the role of Faust and who is Mephistopheles?  The news would have us believe Weinstein is Faust and he has corrupted all the women, but is that true?

The idea that actors and actresses have exchanged sex for fame was familiar to us since I was a young boy seeing the images of beautiful women on the screen.  The idea of the casting couch and the role it played in securing prime roles was not a secret even to a hick from upstate New York.  So, I have to ask the question; were the young men and women drawn to an industry known for its sexual proclivities naïve or where they entering into their own bargain? Who was really selling their soul for fame and riches?

Don’t mistake my question as sympathy for Weinstein.  His abuse of those who were powerless to stop it is terrible.  I am just pointing out he was and is a part of a much larger corruption where morality is routinely sacrificed for personal desire.  We see this in the condemnations of those who now seek to distance themselves, but counted him as a friend when they wanted his money or influence.

The only innocents I see in this whole affair are the children cast to the wolves by their parents in an attempt to gain their own riches.  Mayim Bialik (“Blossom” and now “Big Bang Theory”) wrote an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times[ii] where she discusses her experiences, starting as an 11-year old in an industry that objectifies women.  She is being condemned by many for blaming the victims. 

How better to ensure a continuation of the status quo than to hang up a single evil villain, beat our collective breasts about his sins, and then -- when the dust settles, return to business as usual.  I think it would be equally effective if we just bound his hands and threw him off the castle rampart into the moat.  If he drowned we would forgive him, if he lived we would repeat the process.  Unfortunately, most of the castles are occupied by those who’ve made their own bargain.

---

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust

[ii] New York Times, October 13, 2017, Mayim Bialik: Being a Feminist in Harvey Weinstein’s World

When Institutions Crumble, What Remains?

I wonder how those who lived through the gaslight era viewed the future as they left the 19^th and began the 20^th century?  Did they view the passing of the century with the same dread and hard feelings we are experiencing as we leave the 20^th century behind and plunge into the 21^st?

There are a couple of significant differences between then and now.  For example, our government and its currency was based on our holdings in gold, rather than the faith and confidence in an institution called the Federal Reserve.  The Fed, as it’s known, is an extra-governmental organization that controls the real fiscal policies of the US and to a now decreasing degree the world.  What happens, as we are beginning to see, when the world and the citizens lose confidence in both the institution, and America’s ability to pay its ever-increasing debt?  Will we become a super-Venezuela with the political elite and rich cloistered behind their walls getting all they need while society collapses just outside?

Colleges were a very small segment in the grand scheme of America.  They began as institutions to train the ministers of the religions that came to America to escape persecution, and then grew as centers to educate the elite who would run the country.  I was not there, but it seems they held, for the most part, to the principles of the age of enlightenment.  Following the second World War, the US government created the GI Bill enabling tens of thousands who might otherwise never attend college to improve their education, social standing, and financial well-being.  This in turn created a new wealth for the colleges and an escalating expansion to keep up with the demand.  A demand that was further advocated by the political and educational leadership that saw great benefit in the institutions.  At some point the concepts of education seemed to have changed from exploration and enlightenment to indoctrination, as well as wealth accumulation for the institutions and their professors/administrators.  As legions of graduates leave with little prospect for great jobs that will reward them both professionally and financially what will happen to these institutions?  If we consider them an industry, as I think they should be considered, we will see a market correction where only the most adept will survive as the market draws down.  What kind of carnage will result from this abandonment of liberal education?

How about the idea of justice, and the American judicial system?  I imagine there has always been at least two standards of justice in America.  One for the rich, and the other for the rest of us.  I think it is also safe to assume the minorities have never received “equal justice” under the laws, for the system has historically been rigged by those in power.  But with today’s instant communication any idea that someone is presumed innocent until convicted has been tossed out the window.  We see that in the Travon Martin case, every police shooting, the kangaroo courts of colleges with student sexual misconduct, and celebrity scandals where we rush to judgement and condemnation based on one-sided news reporting.  We have replaced real courts and real judges with reality courts and judges who render verdicts in civil cases so the audience can set in judgement as well.  Finally, is there any hope of minority defendants getting a fair trial?  Who decides what fair is when we have entire movements intended to overthrow the legal system to get their own version of fairness.

The political institutions and parties were well established and accepted.  The Democrats were clearly the party in power in the major cities, and at the federal level, although there was just enough opposition from Republicans that they occasionally rose to prominence.  Racism and discrimination was accepted nationally, with the only question being the degree of openness.  Within the major cities of Boston, New York, and Chicago the political machines ruled with sufficient efficiency to keep any opposition at the token level.  In Chicago, it was a Republican machine, NYC was Democratic.  Third party candidates made some noise, but were one-trick ponies that never seriously threatened the system.  Today we see the crumbling of those two political parties as their complete inability to solve problems is paraded before the people on a daily basis.  The President gained the office because the average citizen grew tired of the lies and manipulations of the parties, and his opponent represented a failed political oligarchy, which assumed too much of its followers.

