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.

Because I Know It’s Coming

-->

Over the next weeks and months, we will again engage in what is a never-ending debate on the issue of guns and gun ownership here in America.  It is unlikely to go any further than it has gone before, because each side will get wrapped up in the emotional arguments for and against that have colored every debate since the first Presidential assassination.

If you doubt me, look at the immediate visceral response of the liberal media and anti-gun advocates, and the equally emotion driven reactions of the opposition.  Of course, all the politicians pushing their party’s agenda, either for or against, will be fighting for air time over the coming weeks.  They will mock or vilify depending on what they believe sells best to their sponsors and voters.  Both sides will trot out their tried and true talking points, to enrage and inflame their supporters and critics alike.  In the end, we will continue with the status quo, until the next carnage.

We will not engage in the larger question of what has changed in our country to cause the escalation of hate, anger, and insanity that are, in my opinion, the true causal factors for the death and destruction we see on the nightly news, or wake to with our morning coffee.  We won’t engage in that discussion for there is no simple answer that fits into the 15-second sound bite that fuels the news reporting, and because we are becoming a me-ocracy, where our values of self and our society no longer have a common basis in a fixed code, but are formed based on whatever suits us at the time.

Unfortunately, I hold these truths to be self-evident: 

A gun is a tool, just as an automobile is a tool, a knife is a tool, and a bed is a tool.  It has no intelligence, no conscience, no morality.  It can be physically modified to suit the needs of its user, and electronic and manual safeguards can be installed, but if they are installed by humans they can be corrupted and defeated by humans.

Laws are only effective if they are obeyed.  If people choose to ignore the law, there are not enough enforcement officials to insure it is universally upheld.  There is, within society, a significant group of people who ignore the established laws of the nation.

Men and women of good conscience seeking a moderate solution will be condemned and vilified by the extremes who seek will only settle for an “all or nothing” approach.  On the one side, it would be physically impossible to remove all guns from individual owners, but on the other side -- allowing unrestricted gun sales and ownership would clearly allow for greater access by those who have no moral self-restraint in their use.

In conclusion:

It is unfortunate, in the shadow of the latest mass killings, we cannot put the failed political debate aside for a brief time, grieve for the dead, and seek to find common ground on a solution to improve the moral fabric of our society so that guns are no longer the center of the debate, but identification and care for those who would misuse them is.  This is a complex and frightening debate for all concerned.  For on the one hand it would lead to a corrosive potential for abuse by the state, while on the other it would require a significant outlay of funds for a medical treatment with unknown benefit.   

While I am not optimistic, I think this is the only path to prevent a continuation of this type of tragedy, but I am just a small voice drowned out by the hysteria that is before us.

Make it so Number 1

-->

I see California lawmakers are considering a ban on gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.  I think this is great and they should do it immediately, but to be fair about it they should do it by political party affiliation. 

We know Republicans are: a) the minority party, b) climate change skeptics, and c) anti-progressive.  Therefore, don’t let them have the benefit of all this progress.  Make them drive these gas or diesel vehicles until they change their evil ways.  Maybe as a concession to the more moderate evil-doers allow them hybrids.

Only the progressive left should be allowed the benefit of the energy efficient all-electric cars available today.  They should be allowed to trade in their outdated and polluting vehicles for a cash bonus from all the excess money available within the California budget.

All the celebrities living within major metropolitan areas should convert within 30-days of the Governor signing the bill.  I think Rolls Royce must have a fully electric car by now.  Jay Leno should probably be forced to leave the state and relocate all his old gas and diesel cars.  I am not sure what to do with his Stanley Steamer, but that should probably go as well.

All the current gas stations in the state should be forced to convert to charging stations based on the party affiliation of their owners, or corporate sponsors.  For example, if the CEO of Exxon is a Democrat, all the Exxon stations must convert.  If the CEO of Sammy’s cheap gas is a Republican they won’t be allowed to convert until the CEO does.

Let’s let California bask in the glow of climate and identify politics, and make the world a better place.

Respect for Indigenous People and Science

There seems to be a problem on Hawaii.  Scientists want to build a telescope to see the stars, native protesters wish to protect their sacred mountain Mauna Kea.  There are already a number of observatories on the mountain, operated by a number of countries in addition to the US, but this new observatory will be significantly bigger than the rest.  Most of the current telescopes range in size from .9 to 10 meters, the new one would be 30 meters.

The state politicians, including the Democratic Governor David Inge, are on board.  Writers for the New York Times have thrown their support behind the effort.  The only thing slowing it down is protest of the effort as an affront to the sacred mountain, led by native Hawaiian protestors in Hilo and the state’s Supreme Court who halted the development in December 2015 when they invalidated the construction permits.

Recently, the state land use board approved the $1.4-1.6 billion dollar project, while promising to be sensitive to the concerns of the indigenous people.  They promise all the construction workers will undergo cultural sensitivity training before they drive their bulldozers and use their blasting equipment on this sacred mountain, while the consortium will “donate” millions of dollars to the educational programs on the big island.

For some reason, I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this story, but at the same time I don’t think the media will routinely report on the protests unless a Republican politician is involved, but that’s not likely since we all "know" Republicans are anti-science, but then again Republicans are all anti-indigenous people as well.