Everyone is down on the U.S. Air Force these days. Long criticized as being dethatched, and obsessed with developing and buying the latest (and most expensive) aircraft and technology, the air force was largely a victim of its own success. Critics should not forget that the U.S. Air Force has been the main reason the U.S. has dominated the skies, worldwide, for the last 65 years. That was no accident, it took a lot of effort and imagination. A certain amount of myopia regarding jet fighters, and how to shoot down everyone elses, was necessary to obtain that air supremacy. Without it, winning on the ground is difficult, if not impossible. Let's not forget that the zoomies are, above all, winners.
But the air force generals have burned a lot of bridges behind them. The army, navy and marines all have their own air forces, and resent constant air force attempts to take control of everything that flies. This latest flap, involving the firing of the Secretary of the Air Force (a civilian) and the Chief of Staff of Air Force (the senior officer, in effect the military commander of the air force), was the tail end of years of growing dissatisfaction with how the air force thought of itself. The other services believed the air force had an inflated view of what air power could accomplish. The air force long preached, and practiced, the concept that wars, or at least ground battles, could be won from the air. The other services disputed this assertion, but the air force made a powerful case, especially when there wasn't a war going on, and constantly got th biggest chunk of the defense budget. That did not go down well with the services either.
Then came a big change, when GPS guided weapons began to show up a decade ago. It wasn't just the JDAM (GPS guided) bombs, but GPS guided rockets and artillery shells, plus laser guided missiles from UAVs. While the air force loved technological change, the GPS revolution turned out to be a bit much. Suddenly, the air force was not needed as much for its traditional ground support missions (there has been little air combat since the 1970s). Consider the numbers. One JDAM bomb does the work of 300 dumb bombs, and does it with much less risk to friendly troops on the ground, or to the aircraft dropping the bomb (which can now do so at high altitude, out of range of gunfire.) That's great news, except that it means much less work for the air force. One heavy bomber and a few jet fighters can provide all the air support needed for Iraq (or Afghanistan). Air force commanders have to order F-16 and F-15 pilots to stay at high altitude, to avoid getting hit. For a "combat pilot", that hurts. The only warplanes allowed to go down and dirty are the A-10s, which were long scorned by the pilots of "fast movers" (jet fighters.) No more.
The air force has been so successful that there are no more aces (pilots who have shot down five or more aircraft.) It's not that the U.S. Air Force pilots are not capable, it's just that no one wants to take them on. It's seen as suicidal. In the current war, the air force had to come up with a combat badge for support troops, because the only air force personnel getting shot at where the airmen who volunteered to help the army out with logistics and security jobs on the ground. Air force pilots seethe at the injustice of it all; airmen truck drivers who have seen more combat than fighter pilots, and have the combat badge, scars and war stories to prove it. It really hurts.
The air force also took a lot of heat for screwing up their strategic weapons units. The ICBM troops, in particular, had been treated poorly in the last two decades, and had lost the discipline and thoroughness they had long been famous (or infamous) for. This all came from the era (1950s-60s) of General Curtis LeMay, a very capable, and over-the-top SAC (Strategic Air Force) and later Air Force commander. Many air force old timers trace the current problems to the post Cold War trend of officers acting, and thinking, more like business executives, than "fighting generals" like LeMay.
It's future shock time for the air force. The other services, and the Secretary of Defense, agreed that the air force was not handling it well. The new leadership (the new chief of staff is a transport pilot) is expected to ease up on the F-22 obsession, and pay more attention to UAVs and reconnaissance for the army, as well as air transport and electronic warfare. But many air force officers believed in the goals of the former management, and are not taking well to all these changes. So it's not over yet, but the air force has, as far as the other services are concerned, received a long overdue wake-up call.
1950's....? They only became a seperate service in 1947. Appears to be an institutional problem. On General Curtis LaMay. He was one of the greatest heros of our time. Brought out of Europe after VE Day as the fix it man for Japan. He was sent to the Pacific to take over the failing bombing effort. He threw out high-level B-29 surgical "precision" bombing which hit little, and put the new aircraft down at much lower altitudes with a carpet bombing fire storm effort. Highly effective, killed scads of the little buggers and helped end the war in the Pacific.
#2
If you have ever watched the movie "Twelve O'Clock High", you know all you need to know about SAC. The ARCLIGHT briefings for missions in VietNam were lifted directly from the movie, even down to the big target map in the front of the auditorium that no one can read. To be in SAC was to be a consummate professional. Everything you did was monitored, evaluated, and graded. You, as the nuclear deterrent, were the keepers of the fire and the defenders of America. You were at war even when everyone else was at peace. You were proud of your service and, even though you complained constantly about the "chicken****", proud to be in SAC. That pride died when the bombers were placed under the command of the fighter pilot centric Air Combat Command. ACC and its predecessor TAC never cared about nukes and the strategic deterrent mission. Air Force senior leadership has been in decline since the days of Merrill McPeak and has forgotten its primary mission of defending America. The F-22 obsession is just the most visible symptom of the rot.
sigh.. when will they get over this and call him what he is - a SPECIAL OPS pilot and a test pilot. The guy flew MC-130, AC-13O and PAVE-LOW. Major league "in the weeds" and combat mission flying.