With the shrill whine of a Democratic Party's political elite increasingly out of touch with the middle American, and an opposition Republican Party that appears to be increasingly defined by their own ineffectiveness, it seems only a matter of time, and not too much time at that, before the institutions they control cease to function, and then to exist.  What will replace them? 

I think the next quarter of century will be an interesting time as we move from the historical concept of the United States to whatever replaces it.

What Do American’s Think About Flying in Space?

Space-X Dragon 3

Boeing CST-100

This morning’s news carries a headline in Bloomberg Technology “Americans Will Head to Space Again Without a Russian Taxi.”  The article talks about the efforts of Elon Musk’s company Space-X, and the Boeing Company's progress in qualifying a capsule for manned-flight.  Allowing us to move away from our current dependence on the only NASA approved space capsule, the Russian Soyuz, as our ride to the international space station.  NASA’s last flight with the Space Shuttle was in August 2011.  If all goes well we could perhaps have a capsule ready for routine use by 2019, but 2020 seems more likely.  If we keep to this timeline, it will mean the Russians have met our needs for almost ten years.

Exploration is one of the essential qualities of mankind.  At least it used to be.  What would the world look like if the Queen of Spain had not financed Christopher Columbus’s failed venture to find a shorter route to China?  With the exception we would be tearing down someone else's statue, I think it would look almost exactly like it does today.  For within the human spirit, others would have stepped up to finance and sail in search profit and knowledge.  But we have lost the fire that John Kennedy ignited when he decided we must compete with the Communists of the USSR and reach the moon by the end of the decade, and we have lost the ability to reach the consensus that Lyndon Johnson played against as he sank massive numbers of dollars into the race to the moon.

Today NASA, and our space program, has become just another of the on-going and self-justifying bureaucracies without the clear national vision it once had.  You need only look at the fact we’ve been willing to use the Russian Uber service while we putzed around seemingly without purpose and clearly without vision on how best to get ourselves into low and medium earth orbit. 

In the same amount of time that NASA, with scientists, mathematicians and engineers, using slide rules and less computational capability than an apple watch took to organize and run three building block programs that took us from single person sub-orbital flight to landing two astronauts and a dune buggy on the moon, we may be able to approve one or two different capsules able to reach the international space station and return with two or three passengers.

Off-hand I’d say we Americans don’t think too much about flying in space, and that is unfortunate.

She is Like an Addiction.

The Media Just Can’t Put Her Aside

“At this point, what difference does it make?”  That quote kept flashing through my head.  I could only smile at the outrage she now feels as a politician who so eagerly sought his support for the last 20 years.  I could not watch this without chuckling at how she can draw herself up in defense of women after spending so many years defending the exact same behavior in her husband.

There was a headline I saw today Washington Examiner.  “Hollywood is brave as long as the targets are easy,” an article by Becket Adams.

I think that applies equally well to this interview of Ms. Clinton.

Tilt-Rotors: Good but Sliced Bread is Still Better.

In the 1980’s the concept vehicle V-15 proved that tilt-rotor technology had matured to the point that maybe we could build a vehicle to overcome the speed and range shortfalls of the helicopter.  After much development, strong lobbying efforts by industry to overcome Congressional skepticism, and the normal growing pains of any new advanced technology, we have proved the V-22 Osprey brings a new dimension to the battlefield.

Operations worldwide have shown it to be more rugged than its critics foretold, and suitable for a wider range of missions than even its supporters imagined, but it is not the be all, end all of small cargo aircraft.  It is pretty expensive to operate and maintain, and it is not able to fit in even our largest cargo aircraft so getting to the remote areas where we go means it has to ride on a ship, or fly there itself.

Now the Army is looking to replace the ubiquitous UH-60 with a next generation of vertical-lift helicopters and Bell/Lockheed Martin’s entry is the V-280 Valor.  A new generation tilt-rotor that looks like the offspring of an Osprey and a Blackhawk. I would say if we had all the forward basing we had in the cold war this would be an almost ideal replacement, but we don’t.

So as the Army plans for its rapid deployments the long pole in its planning will the answer to the age-old question.  “How long will it take to get my stuff to the battle?”  It was the Union’s General Nathan Bedford Forrest who coined the axiom “Get there firstest, with the mostest” as his strategy.  That is sound advice, especially in today’s world where most US military is now garrisoned in the good old US of A. 

Today, we can cram at least two Blackhawks in a C-17 and I think four will go in a C­-5.  Traveling at Mach .8 (~450 kts) they will arrive significantly quicker than if the aircraft self-deploy at Mach .4 (~220 kts).  Even with tear down and build up the force will be ready to operate before the self-deploying assets are ready because you are not burning flight hours on either the aircraft or the crews.

The V-280’s competition is the Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky S-97 Raider.  Due to consolidation within the aerospace business we have a unique situation where one Lockheed Martin division is now competing against another Lockheed Martin division.  It is as if Lockheed Martin can’t lose.

Now That's Funny, Kinda

Donna Brazile, the DNC operative who used her CNN gig to get Hillary nominated and then fed her questions prior to the debates with Trump, has this to say about the Weinstein affair.  “The Weinstein Company has just taken the lead against sexual harassment and assault.”  She clearly stands for the protection of women’s rights, when there is no risk to the DNC.

