Giving In to the Loudest Voice?

Our voice is the most powerful instrument we possess.  How we use it is a choice too many of us fail to grasp. We find our voices turned against one another by a media that profits from conflict and a government that has sworn to serve some while denying the rights of others. Unfortunately, that always seems to be the case regardless of who is the government.

In today’s world, we’ve swarmed to social media, abandoning those more traditional methods of communication.  Gone are the days of small family or neighborhood group gatherings; where the troubles of the day are debated and talked about.  Now it is more about mob agreement and control.  The foundation of debate and discussion, freedom to express your own view, is now regulated by the Government and the owners of those social platforms so popular in today’s world.  They believe they know right from wrong, truth from untruth, and what is important or not.  It seems obvious we are moving closer to a direct link between social media control and a single political party oversight.

In our world of relative morality, where no standard of behavior is fixed, I wonder where this path will ultimately take us?  Some would argue morality is always relative, as the society evolves so does its morality. I can’t really disagree with that observation other than to ask what guides the evolution of society?  

As we look to our shared history, we’ve seen societies rise and fall, generally associated with this “evolution” of relative morality.  As social standards fell, and the distance between the governed and governing increased the strength of those societies seemed to wane.  For better or worse religion has always served as a focal point for unifying societies.  This was true in ancient times, and I believe it is true today.  For example, with the revolution beginning in 1917 the Czars of Russia were replaced by the Communist Party.  Once its power was consolidated it moved to shut down the church.  The problem for any organization, especially one like a church, its leaders are torn between their commitment to the dogma of the church and the profits that come from its sponsors.  It is the age-old problem of consolidating wealth and power.  That holds true today, just as it did in the days of the Pharaoh.  The communists recognized the need to gain that control and power, but at the same time how to unify Russian with one social standard?

Stalin’s approach was to use fear and to purge all those who could be viewed as a threat on any level.  Unfortunately for the Communists, when you outlaw something you make it more attractive and the Russian Orthodox Church never fully disappeared.  Now ask yourself, after nearly 70 years in power how well did the Communist (secular) regime do in unifying the various peoples of the USSR?  With the failure of that government did the people remain united?

For us, the United States, stemming from our Judeo-Christian heritage, we can trace our moral underpinnings back to the Hebrews of old, and the rules they established as clarified by Jesus.  The essence of these rules is to bind together a society.  We can go around and around about the exact wording of each commandment, based on the translations throughout the years but their essential meanings remain clear, except to the most dogmatic.

1.     “You shall have no other gods before me.”  (Ex 20:3)

2.    “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” (Ex 20:4)

3.    “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord”         (Ex 20:7)

4.    “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy”   (Ex 20:8)

5.    “Honor your mother and father”      (Ex 20:12)

6.    “You shall not murder”          (Ex 20:13)

7.     “You shall not commit adultery”      (Ex 20:14)

8.    “You shall not steal”   (Ex 20:15)

9.    “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor”         (Ex 20:16)

10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”   (Ex 20:17)[1]

Of course, like any maturing bureaucracy the Hebrew church leadership under Moses, went on to add a whole plethora of additional rules and guidance to what you could or couldn’t do on the sabbath, eat or not eat, and how to go about divorcing or what coveting as actually okay or what wasn’t to establish and maintain control of the people.  “Leviticus is a manual of regulations enabling the holy King to set up his earthly throne among the people of his kingdom. It explains how they are to be his holy people and to worship him in a holy manner."[2]

Then came Jesus Christ, sent by God to clarify again what was important for the people.  To inform the Hebrews and in the end incorporate those people not originally included in the first mandate. As John tells us in verse 3:16, “For God so loved the World he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

The guidelines for this New Covenant are laid out in his “Sermon on the Mount” as captured in Matthew chapters 5 through 7, where Jesus speaks for the need for compassion and love as an affirmation of one’s obedience and faith in God.

So now we come to our modern society where we increasingly reject these guidelines, or our religious institutions modify them to suit their particular needs, or we turn to ourselves to decide what is right and wrong.  When this happens what becomes of the society, we grew up in.  Does it evolve as the most progressive of us believe, or does it ultimately fail as the most conservative of us warn?

There seems to be one fundamental question for me.  Is the role of society intended to further the species or not?  