#5
The problem for the Air Force and all the other services was the lack of natural environment for decades. When a real war showed up that lasted more than a couple months all the dinosaurs that evolved from the 'theoretical' war against the Soviet Union stood out. It's been adapt or perish, amplified by institutionalized attitudes that refused to acknowledge the 'real world, real war'. The Air Force which was very good at Beltway Wars has come out least able to adapt to the war environment we have been engaged in for seven years. It forgot that the only reason to exist is to fight that kind of war, the one outside of bureaucracies, and that in the end it is still about the doughboy, the GI, the grunt with a bayonet on the end of rifle that occupies and controls ground. If you're not supporting him, why the hell are you here?
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/23/2008 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Problem for the Air Force is that in its first phase it took seriously Caio Dudet's theories according to which, "bombers ever get through" and evedy other component of the Armed Forces (be it other services or fighters) is only awaste of scarce resources. This led to America entering WWII with the best bombers in world and mediocre fighters (1942 P40 had the performance of a 1940 Spitfire or Me109). This led to 8th Air Force getting slaughtered (25% bombers downed in a single mission, with many others badly damaged and with casulaties) as the USAAF sent its B17s unsecorted believing they could protect themselves. It lead to USAF loisng the qyualitative edge it once had over Communists Air Forces as the kill ratio went from 13 to 1 (Korea) to 3 to 1 (Vietnam, 2 to 1 in 1973, at a time the Navy using same models was making mincemeat of its opponents) due to wrong doctrine and the emphasis on intercepting nuclear bombers instead of in building real fighters.
In a second phase (the Fighter Mafia phase) the USAF has been unable to replace the B52 and has donce little in the ground attack deprtmant (Warythog is 30 years old). I don't even mention the neglect of its transport fleet. More than in fighters teh emphasis has been on stealth. However when a B2 is two billion dollars a pop, simple maths show that the mere wear and tear for the round trip between America dn Afghanistan (even without factoring risk of being downed) was much higher than the value of the target. In the meantime the Air Force is still flying the ageing F15s and F16 who are now inferior to some of their potential opponents. So we shouls speka of Sytelth Maffia instead of Fighter Maffia.
What the Air Force seems to have been unable to do in all of its history is to assign itsalf as goal not the success of USAF but the success of America's Armed Forces
#8
JFM, the problem in WWII was the disparity between the ranges of fighters and bombers. The B-17 loss rates were the result of flying daylight missions beyond the range of fighter escort to bomb the industrial complexes in the German heartland. Under Bomber Harris, the Brits burned the cities at night.
Losses in VietNam had more to do with restrictive rules of engagement than loss of qualitative edge. You can't shoot down an enemy that won't come up to fight. Most of the American fighter losses came from surface to air missiles and ground fire encountered in ground attack missions. There was an electronic warfare aspect to the loss rates.
But, yes, in recent years, the AF senior leadership has been self-absorbed and focussed on appearances rather than its erstwhile mission "to fly and to fight".
I knew it (I am a warbird enthousiast, BTW a gold mine: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ ). I was speaking about the fact that the USAAF staff thought possible in the first place that B17s could survive unescorted in the German sky (otherwise they would have reverted to night bombing or stuck to missions in fighter range).
Also, when you think about fighter designs initiated through a requirement from the USAAF and the tactics needed for them when meeting German fighters, they were not adequate for escorting bombers. If prior to the war teh USAAF had thought B17s would need to be escorteded it would have gone for planes very different to the Thunderbolt or the Lightning.
The exception was the Mustang but as you know it was the British not the USAAF who were at the origin of its design.
About Vienama I was not speaking about total losses but air to air. I agree with the restrictive ROE. But you have to remember that the Americans fought on plane who let a moke trail behind it (making it easy to spot), without a gun and that the other designs were still worse. Also this plane (the Phantom) had been "imported" from the Navy.
#10
Besoeker, I recently finished the book Flyboys by James Bradley. It, in part, describes LeMay's brilliant and risky decision to use unescorted low-altitude night fire-bombing. He only had a hunch (no real intelligence) that there was a gap in the Japanese air defense (between 5,000 and 10,000 feet, IIRC). Further, he removed most/all of the gunners and their ammo so the bomb payload could be increased.
Most pilots and what was left of their crews on the initial mission to Tokyo thought he was insane and they fully expected to die that night. He gave the order for the initial bombing raid without the knowledge of his commander, Chief of AAF Hap Arnold, so that if the mission failed, Arnold could make him the scapegoat and allow the AAF mission in the Pacific to continue. Helped save millions of lives.
#11
JFM: Think Robert Strange McNamara. (Actual middle name taken from his mother's maiden name.)
Guns, we don't need no stinking guns, we got unreliable missiles that are useless at close range. The North Vietnamese used tactics designed to take advantage of these weaknesses.
#12
Unlike the German industry under Speer, the Japanese relied upon lots of small factories, often mom and pop type operations to fabricate parts that would in turn be trucked or delivered to the major assembly plants for war production. The area fire bombing in Japan actually did result in a drop in productivity and compounded the Japanese problem with the stripping of housing for workers within reasonable distance from their industrial plants. Of course, like nearly all of America's opponents, there was strict attention to the Geneva Convention for our boys, thank you Justice Kennedy.