Brock Long, FEMA Director, “We’ve filtered out the mayor a long time ago, we don’t have time for the political noise.”  Mr. Long was speaking to Martha Raddatz on ABC This Week, and speaking of Carmen Yulin Cruz, the Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico.  Ms. Cruz, you may recall, has been engaged in a twitter storm with the President.  So far it doesn’t seem to working at the tactical level.  The “Nasty” shirt apparently didn’t help.

Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who has been in the House since 1971, talking about the right to own a gun.  “Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun,” Rangel added. “You’re not gonna push me in that direction.”  When it was pointed out that he and his fellow politicians were protected by the Capital Police he said, “Well, that’s a little different. I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.”

SNL didn’t mention Harvey Weinstein because, well “It’s a NY thing.”  (Lorne Michaels)

Vice President Pence left the SF 49’s vs. Indianapolis Colts football game this week after players on the 49’s protested during the national anthem.  There are some who accuse the VP of a publicity stunt, he knew there would be a protest so he should not have even attended.  As one pundit points out, “What only one side can protest?”  As the current left has established -- if you want to have a demonstration we will have a counter-demonstration.  Being fond of virtue signaling they shouldn’t be surprised when it comes back at them.

Colin Kaepernick is kind of like that uncle your parents always talked about, but you never saw.  He was again in the news this week, fueling the will he, or won’t he debate.  CBS said he would stand for the anthem if he were hired, and others wrote he wouldn’t.  Does it really matter?  What gets lost in all the noise is the fact he wasn’t all that great after his first season, and maybe if he really wanted to play he would be in Europe or Canada where he can stand, kneel, sit, or laydown and the world wouldn’t care.

A Few Thoughts on the Bill of Rights

Before the framers of the US Constitution even finished their work on designing a government “of the people” they realized all governments had the potential to become authoritarian as the separation grew between citizens and rulers.  It was this concern that led to the formation of the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

As I’ve previously written[i], several of these safeguards are critical to our individual rights, while a couple are relegated to the dust bin of society and see little use in guiding court decisions.  Everyone has heard about the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th amendments, and almost everyone forgets about the 3^rd and 10^th.  Unfortunately, it appears to me, those who should be most concerned with the guarding protections of these safeguards display a willingness to abandon them to gain some short-term political advantage. 

When a society chooses not to support the concepts behind the amendments there is little the government will do to stop that move, for it is in the ruling class interest to consolidate as much power and wealth as possible.  Each time the society casts aside one of the principles – those in power will take advantage and bring more authority to themselves.

A vocal segment of today’s young look longingly at the advertised benefits of a socialist or communist form of government, where wealth is controlled by the government, and benefits of that wealth are distributed to all based on need.  I suspect the reasons for this are two-fold.  First, they have spent their lives sheltered from the physical and emotional realities of those forms of government, and our educators have dismissed the idea of civics debate; opting for the easier course of political indoctrination.

In the course of those today’s social debate, they are willingly abandoning the ideal of a government “of the people” for the idea government will always be “for the people.”  What history should teach is with the growth of any government as the people surrender power, the elite will care for themselves, sending just enough scraps to the population so as to keep them subservient.  The analogy is of the Emperors of Rome and the great circus.

History should also help us understand the elite will use all the tools available to dissuade the people from questioning their legitimacy.  Is there really much difference between a fawning church hierarchy supporting the idea the rights of the King come from God, and a loyal and unquestioning press declaring only one-party cares about the people, when in truth no party cares?  The political parties exist for one reason only, to consolidate power and wealth to dominate the political conflict they use to justify their role. 

As we become a society focused on what is in it for me, we abandon the ideas and ideals of our founders.  I offer this one small piece of advice – be careful what you ask for, for you may receive it.

---

[i] http://aviewfrombehindthecurtain.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-review-of-constitutional-amendments.html

False Equivalents.

-->

Shortly after the assassination of 59, and attempted assassination of over 500 people at a concert in Las Vegas someone posted this statistic.

1, 396,733 Americans have been killed in all the wars we’ve fought, while 1,516,863 have died by the use of a gun since 1968.  These numbers come from a January 13, 2013 PBS feature by Mark Shields, citing the Center for Disease Control (CDC) statistics and rated as true by Politifact.  But it reflects the common approach of making/creating an emotional argument by using a false equivalent.  When it was pointed out the automobile has killed 3,881,801 individuals people since its introduction in the USA, and that the automobile is far more dangerous than either the gun or war, people were upset with the suggestion that perhaps automobiles be banned.

If you are going to start a conversation with a false equivalent you don’t get to say another false equivalent isn’t relevant.  Apparently, logic carries very little weight with the liberal/progressive individuals.

To simplify things, I’ve done a Venn Diagram (who doesn’t love a Venn Diagram) to show how guns and cars fit on the War – Peace continuum.  I threw in the idea of diplomacy just to show how that tool of man works as well.

Maybe this will help people.