It would seem how you answer that question will form the basis for what you believe is right or wrong, and how you should use your own voice as part of the larger debate.  Historically, moral choices that did not further the development of the species were viewed as questionable and maintained their status as outliers to the needs of society.  

Now they have become central to the voices who want to dominate the moral choices for society.  Claims of racism have become just one focus for those who demand legitimacy for their own moral choices. As a nation, we elected a “person of color” in 2008. When he was challenged for the economic policies, he and his administration chose to use the allegations of racism to hold off any debate.  When there were questionable events around the nation, he willingly joined in the rush to judgment and advocate those outraged by the events also do the same.  Clearly, his political decisions took precedent over his training as a lawyer, but then as a lawyer, he was clearly playing the critical race theory card we hear so much about today.

The thing about CRT in its context suggests only one side can be racist.  CRT traces its roots back to the work of a couple of legal minds and is an offshoot of the Marxist “Critical Theory.”

Critical Theory is a Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.[3]

So, at the end of the day, as we shift from a common moral standard to one where the loudest voices seek to change us to a society based on the tenant that the power of the state is the ultimate moral authority what is the basis for that belief?  Is it, as the Frankfurt School proposed, “the proletariat must be liberated from the bondage of capitalism?  But, at the same time, the proletariat must not be subject to any other authority even it might be socialism or communism. In other words, the proletarians must enjoy full freedom regarding thought and ideas. A physical atmosphere shall be created in which the proletarians will be able to keep their independence.”[4]

If that is what the advocates want, then we see a distinct difference between philosophical theory and political reality.  CRT has become the club against the proletariat, just as in a communist regime state control is the hammer used to control the masses.  The question is which set of voices can dominate the masses more effectively?

---

[1] https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/20.html

[2] https://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/

[3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory

[4] https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/marxism/critical-theory-of-marxism-definition-origin-and-aspects/1313

Life

“If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.”  -Joni Eareckson Tada[1]

Does life have value? If so, who sets that value? I’ve been wondering about this for a while now, and I’m afraid I’ve come to the conclusion our global society seems to place more value on the lives of animals than it does on the lives of humans.

Human life seems to hold no fixed value to those who believe women have the singular ability to destroy it before birth. They may claim it is not life, but science tells us otherwise. Brain development begins 2 weeks after conception[2], embryo viability outside the womb is around 24 weeks[3] after conception, although there are cases of survival younger than this.[4] Those who support abortion now want that decision to rest with the woman carrying the child until the child is actually delivered.  The funny thing about this debate is all the people who are making all the decisions actually were born and I’m pretty sure they see a lot of value in THEIR life, just not the lives of those who can’t defend themselves.

Along those same lines do black lives have value? It seems they must, but what is that value? Is it different than that of any other race? If so, why? Last year the nation went through a summer of riots as supporters who say Black Lives Matter fought with police, destroyed urban centers, and looted stores that were conveniently located in those areas the city officials and police abandoned to their rage. Does this destruction prove their point that those lives have value, or does it simply leave the question unanswered as those lives are used as a political chip to install some into power and wealth?

We have a whole litany of organizations who call to us for our dollars to support their causes saying the lives they support are important. Can we determine the value of a human or an animal from those organizations, or are they just a means to enrich some or push a political agenda?  While tugging on our hearts the appeals show the good, they can do with our dollars, but are their appeals valid in placing a value on life?  I tend to think not.  A quick internet search shows for as little as $100 you can sponsor a child in Africa, and for that paltry sum you get a picture of a smiling child and a well written little letter thanking you for your gift, but at the same time for $100 you can sponsor a wild animal from Africa, and like with the children you get a nice picture, an information packet and a certificate (suitable for framing) of sponsorship of that animal.

Is the life of a child living in poverty in Africa worth the same as an animal living with the fear of death from poachers really worth the same thing?  I don’t know?  Of those $100 I would send; how much does either the child or the animal actually receive?

As I seek the answer to my questions, I’ve done many searches of the world wide web of all things and all I can find are opinions on the value of life.  Most of them place increasing value on the lives of those who help others, who show empathy, and who strive to make life better, or speak to how to increase your opinion of self-worth.  Not too many speculate about the potential value of life, or the diminished value of a life wracked by addiction, or trained as a criminal to prey on others.