#14
Look, every service has its warts, skeletons and vulnerabilities - even the Marines who I respect deeply. But, the Air Force deals with a multitude of interesting issues such as space, nuclear technology, logistics, refueling, etc. that don't even enter the Army lexicon. Not to down-grade the Army since it has its own unique set of issues to engender the most competent deadly fighting force the world has ever known. But don't think that the Air Force can some how be relegated to the occasional air drop or tactical take-out of some terror cell using an A-10. Binny still has the shakes from the Buffer(ing) he took at Tora Bora and there will always be more requirements like that. All our services have comlementary and overlapping missiion requirements. The vision should be how to best equip and plan those missions so everyone is in synch and not over occupied.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/23/2008 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#15
If the Air Force had had it's way the A-10 would be gone and we would have fewer armed UAV's. That's why Gates rolled some heads.
This WOT is mostly down and dirty. Like Raiders of the Lost Ark you don't bring a fancy sword to a gun fight.
I suspect the pyrotechnics at Tora Bora were supplied by Buffs, another plane the AF wanted to scrap.
Left to their druthers the AF would have over 100 B-2's, nearly 400 F-22's and Lord knows how many F-35's.
The poor ground pounders would be trying to figure out how to maneuver the bad guys into an open space with perfect timing so a B-2 from Kansas can bomb the B-jeebers out of them.
#16
Give the Army the A-10s and close support missions. They heave to work tight with Army units anyways - and are most effective combined with attack helicopters and artillery.
And FYI, the Army has been managing airspace just as hard as the USAF: Missie Defense is tha ARMY job, as are the US SAMs. And thats all coordinated with artillery fires (you do not want to be there when a TOT arrives in your airspace), attack and air-assault helicopters, tactical ELINT aircraft, smaller transports, and UAVs.
Having integral ground attack support from Harrier jets AND helicopters seems to work pretty well for the USMC.
Time to give those to the Army, and put a WO-2 at the stick.
Let the USAF flyboys stay above 12000AGL where they are comfortable operating, and out of the way of the people doing the real fighting down in the dirt where it matters: the Army, Marines and USAF tactical controllers.
#17
JFM, a lot of the problems in air-to-air combat in VietNam were self-inflicted by the ROE, among other things, requiring visual identification of the target. Missiles were designed to shoot the enemy down at long range. One of the truly stupid moments in American aviation was taking the F-14, a fleet defense platform with the AWG-9 / Phoenix missile combination lethal to >100nm and trying to make a gunfighter out of it. That is like taking a M16 to a knife fight and using it as a club.
#18
Old Spook, a rational command structure would divide the assets along mission lines. Close Air Support should be a function of Army Aviation which should control the assets suited to it (attack helicopters, A-10s, armed UAVs). The AF can support with B-52s and B-1s. It is a matter of degree. If you need to take out a machine gun or a mortar that is harassing the troops, Army Aviation should do it. If you need to take down something bigger, say someone's command & control structure or a nuclear weapons facility, that should be an AF function. The armed Predators and their big brother Reaper have let the genie out of the bottle. CAS is going to become a do it yourself business, no matter what the brass would like.
#20
The only place the Air Force got it really right was in intelligence, and only when it worked in coordinated facilities with Army and Marine components. I worked at several of those. SAC intelligence was strictly interested in targeting nukes and degrading air defenses. TAC Air was all for "airspace control", with a secondary, "if we have to" attitude of supporting the other branches of service. The Air Force is being forced to adjust to multi-mission requirements that some generals are too "proud" to take on. Fire them, let some of the young blood rise to the top, and let them get it right.
I've been at one or two bases where the command structure got sloppy, and most of the senior officers lost their job after the last Operational Readiness Inspection. It's not pretty. There's going to be blood (figuratively speaking) in the halls of the Pentagon before this is over.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/23/2008 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#21
WOT > WAR FOR OWG-NWO > WAR FOR THE ANTI-"STATUS QUO" = ANTI-COLD WAR STATUS QUO, among other "Critical Mass" premises.
DILEMMA for the USDOD > iff no one wins the GWOT = WAR FOR GLOBALISM/OWG-NWO,etc vv the CAPTURE OR DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN BY EOY 2008-JAN 2009, WILL THE USAF revert back to being a US-ONLY = NATIONAL/NATION-SPECIFIC "AIR FORCE" [Cold War definition], as opposed to being a DESIRED
"AEROSPACE" = future OWG "SPACE FORCE", e.g. STARFLEET COMMAND???
US-ISLAMIST GEOSTRATEGIC STALEMATE > the USAF may had precluded any need to transfer its FIXED WING = CLOSE/CONVENTIONAL WARFARE AIR SUPPORT MISSIONS back to the US Army, BUT WILL "STALEMATE" SIMUL PRECLUDE ANY NED FOR REQUIREMENT FOR THE USAF TO BECOME AMERICA's SOLE "SPACE FORCE". DITTO as per US NAVY as per the USMC to the Army vv OWG-NWO???
"STALEMATE" = NO NEED FOR OWG-NWO = "GLOBALISM/
GLOBALNESS" = A LOT OF AGENDAS ARE GOING TO GET STOPPED, IGNORED, OR DISCARDED = A LOT OF IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PISSED OFF.
* Shades of OLIVER STONE'S "JFK" > DONALD SUTHERLAND as THE COLONEL to Kostner's GARRISON >
"Who makes the HUEY helicopter...FB-111TFX/JTFX ... OIL ...GOT A LOT OF PISSED OFF PEOPLE [at POTUS JFKennedy], MR. GARRISON"!