Christine M. Korsgaard[5], writing in her 1996 paper on ethics for Harvard, compares and contrasts two great Philosophers, Aristotle and Kant in a work entitled “Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value.”  It is clear in that paper these great men understood value as a transient idea and a person’s worth can only be determined by the individuals themself.

My bottom line:  I’ve purposely avoided a discussion of religion in this paper for the topic I write on is universal to mankind, but at the end of the day I find my own value in an understanding of faith and the life I live.  For me, that value is not fixed, nor is the value of all the lives around me, but I place more on the potential values of the lives destroyed before life than I do on the lives wasted on selfish desire or outrage over their own choices. 

---

[1] Joni Eareckson Tada (born October 15, 1949) is an evangelical Christian author, radio host, and founder of Joni and Friends, an organization "accelerating Christian ministry in the disability community."

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722610/

[3] https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529

[4]https://www.nysun.com/national/youngest-premature-babys-survival-called-a-miracle/49036/  

[5] https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3164347

Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs

I’ve written in the past on this theory of society, its villains, and its protectors.  I was introduced to it when I listened to a presentation by LTC Dave Grossman[1], USA (Ret), author of “On Killing” who related this story from an old Colonel[2].

“‘Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.’ This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

‘Then there are the wolves,’ the old war veteran said, ‘and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.’ Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

‘Then there are sheepdogs,’ he went on, ‘and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.’”

I was reminded today of that analogy when I listened to a speech by Victor David Hanson to Hillsdale College on George S. Patton[3] and the tragic reality of how we as a society view our sheepdogs.  Those people who view the dark side of humanity and choose to engage it.  Examples he gave in leading up to the discussion were Generals William Tecumseh Sherman, Matthew Ridgeway, and Curtis LeMay who all had made the mistake of having views in opposition to the popular (i.e., therapeutic we are nice and shouldn’t kill those who are responsible for this mess we are in) view of most of society.

Remember when President Trump ordered the drone strike on the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and how outraged the political opposition was and how this was going to cause a massive Iranian response?  Soleimani was the mastermind behind attacks that had killed hundreds and was responsible for Iran’s involvement in the Syrian civil war.  Just because he was responsible, they said, it was just not right to actually target him as an individual. What was the result?  After his death there was a lot of Iranian chest-beating, a lot of leftist noise about how a war was inevitable, but really not much more.  At the end of the day was Trump’s decision to execute this Soleimani any different than Obama’s to execute Bin Laden, or all the drone strikes he approved against nameless terrorists in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula?

Islamic apologists and supporters of Hamas like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, and Cori Bush like to talk about how most of the followers of Mohammed are peaceful, but it is just pure deflection.  As Brigitte Gabriel[4] explains in this video on Benghazi accountability[5] most people are irrelevant to the issue of confronting terrorism, whether done in the name of Allah, the Third Reich, White Supremacy, Black Lives, or simply anarchy. 

As we look at the tenor of American politics today it seems, at least to me, our young and the most highly educated among us have been trained to be sheep and to fear the sheepdogs. They believe the right government will protect them from the evils of the world. But at the end of the day is the government any different than a simple fence or pen, intended to keep the herd all in one place and make it easier to gather them all up when it comes time to be sheered? To keep up the illusion the pen is there for their protection and that the masters are to protect the weakest in the herd they are taught from the earliest time the government will care for the weakest, and must always be on guard of the sheepdogs. (e.g., Defund the Police will lead to safer, more tolerant communities.) 

The DNC has leveraged this with great success, suggesting they are the bravest of the sheep and those mean sheepdogs are just out to destroy the herd.  That works, at least until a real wolf appears.  So, to avoid having to confront a real wolf, they create problems that seem solvable but really don’t seek rational solutions as long as those problems keep the herd moving in its endless circle around the field and inside the fence.

For example, poverty.  Since the beginning of recorded history, there have been those who’ve been doomed to live in poverty.  Today, in America, that is equally true, although what is classified as poverty today would almost certainly be well above the survival standards of yesteryear.  With the crash of an overleveraged stock market in 1929, the government has taken increasingly expensive steps to help the poor us.  In the 1960s while expanding our role in an unwinnable war, and racing the Soviet Union to the Moon, President Johnson and Congress created the “Great Society.” 