IMO, US-GLOBAL CONVENTIONAL WISDOM = NO ONE + NO SIDE [Political-Indistrial-Governing ELites] TRULY WANTS A "STALEMATE" IN THE WOT.
Lest we fergit, RADICAL ISLAM > 9-11/WOT + REGIONAL-GLOBAL JIHAD = WAR TO SAVE ISLAM FROM USSR-STYLE SELF-OBSOLESCENCE + IMPLOSION.
All together now, wid LEFTIST-GLOBALIST feeling > D *** NG IT, OLIVER STONE, WE WANTED THAT TEXAS-SIZED ASTEROID TO HIT!
#22
There's going to be blood (figuratively speaking) in the halls of the Pentagon before this is over.
Probably a long time coming, and not just in the AF, either. Damn shame G-Dub stuck with Rummy as long as he did...if Gates had been brought in earlier, he'd probably have already swung his ax and we'd have a really big crop of smart, aggressive bird colonels in their mid and late thirties and generals in their early forties.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/23/2008 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Rummy had a war to prosecute - one he didn't really want if stories are true since he thought it would be a mess and that transformation (including that bloodbath) was more important.
Give him credit -- he and Cheney held off Colin Powell and State better/longer than most could have managed.
The Current Discussion: The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Rather than sending more troops, is it time to negotiate a truce there? In a word: no
The situation in Afghanistan has several variables and unstable elements that yearn for reassessment. It is not possible to formulate a simple answer without having to completely rethink of the most obvious variables. Like the 'obvious variable' that the Taliban are a bunch of murderous thugs.
It is time to reassess the present state and structure of the Taliban as they are likely to have revamped their structure. They started as a group of extremists with intolerant and violent practice of Sunni Wahhabism, which eventually served as a cover for criminal deeds. The Taliban, originally grouped in northern Pakistan, mostly recruited from southern Afghan Pashtun tribes. They eventually took over Afghanistan in 1990s in a civil war against tribes from the north and the Mujahideen that fought the soviet occupiers. Over the course of the civil war, Afghanistan transformed from a poor and shambolic country into a ruin and a failed state that eventually hosted al-Qaedaa loose affiliation of Arab Sunni extremists and a criminal enterprise that aimed to change the Saudi regime. So the answer to the first question, some seven years later, is whether the Taliban are set in their religious cult or if they are now purely a pack of criminal opportunists. Let's see. They make women walk around in Burkas, They stone women to death is they have sex w/o their brothers permission, they tip walls over upon homosexuals, they destroyed those big buddah statues... sure, they are a trustworthy party to negotiate with.
In turn, the murky role of Pakistani connections and underworld structures must be better understood to help trace the insurgency and its roots. The Taliban frequently cross the border into Northern Pakistan and tribal regions. It is a seasonal refuge and a convenient corridor to supply drugs from Afghanistan to world markets and return guns and ammunitions in payment (and funds for a long chain of intermediaries). Much of these small arms and ammunition are reportedly made in Pakistan or obtained there. The cash from the drug trade is estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year more than all aid money to Afghanistan. It is tangled with the our backyard attitude of behind-the-scenes players in the Pakistani army and intelligence forces. Thus a comfortable cross-feeding of purposes complicate matters that cannot be easily isolated. The public airing of grievances between Pakistani politicians and President Karzai of Afghanistan (now practically a semi-effective mayor of Kabul) tend to tilt towards the corrupt twins of guns and drugs. Only a bloody f***ing Iranian would have written that.
Against this undercurrent, NATO forces are fighting with presumptions and tactics that are 50 years old. Although the bulk of demand is from rich, member states, NATO forces have no experience, or strategic doctrine to fight the war against drugs which is the essence of the post-9/11 power grab and ambitions in Afghanistan. The paltry return on the Pakistan bet has further confused the path to the point that NATO (and especially America, the political leader of NATO) must now choose between appeasing the Pakistan of today, and nursing the decades old policy of presumed leverage against India, or lose face in Afghanistan in a fight with drug lords. To avoid self-defeat in projecting military power, NATO must now serve up plans for the post-conflict era and blend in measured elements of soft power. It can remain as a guarantor of peace culture. But it must cultivate and match guns and blunt cash handouts in poorly planned aid programs with a political solution. A conditional amnesty, in gradual and confidence building steps should be traded with Taliban promises to regroup as a non-violent, unarmed political party in Afghanistan with a clear abandonment of violence. That could lead to a fragile truce and a calm atmosphere. 50 years? Here's a hint: our military learns REALLY fast.
The Taliban were, and remain, an instrument of shadowy structures connected to the underworld. As such, the situation in Afghanistan is not the nationalist insurgencies experienced in Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Yemen, Algeria or Vietnam. Some parallels can be drawn from Northern Ireland where, in due course, The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland was essentially after a realization by Irish militants that they could not win and had to settle for a deal. If the umbilical cord of the Taliban to the Pakistani underworld is cut, the Taliban are bound to reach the same conclusion. No club-foot: the Irish were atleast in the 20th century, not the 8th.So go FOAD and take that midget president with you
#1
If it were only that the Taliban were connected to the Pakistan underworld, criminal to criminal as it were, things would be somewhat easier. But there are also direct connections to Pakistan's military through both the ISI and the regular army, and to the Islamist political parties. And of course, the untamed (or comparatively uncivilized, the distinction is one of vocabulary only) tribes of the borderlands.