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson and the Congress (2/3 majority Democrat) got to work overcoming the resistance of the Southern Democrats to significantly expand America’s support for the disadvantaged and underprivileged. They created Medicare and Medicaid, training programs for the unskilled and illiterate, and priority placements for the underprivileged to provide them a helping hand up, educational assistance, and welfare programs for the poorest of the inner cities.  Of course, to administer all these programs and the redistribution of America's tax dollars they established sizeable new bureaucracies, which have continued to grow and flourish over these past five decades, as have the criminal abuses of these programs.  Human greed being what it is, whenever free money is available there will be those who attempt to gain that wealth for themselves.

But let’s stop for just a minute and ask ourselves one simple question.  Have all these programs and all the redistribution of wealth or the expansion of Government debt served the needs of the poor and the quality of life in the United States to achieve their stated purpose, or have they simply been a tool to increase our individual dependence on the government as it moves to eliminate our faith in God, or our faith in family and our faith in each other as a vital aspect of life in America?  Have these programs, and all the other programs like the “War on Drugs” or the ebb and flow of criminal incarceration helped the poorest of the nation, or eliminated the racism of those who believe they are superior to others based on the color of their skin?  By the way, it doesn’t seem to matter what the color of someone’s skin is for those feelings to exist.  

As we devolve from a nation-state with a unified vision of ourselves and the world, into an amalgamation of tribes at some point there will be too many sheep for the sheepdogs to protect and the wolves of the world will fall upon those flocks and gobble them up.

 

---

[1] David Allen Grossman is an American author and trainer who conducts seminars on the psychology of lethal force. He is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Army.

[2] https://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJsC-buIkSE

[4] Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese-American conservative author, anti-Islam activist, and founder of the anti-Muslim group ACT! for America.

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-vvoRwJSPc

Intelligence in the Modern World

 This post was inspired by a recent comment on Facebook.

In our modern world we’ve come to define intelligence through a series of measurement, or tests, established by those who believe they know what makes up intelligence and what doesn’t.  There are a whole variety of tests we may be subject to beginning with standardized testing now in public schools, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (then Scholastic Assessment Test, now just SAT), and the American College Testing (now just ACT) find their origins in the early American Army Intelligence tests.  Now one or the other is required for admission to almost every college in America.

Of course, there are a series of other intelligence tests that fall into and out of favor with those credentialled masters who seek to know who has the right intelligence to achieve something.  It should not be missed that every test from the SAT on has been called into question for basing their assessment on a racial bias set of answers.  Minority communities where there are far wider cultural differences often score lower on these standardized tests than the majority populations.  

To keep the appearance of fairness, if not really the actuality of the same, elite institutions have developed quota systems where performance on these “intelligence” tests are overridden by minority admission policies, which only seem to apply to minorities from the right social group.  Take, for example, Asian-Americans have an ongoing lawsuit against Harvard University for its discrimination.  So far Harvard has prevailed but the group “Students for Fair Admissions” has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in an attempt to overturn “Grutter v. Bollinger” which ruled it was constitutional for universities to use race in admissions to promote student diversity.[1]  The issue seems to me to be purely cultural. Let’s accept the fact, as so many on the left would have us believe, there is a longstanding racial bias in this nation.  Asian-Americans outperform all other ethnic groups when it comes to these standardized tests.[2] These studies all talk about how much better the AA do but none of these social analysts seem to want to address the elephant in the room.  Nobody wants to talk about the family and how the destruction of the family unit perhaps destroys an individual’s motivation to prepare, study, practice, and succeed on these measures of intelligence.

Over the past couple of decades, the average scores on the SAT and ACT have markedly declined, yet the Asian-American segment continues to excel.[3] Does that mean Asian-Americans or Asians, in general, are inherently smarter than all the rest? Who is willing to compare the statistics of Asian-American families to say the African-American or European-American family unit to see what role a forceful set of parents can play?  It doesn’t appear to be of much interest to most of the liberal-progressive crowd, especially when you can rationalize away failure as systemic racism.

Back in the mid-20^th century, I had an old Sociology professor who attempted to explain things like intelligence and physical ability as naturally occurring sets of attributes.  As he explained, the Negros came from Africa and as a result of their genetic selection, they could run longer, jump higher, sprint faster, and were gifted in these attributes because of natural selection.  They were, he went on to explain not as gifted as the whites from Europe in their intellect because living on the savanna didn’t require the same mental development as the whites.  When I was listening to this I wondered what Darwin would say, but as you look at professional sports today it does make you wonder.  Of course, within the modern construct, this Professor was clearly and overtly a racist.

For the record, as a social science major, I buy into the idea society fits into a bell-shaped curve.  The range of measurable intelligence supposedly falls between 0 and 175, with 100 being a median score and 85 to 115 being one standard deviation[4], which means 68% of a population will fall somewhere within that range.  Let’s call that range average.  Anything higher than 115 is smart, anything less than 85 is not smart.  

As you take all those intelligence tests on Facebook, keep these numbers in mind, as well as the fact you are feeding into Google’s database so they know what products to sell you, or even if you are able to understand their marketing approach.

Of course, in today’s woke world we are redefining how intelligence is measured.  For the woke generation it’s all about understanding and complying with the social outrages they have been indoctrinated to abhor.  If, for example, you choose to pursue a military career, you clearly have to fall on the not smart scale of intelligence.  Or, if you think less government is better than more government or are a conservative/Trump supporter you have to fall on the not smart side of intelligence.  On the other hand, if you have a Ph.D. in one of the social sciences, or perhaps one of the genders/sexual orientation fields you clearly must fall well above the average and rank significantly higher in the smart category.

Watch this YouTube video to see the results of a social experiment.

I find it interesting to see the rationalization of those who think themselves superior when actually confronted with an IQ test.  Now suddenly emotional intelligence EQ is a critical factor. 

---

[1] https://www.thecollegefix.com/supreme-court-may-finally-intervene-in-asian-discrimination-suit-against-harvard/

[2] https://www.studyinternational.com/news/asian-americans-test-scores-sat-act/

[3] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sat-scores-and-asian-amer_b_3902725

[4] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-average-iq-2795284

A Common Thread?

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history”             George Orwell

“Keep people from their history and they are easily  controlled.”         Karl Marx

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”           Vladimir Lenin

“If the Revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments whenever necessary, it will stop still less from laying its hand on any tendency in art which, no matter how great its achievement in form, threatens to disintegrate the revolutionary environment or to arouse the internal forces of the Revolution, that is, the proletariat, the peasantry, and the intelligentsia, to a hostile opposition to one another. Our standard is, clearly, political, imperative, and intolerant.”                                                     Leon Trotsky

All these ideas, expressed by the foundational thinkers of the Socialist/Communist movement recognize the power of controlling information and the dialogue.  Although not as deeply thought out as Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin, Saul Alinsky builds on these strategic thoughts as he published his “tactical” Rules for Radicals. (e.g. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter-side; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.")

It is interesting to see pseudo-intellectual thinkers of today embrace these ideals without understanding either the implications or likely outcomes for their actions.  True socialism or communism has failed the poor in every country it has been implemented in.  It has failed the illiterate, the mentally unstable, the minorities, and the sexually different as well.  Yet here we are being pushed into this concept by those who’ve spent a lifetime being indoctrinated by an educational system run by those who’ve spent their lives believing they are underpaid and underappreciated by those uneducated parents who’ve entrusted their children into their care.

You have to look no further than the progressive DNC movement and its propaganda arm to see the implementation of these doctrinal ideas of how to destroy a free society.  

Operation Eagle Claw, Night 2 (the night that never was)

Disclaimer:  I am writing this some 41 years post-event so you will understand if I screw some of the facts up, or perhaps I remember correctly and the official histories were changed to protect the guilty.

Operation Eagle Claw was, almost from day one, understood to be a two-night operation.  There are a number of reasons for this, but mostly they all involve the limitations of speed, distance, and time of useful darkness.  At the time we didn’t have a helicopter that could cover the distance from the Southern Iranian coast to Tehran and out in a single period of darkness.  I assume the thoughts of launching from Turkey was dismissed for operational security concern or host nation relationships, and of course, the Russians were busy screwing themselves up in Afghanistan.  The need for C-130s to land and refuel the helicopters was driven by two considerations.  First, the Navy would not allow inflight refuellable helicopters without folding rotor blades to fill up the flight deck of their aircraft carriers, and equally important was Col Beckwith’s demand that his Delta Force operators not have to sit in a helicopter for a six-hour flight to the middle of the desert.