The key sentence to me, such as it is, is whether the Taliban are set in their religious cult or if they are now purely a pack of criminal opportunists. To me the answer is that it doesn't matter, really. Until a great many more of them get themselves killed by the Afghan or NATO/U.S. troops, neither the Taliban nor the Pakistanis from whom they derive will be ready to give up their attempted reconquest.
Barack Obama is endangering his status as the media darling of the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, he has been the villain in the campaign story over the last few days. Two decisions one small and one large showed the dangers he faces. And a third showed that the post-racial candidate is no longer in evidence. It is no secret that the media has been openly rooting for Obama for months. His gaffes would have felled other candidates, his relationship with hate-mongering preachers would have disqualified mere mortal candidates and, of course, his lack of any national record of accomplishment might have prevented all much the most ego-inflated from even mounting a White House run. But it was hanging together fairly well until last week.
The trigger for the downward slide was his decision to abandon public financing. The decision made cold political sense given his likely enormous advantage over the McCain camp but there were two complicating factors: he had shaped his career as a reformer and he specifically promised that he would take public financing and the rules that go along with it.
To make matters worse he concocted a false and misleading, indeed an operatic explanation that those mean Republicans forced him to take private money. . . . Moreover, many of his good government, liberal allies were distressed. Whats more, they went public with their distress.
And for once, the media joined in the Obama-bashing and perhaps was even harsher. It was the low point according to a usually sympathetic David Brooks. Clearly, the press, which had sheltered Obama from virtually every dicey incident to date, had had enough. The criticism was sharp and virtually uniform. When added to his decision to duck town hall meetings with McCain which Obama had also said he would do, before he thought better of it the dean of the mainstream media, David Broder was forced to admit that Obamas motives might be open to question.
And the self-serving explanation was too much even for mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post. The negative reception suggested that the mainstream press may be re-evaluating their subservient behavior. At the very least, when an issue is near and dear to them, as the corruption of money in politics is, they appeared ready now to call foul when Obama goes a step too far. . . . In short, the campaign finance move exposed the Great and Powerful Oz as an ordinary man behind that curtain.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2008 17:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is that why he's 15 points ahead in the polls, cause he's screwed?
Don't count him out quite yet, this tool could very well be our next president.
#2
Jim, I'm not too worried about the "15 points up in the polls"...that was ONE poll (Newsweek), about which Brit Hume supposedly said back in 2000 that they'd proclaim an expected Gore victory if their entire sample had been taken from the Bush family.
That being said, the Political Teflon will remain solidly intact. Notice that the ONLY MSMer to get seriously vocal about the Obamessiah's 180 on public campaign funds was PBS's Mark Shields, who basically came right out and called the Anointed One a lying sack of ka-ka. The rest of the MSM's coverage (save Fox, of course) has been decidedly muted and VERY circumspect in not "editorializing" about the subject.
Here in the People's Republic of Pugetopolis Seattle, *neither* of the daily fishwrappers has seen fit to criticize His Saintliness. Of course, if McCain now turned around and said that he too was going to open the financial floodgates, all hell would break loose...the MSM would make it sound like Mac was the greatest American hypocrite since Jimmy Swaggart.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/23/2008 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The press played this game with Candidate Kerry in 2004. An editor of one of the major mainstream news outlets (Time Magazine?) boasted in a television interview that the press's support would be good for 15 points in the polls. But by sheltering their favourite candidate from meaningful criticism during the primaries, they disarmed him for the main event. Now it's poor Candidate Obama's turn.
#4
TW, the difference between '04 and now is that Jawn Effin' Kerry didn't inspire the kind of cultish devotion that the Obamessiah has created among his witless sheepstooges supporters. Journos were working aggressively to get Kerry elected back then, and the only reason they didn't succeed is that Kerry was a particularly uncharismatic lunkhead. Say what you will about The Anointed One, he definitely ain't uncharismatic. He routinely disses the traveling press, and they're STILL willing to carry his water.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/23/2008 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
Some have been taking issue with largely unnoticed comments made last year by Sen. Barack Obama declaring the U.S. is 'no longer a Christian nation' but is also a nation of others, including Muslims and nonbelievers.
The comments have been recently recirculating on Internet blogs.
'Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,' Obama said during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube.
At the speech, Obama also seemingly blasted the 'Christian Right' for hijacking religion and using it to divide the nation: 'Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us,' he said.
After all, the Trinity United church is all about bringing people together. In an afro-centric way. But together.
Asked last year to clarify his remarks, Obama repeated them to the Christian Broadcast Network: 'I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,' Obama wrote in an e-mail to CBN News senior national correspondent David Brody.
'We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community,' wrote Obama.
Obama did clarify his statement about the 'Christian Right.' 'My intention was to contrast the heated partisan rhetoric of a distinct minority of Christian leaders with the vast majority of Evangelical Christians conservatives included who believe that hate has no place in our politics.
'When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you're implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you're attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends,' wrote Obama.
The Illinois senator's speech declaring the U.S. 'no longer Christian' was met with little fanfare. But it has been getting some recent play. A television commercial that aired in South Dakota by a group calling itself the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric juxtaposes the audio of Obama's 'no longer Christian' statement over images of the presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb and a picture of Obama with his hands rested below his waist while other politicians place their hands over their hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance.