These two considerations drove the development of a forward arming (or area) and refueling point (FARP) procedure that was the whole intent of the Desert One concept of operations.  The need to carry as much JP-4 fuel as possible was the reason three of the six aircraft used in the Desert One event were EC-130s.  The EC-130E was an airborne command-and-control aircraft modified to carry a command-and-control capsule.  It was inflight refueling capable, like the MC-130E but unlike the MC-130 its basic operating weight, once the capsule was taken out, was only about 82,000 pounds so it could carry almost 16,000 pounds more gas than the MC before the aircraft reached their emergency war order limit of 175,000 pounds.

I won’t go into some of the ideas the planners went through before they came to the conclusion, we had to actually land to refuel the helicopters, but suffice it to say there were some creative attempts that would have made Wiley E. Coyote and the Acme company proud. 

If things had gone as planned, instead of as they did, we would have landed in the middle of the desert, refueled the helicopters, put the Delta Force operators onboard, loaded the CCT and Army Rangers back into the C-130s, and flew back to our staging base leaving nothing besides a few infrared landing lights and some track marks in the sand.  The helicopters would have flown to about 50 miles from Tehran and bedded down in a remote site designated Desert Two.  There they would be met by an Army legend named Major Dick Meadows who had been in country a few weeks and had secured a bunch of trucks Delta would use to drive into the city and to the embassy.

Sometime near the end of the afternoon the next day the force would load up in the trucks and transit to the Embassy.  At the designated time the hundred or so operators would breach the Embassy wall at two or three different places and swarm into the compound to the areas our intelligence believed were the holding points for the captives.  Once the guards had been neutralized (choose for yourself what that means), and the captives identified and secured Delta Force would begin an evacuation of the compound to the football (soccer) stadium across the street.  There the RH-53 helicopters would be waiting to meet them for extraction to the south.

Before the Embassy operation was even underway there were a whole lot of other things happening both at Messiah and at a remote base in Egypt where the main task force had been bedded down.  

There were a number of AC-130H gunships which would be launched to arrive over Tehran at the time of the Embassy takedown to provide any sensor or fire support necessary to minimize the impact of any responding hostile force.  These aircraft would have been refueled over Saudi Airspace to ensure they had the time to loiter to support the assault and the extraction.  They would also cover the approaches to the remote airfield that was to be the night two extraction point.

There were several (I think 3) C-141’s with full medical suites onboard that would land at a remote base south of Tehran to extract the Delta Force, the rescued hostages and any casualties which may have occurred during the operation.

Finally, there were additional MC-130s, with Combat Controllers and Army Rangers who would fly back into Iran to seize a small (and supposedly vacant) airfield where the trans load of the assault force and hostages could take place.

Once the trans loads had been completed the C-141 would head back to Europe, while the AC and MC aircraft would hit their KC-135 tankers and RTB back to either Egypt or Messiah.

We were told by intel they didn’t think the Iranian Air Force would be able to challenge us. Imagine my surprise when they did so well against the Iraqis a few years later. I assume the fleet in the Persian Gulf was prepared to provide top cover should we need it.  I don’t recall them ever being part of our task force or training, but I assume someone in the USN was ready to cover the exfil if needed.  At that time, I don’t believe we had USAF fighters anywhere near to the operation.

For me, there were several truths that came from this operation.

a. We never finalize the plan, we just run out of time to make changes.

b. Simple is better, but not nearly as glorious.

        c. Everyone wants to have a part, but if they all do, who is really in charge?

I Care About People (and Other Progressive Lies)

A while back a young progressive-liberal defended her support of BLM with the statement “I care about people.”  Suggesting those who didn’t support the BLM rioting didn’t understand and certainly didn’t care about the lives of the African-American minority.  That thought; “I care about people” has been ruminating around in my brain for a while, and I think my initial thoughts on her statement were actually correct.

Progressives don’t actually care about people; they care about causes.  Caring about people demands personal involvement, caring about causes just requires some sort of positive affirmation of the cause, some outward sign showing you are onboard with the popular movement and therefore a part of the in-crowd.  The latter is far easier than the former, as we see with the corporations who’ve made political statements regarding the changes to the voting laws of Georgia that have absolutely zero effect on the corporations themselves. These public corporations are guided by the major stockholders and the CEO’s all of whom are millionaires or greater, so they really don’t care about the poor or middle class, except as they may affect the corporations' bottom line, and they appear to be betting the woke generation will have the greater impact to their profits than the old-timers.

Let’s review the causes.

Black Lives Matter – a cause that purports to seek equal treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement.  It has chosen as its heroes several felons who’ve died while being taken into custody by police.  It routinely portrays the victims as innocents who suffered at the hands of police brutality.  The narrative is one side has no responsibility for their personal past or actions at the time of the arrest, and the other side is just one example of the systemic racism of America.  To support this narrative the organization has raised millions of dollars and the “trained Marxist” founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors has used that money for what?  As far as I know, she has increased her personal wealth, just like a capitalist[1]. I haven’t seen much work on improving the lives of the African-American community other than rioting.  In fact, a rather famous liberal-progressive, Representative Maxine Waters, has interjected herself into the trial of Raymond Floyd’s alleged killer suggesting if he isn’t convicted the people should take to the streets and riot.[2]  In no case does it seem this cause is at all interested in actually halting the criminal behaviors that lead to these confrontations in the first place, or improving the actual social conditions leading to those criminal behaviors.

A lot of politicians, and progressives are celebrating the conviction of the Minneapolis officer for the death of George Floyd, but as the saying goes; “It ain’t over til the fat lady sings.” Everyone will speculate as to why the jury ruled as they did, but the officer and his lawyer will probably appeal.  What we do know is the rioting will be kept to a minimum by this jury since the mob got the ruling they demanded. Those who support the BLM cause will say justice was served. Those who believe the police officer should have been acquitted will call it a travesty of justice.  Justice, you see, is a value statement and depends on the values of who is reporting it. 

Pro-abortion (AKA Pro-choice) – When the Supreme Court of the United States decided to legislate a new legal standard in the decision Roe vs. Wade the women of America rejoiced.  My generation saw this as a liberating new standard in keeping with the sexual revolution.  Women would no longer be required to carry to term any of the “mistakes” they may have made during their romances or experimentations.  The abuse of children would end as people who didn’t want children wouldn’t be forced to have them.  The financial and social outlooks of young women wouldn’t be damaged by having an unwanted child holding them back.  Today, we have an ongoing and seemingly never-ending fight as those who support the murder of a fetus demand the government pays for the privilege to do so.  You will note the not subtle condemnation of those who support abortion, for we have now almost 50 years of experience and it is obvious to even the most biased observer that abortion has not made the world better.  All the problems that existed before legalized abortion still exist today, in fact, it seems pretty obvious we’ve created a whole new set of issues as many of the problems have gotten far worse as we alter our moral standards regarding personal responsibility and the value of families, the role of responsible parents and education of children.

The SCOTUS said they could not tell when life began, but without a question, medical science has now made a fetus viable almost from conception and yet those who support abortion wish to ignore the reality that life begins inside the womb and not just when they want it to. Those who favor the killing of the unborn have made this a national cause, without regard to the life of the fetus.  It is clear - the only life that matters to them is a post-puberty adult.  With this argument how far away from the time we decide the lives of the handicapped shouldn’t matter either are we?  According to Planned Parenthood, African-American women (who make up 14% of the 14–44-year-old population) accounted for 38% of all abortions in 2018.  We can certainly speculate on the societal effects of destroying these many African-American lives, but this focus certainly supports the idea that abortions are racist, but then the pro-abortion crowd and the BLM groups really don’t support any argument that would weaken their political positions.

A living wage – The cry this past year is to raise the national minimum wage to $15.00, up from the current $7.25.  Just as in every other debate we hear the doom and gloom over how it will only cause prices to rise, or employees to be laid off.  Both of those seem a certainty, and those who are truly unskilled, or handicapped by some disability will suffer if the jobs are automated because they become too costly.  But despite the protestations of the conservatives, the wage will be raised.  It is inevitable.  The ripple effect will be the lowering of the economic well-being of those who make more than the minimum wage as their buying power will be diminished.  The fact that most of the voices demanding this new minimum feel themselves immune from the fiscal realities of increased government mandates do not speak well of their ability to think critically about things like cause & effect and supply & demand.