'It's time for people to take a stand against Barack Hussein Obama,' declares the voiceover on the commercial.
Obama's campaign has long utilized faith as a central theme. The candidate's Christianity and his former membership in the controversial Trinity United Church of Christ have been much scrutinized.
His comment about the 'Christian Right' echoed similar statements made by Merrill A. McPeak, Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman. As WND reported, in a 2003 interview with The Oregonian newspaper, McPeak seemed to compare evangelical Christians to the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether 'there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?'
McPeak responded by comparing the two terror groups to 'radical' Oregonians. 'There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place.'
Oregon has a large evangelical Christian community.
#1
This is going to play reeeeealy well in "red state" areas - and with Moderates.
How long until Obamadhi™ (he's moved up from Obamessiah™) throw McPeak under the bus?
Once he does so, I want to be driving that bus so I can back it up and rock it back and forth to make sure the bus completely run over McPeak. He is the guy that ruined the USAF and his screwups are even today being felt.
First those jackasses in Chicago, now McPeak... Know Obama from the company he keeps.
#3
The McPeak remark about evangelicals is disgusting.
That said, Im not sure Im getting the uproar over Obama's statement. We ARE a nation of many different faiths (even if we are still a people the majority of whom are Christian if, that is, you include a bunch of folks that some fundamentalists dont think are 'christians')
#5
The problem is, we're NOT a "Christian" nation. Christ has been replaced by every feel-good, "fundamentalist" claptrap that we can think of. The words of Christ are seldom heard in churches, or there'd be fewer problems in this country. The difference between that and what Obamass is spewing is that HE thinks we need to cut out all the laws, rules, and limits that MIGHT be based on Christian thought, so we could replace them with his schlock. The man has a great mind, but it's empty of anything of substance. What a waste of oxygen!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/23/2008 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We never were a Christian nation as the rest of the world understands national religions. What we always have been is a mostly God-fearing people, most of whom (currently somewhere in the 70-85% range, depending who is counting) consider themselves Christian of some sort. And most of us don't really care what other people believe -- or don't believe -- so long as everyone remains polite of word and deed... which is where the jihadis get in trouble.
Poor Candidate Obama doesn't realize that the Jews probably arrived with Columbus (we won't go into the discussions of whether Columbus himself was secretly Jewish himself), and most definitely arrived with the Dutch. George Washington himself wrote approvingly to one of the early Jewish congregations about their good citizenship. As for non-Abrahamic religions, there were significant numbers of Chinamen here around the time of the Civil War, and the Native Americans of course never left.
Mr. Obama is trying to triangulate with this statement, but only shows his lack of understanding, especially of the church he was a member of for most of his political life.
#7
Dang it, I was going to try to hold my price down on the M1A I was looking for on gunbroker.com. I read this story and thought that maybe I'd just better go ahead and pay the extra; I may truly need that gun sooner than I hoped.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
06/23/2008 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Compare wid REDDIT [Title paraph] > JESUS IN CHINA: CHRISTIANITY's GROWTH IN CHINA IS INDUCING MAJOR CHANGES TO TRADITIONAL CHINESE VIEWS OF GOVT, CULTURE, ECONOMICS, and SOCIETY AT LARGE???
FREEREPUBLIC Poster > RUSSIA downsizes while America MILITARIZES...WORLD goes Free Market Capitalist while America turns SOCIALIST.
Dare we add CHINA goes CHRISTIAN while America goes SECULARIST-ATHEIST???
YET MORE EVIDENCIA/INDICIA THAT AMERICA = NEW WORLD IS PREVAILING/WINNING GWOT > KNOWN AS "MACKINDER'S WAR", for the OWG-NWO "WORLD ISLAND"!
ION REDDIT > ON TRACK: RUSSIA [in LT]]WANTS TO BUILD A RAILROAD TO JAPAN [via SAKHALIN ISLAND = RUSSo-NIPPON JOINT SAKHALIN ECON DEV].
The people at MoveOn.org have a new Iraq ad that is, if they do say so themselves, their most effective ever. Then again, for the group that brought us the General Petraeus or General Betray Us? ad last September, that might not be saying much.
Nevertheless, the organization boasts on its Web site, This isnt your average political ad it lays out the truth about McCains Iraq policy in a personal and compelling way. MoveOn also claims, We just got the results back and polling shows that voters found it to be more persuasive than any other ad weve tested before.
Im not persuaded. Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.
The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy: Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And hes my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you cant have him.
Take that, warmonger!
Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isnt counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.
And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, Maybe 100 explaining, As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, its fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. ...
In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones weve had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.
But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex wont be drafted, and his mommy cant enlist him. He can decide when hes an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.
All of this is pretty much par for the course in political advertising. And Im of the latitudinarian school when it comes to campaign discourse; politics is supposed to be rough and ready. So, why, I wondered after first seeing the MoveOn ad, did I find it so ... creepy?
I was having trouble putting my finder on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com.
Heres what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:
Does that mean that she wants other peoples sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someones son, somewhere.
This is the sober truth. Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And were not entering any such world.
We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he wont be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.
But thats not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.
The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.
#1
"Does that mean that she wants other peoples sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism?"
This is EXACTLY what it means.
I had an employee who said she'd never "let" her little Fauntleroy serve. When confronted with the notion that if nobody joined the military, that the country would be overrun in a month, her response was that her own son didn't have to serve, there would always be some other kids who would.