What I never hear discussed is how the government has altered the industrial basis of our society to create a condition where such a large number of people are unable to progress from an entry-level job, paying a minimum wage, into a more rewarding and productive job paying a viable wage to support the individual and his/her family.  Why is that?

It was, after all, the government who responded to the lobbyist’s push to enter into trade agreements which incentivized businesses to abandon manufacturing in the US and send their products to places like Sri Lanka, Burkina Faso, and of course China to be made by marginalized people or even slave labor. If I recall these discussions correctly the left argued that this was a great way to help those poor unfortunate countries develop into modern societies.  The fact we left those who worked in these industries to deal with the closed factories, and lack of opportunity was just a small price to pay for progress, wasn’t it.  After all, we are the richest nation on earth and so what if we create a greater dependence on the government for our daily needs.  That’s what government is for, isn’t it?

Universal Health Care – Affordable health care is a right and according to the progressive-left, it is an inalienable one at that!  The only problem I see is when the woke generation rejects the idea of a higher power than government how can you say any right is natural or inalienable?  If the rights of the people come from the people and government represents the will of the people then if the government can give and take a right it can’t be inalienable.  While I’m all for universal health care what is the minimum acceptable standard?

The supporters of universal health care believe the current standard of care must be improved, and the problem with our system is the “for-profit” profiteers who enrich themselves at the cost of the masses.  Early in the pandemic, I listened as the woke young progressive liberals lambasted the “for-profit” system for not having enough intensive care facilities to support the expected surge in demand.  As I actually researched this claim, I came to find out there was actually a negligible difference between the administration of “for-profit” hospitals and “not for profit” facilities.  The fiscal reality is that both types have to contain costs if they are to survive.  If we go to a universal care system that obligation to remain affordable simply shifts to the government, and can anyone tell me how the government system will contain costs?  There is nothing that suggests a single person in decision-making authority in the Government gives a damn about constraining cost growth.  There are two fundamental truths in government spending.  If you don’t spend everything you asked for this year you will get less next year, and you are spending other people’s money so when you negotiate a contract be generous.  If you doubt his second truth look at the union contracts teachers in Democratic-controlled states and counties have been able to negotiate.  In Chicago, for example, when the government was actually willing to send students back to school, who had the final say as to whether they would or not?  Was it the parents or the government? No, it was the union.

Now let’s compare the performance of national health care systems like Spain, England, Italy, and Germany in their response to this pandemic?  Did they respond quickly to keep the mortality rates down? Now a year later we can look at the figures and see most of the European countries are running between 1,500 to 1,950 deaths per million of their population.  How does this compare to the United States?  We are at about 1,760 deaths/million so it appears national health care hasn’t made a big difference.  How about in distribution of life-saving vaccines?  Did the national systems develop and field a vaccine quicker?  How about distribution?  Are we seeing the national systems outperform the United States?  All indications are they have not.  Of course, China would appear to be the exception, but who among us believes China is accurately reporting on the disaster they unleashed on the world?

College Debt Forgiveness – Economics majors like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Harvard College Professors like Elizabeth Warren have made a lot of noise about how student debt is weighing down the nation and how much better life would be if we taxpayers just assumed that debt and relieved the individuals from any responsibility for the choices, they made on selecting their options after High School.  This seems to be in keeping with the liberal-progressive view that personal responsibility is a cumbersome carry-over of past generations and the Government should actually be responsible for all the decisions made by its erstwhile voters.  I’ve not paid a lot of attention to how they would actually fund this other than making the billionaires pay “their fair share.” But it is safe to assume the colleges who’ve raised tuition to such astronomical levels to pay their professors half a million dollars a year to teach one course won’t be asked to dip into their endowments to help out.  I’m all for letting everyone have a free Ph.D.  The question that comes immediately to mind is how many PhDs does it take to man the counter at MacBurger Queen?

 

 

---

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/marxist-blm-leader-buys-1-4-million-home-in-ritzy-la-enclave/

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/judge-derek-chauvin-maxine-waters-mistrial-appeal/index.html