Parasite.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/23/2008 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To mothers like mine, whose son chose to serve and made the ultimate sacrifice, this ad is especially hurtful.
#4
WAFF.com [Kristol] + FREEREPUBLIC {JOhn Bolton] > BUSH WILL HAVE TO ATTACK IRAN BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE.
Presuming that Dubya does indeed invade, although the Dems + MSM will surely harshly criticize him for starting another ME war, IN REALITY SUCH A WAR HELPS A POTUS OBAMA ADMIN + THE US DEMS BY LIKELY DELAYING OR REMOVING THE RISKS OF NUCLEARIZED ISLAMIST RADICALISM [Iran + Terror] UNTIL 2016 or BEYOND.
Lest we fergit, POTUS JIMMY CARTER > I FALSELY TRUSTED THE SOVIETS/USSR IN THEIR PROMISE NOT TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN.
Lest we fergit PART II, CONVENTIONAL WISDOM > MSM-NET Pundits = RADICAL ISLAM [Iran + Militants-Terr] WILL GET THEIR NUKES UNDER A POTUS OBAMA.
IMO, the US ALL-VOLUNTEER ARMY is safe thru Year 2010 or 2012 > It all depends on whether Radical Islam succeeds in its NUCLEARIZATION-STRAT WEAPONIZATION DRIVES UNDER POTUS MCCAIN OR POTUS OBAMA., + NUCLEAR STATUS [Total Arsenal] AFTER 2010.
IMO again, THIS 2008-2012 POTUS PERIOD WILL DECIDE THE FATE OF BOTH US OWG-NWO AS WELL AS THE GLOBAL AGENDAS OF BOTH RADICAL ISLAM + GENER ISLAM.
OVERT = FORMAL US DOMIN OF DESIRED OWG-NWO IS NOT YET ASSURED DESPITE POTENT NETRENCHMENT, BUT NEITHER IS RADICAL ISLAM ABSOLUTELY DEFEATED YET.
Lest we fergit PART III, POST 9-11 + US NATIONAL SECURITY + NUKE-WEAPS PROLIFERATION + NUCLEAR RADICALISM-TERRORISM > TO PROTECT ITSELF + NATION + INTERESTS, IS THE US WILLING TO ACT UNILATERALLY IFF NEED BE, + IGNORE POTENTIAL
"GREAT POWER" CONFRONTATION + INTERVENTIONISM???
The "GREAT GAME" goes on regardless iff Radical Islam has nukes or not. "BIGGER IS BETTER" + STRENGTH IS STRENGTH" > SCOPE - ITS BETTER FOR THE US TO HAVE A DRAFT ARMY BEFORE MAJOR NUCLEAR TERROR ATTACKS OCCUR, NOT AFTERWARDS.
Call it Sen. Christopher J. Dodd's sin of omission.
The senator and his wife, Jackie, got a very good deal when they refinanced their East Haddam and Washington, D.C., homes through Countrywide Financial Corp. in 2003. Actually, it was an extraordinarily good deal. . . . Countrywide gave the senator the lower rate, a so-called "float-down," for free. It also waived about $2,000 in application fees on the townhouse loan and $700 for the East Haddam mortgage.
The free float-down and other perks were part of a "VIP" program Countrywide reserved for federal politicians. North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, former housing secretary Alphonso Jackson and Donna Shalala, the former Health and Human Services secretary, also benefited, according to Portfolio.
Sen. Dodd and his wife will save thousands of dollars over the 30-year life of the loans because of Countryside's perks. Even still, we find it hard to believe the senator would have sold his constituency (or his reputation) so cheaply.
We do think he was negligent, however, a conclusion supported by the senator's own public comments. When this story first broke, Sen. Dodd issued a haughty and uninformative statement that he "did not seek or expect any favorable treatment." "As a United States senator, I would never ask or expect to be treated differently than anyone else refinancing their home," he said. "This suggestion is outrageous and contrary to my entire career in public service."
But Sen. Dodd was treated differently, and his first statement carefully avoided that point. That he didn't ask for or expect special treatment is a significant, if small, distinction.
In 2003, Sen. Dodd was a member of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the mortgage industry. (He's currently the committee's chairman.) Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, has since emerged as a major player in the subprime lending debacle. It's a fair question whether perks like Countrywide's VIP program had a softening effect on Sen. Dodd and others who might otherwise have nipped the problem in the bud years ago. . . .
Sen. Dodd's loans are the subject of a complaint to the Senate's Ethics Committee. We've come to expect little from that body, frankly. We'd rather Sen. Dodd got off his high horse, come clean and admit he screwed up.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2008 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If this were a GOP senator, a group of 8 with sweetheart mortgage deals form the fat cats that caused the credit crisis, and were involved in REGULATING those same people, it would be splashed all over the media.
Where is the press? Why are they laying down on their job?
#2
Dare the Hartford Courant go one step further and suggest to it's readers that they can voices their opinion at Senator Dudd's next election? No, they wouldn't do such a thing. The ethics committee doesn't need to save their rears, the people of that state can do it themselves.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
06/23/2008 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It must've gotten quite hot at their offices in Harftord; up until this editorial, the Courant was covering for Dodd.
So America is unloved in Istanbul and Cairo and Karachi: It is an annual ritual, the June release of the Pew global attitudes survey and the laments over the erosion of America's standing in foreign lands.
We were once loved in Anatolia, but now a mere 12% of Turks have a "favorable view" of the U.S. Only 22% of Egyptians think well of us. Pakistan is crucial to the war on terror, but we can only count on the goodwill of 19% of Pakistanis.
American liberalism is heavily invested in this narrative of U.S. isolation. The Shiites have their annual ritual of 10 days of self-flagellation and penance, but this liberal narrative is ceaseless: The world once loved us, and all Parisians were Americans after 9/11, but thanks to President Bush we have squandered that sympathy.
It is an old trick, the use of foreign narrators and witnesses to speak of one's home. . . . The deference of American liberal opinion to the coffeehouses of Istanbul and Amman and Karachi is nothing less than astounding. You would not know from these surveys, of course, that anti-Americanism runs deep in the French intellectual scene, and that French thought about the great power across the Atlantic has long been a jumble of envy and condescension. In the fabled years of the Clinton presidency, long before Guantanamo, the torture narrative and the war in Iraq, American pension funds were, in the French telling, raiding their assets, bringing to their homeland dreaded Anglo-Saxon economics, and the merciless winds of mondialisation (globalization).
I grew up in the Arab world in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and anti-Americanism was the standard political language even for those pining for American visas and green cards. Precious few took this seriously. The attraction to the glamorous, distant society was too strong in the Beirut of my boyhood.
It is no different today in Egypt or Pakistan. And what people tell pollsters who turn up in their midst with their clipboards? In Hosni Mubarak's tyranny, anti-Americanism is the permissible safety valve for Egyptians unable to speak of their despot. We stand between Pharaoh and his frustrated people, and the Egyptians railing against America are giving voice to the disappointment that runs through their life and culture. Scapegoating and anti-Americanism are a substitute for a sober assessment of what ails that old, burdened country.
Nor should we listen too closely to the anti-American hysteria that now grips Turkey. That country was once a serious, earnest land. It knew its place in the world as a bridge between Europe and Islam. But of late it has become the "torn country" that the celebrated political scientist Samuel Huntington said it was, its very identity fought over between the old Kemalist elites and the new Islamists.
No Turkish malady is caused by America, and no cure can come courtesy of the Americans. The Turks giving vent to anti-Americanism are doing a parody of Europe: They were led to believe that the Europe spurning them, and turning down their membership in its club, is given to anti-Americanism, so they took to the same fad. Turkish anti-Americanism is no doubt fueled by the resentment within Turkey of the American war in Iraq that gave protection and liberty to the Kurds. No apology is owed the Turks; indeed, it is they who must reconsider their intolerance of minorities. If the Turks were comfortable with the abnormality of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, it is they who have a problem. . . .
Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2008 06:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dang! So, we're not the most evil things to ever crawl out from under a rock, after all. Instead, we're just that envied rich uncle. Spoiled my whole day.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
06/23/2008 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Professor Ajami was interviewed at length about this on NPR this afternoon, and he was quite blunt.
Rich Lowry
Lately, the Iraq war has looked more and more like another Vietnam not for us, but for al Qaeda.
CIA Director Michael Hayden says the terror group has suffered "near-strategic defeat" in Iraq. It has been routed from Anbar, Diyala and Baghdad provinces, and is getting a beating in its last stronghold of Mosul. It is reviled by Iraqis, and its downward trajectory began with indigenous uprisings at its expense.
When the United States lost Vietnam, it lost credibility and saw an emboldened Marxist-Leninist offensive around the Third World. Al Qaeda is a global insurgency and not a nation-state, but it has suffered a similar reputational loss.
The Iraq war had been a powerful recruiting tool for al Qaeda when it was winning. No more. Osama bin Laden rendered what is called the "bandwagon effect" in international relations the tendency of states to go along with the dominant power in his homespun Arabic analogy of people liking the strong horse over the weak horse. In Iraq, al Qaeda's proverbial horse is a broken-down nag.
Our loss in Vietnam forever shattered the domestic consensus in favor of the Cold War, creating a crisis of national confidence known as the Vietnam Syndrome. Al Qaeda's troubles in Iraq correspond with a similar unraveling of its ideological cohesion. Reports in The New Yorker and The New Republic recently have detailed an Islamist backlash against al Qaeda's indiscriminate killing, partly attributable to its brutish campaign in Iraq.
A group devoted to overthrowing secular Arab rulers and fighting America has overwhelmingly identified itself with the mass slaughter of Muslim innocents. Its methods might not have produced revulsion in the Muslim world if they succeeded. Instead, in Iraq, it's been wanton murder in a losing cause.
Like we did in Vietnam, al Qaeda in Iraq has run afoul of nationalism and local culture, although in spectacular fashion. It has trampled on the prerogatives of tribal sheiks and issued lunatic decrees, like its banning of the local bread in Mosul sammoun because it did not exist at the time of the Prophet.
Like we did in Vietnam, it overrelied on favored tactics even after they proved ineffective or counterproductive; with us, it was ever more bombing runs in the North and search-and-destroy missions in the South. For al Qaeda, it has been mass-casualty suicide bombings.
Like we were in Vietnam, al Qaeda was sucked into a conflict not of its choosing by the geopolitical assertion of its adversary.
The United States could have ignored North Vietnam's assault on the South as a marginal loss on the strategic periphery of the Cold War. Since Iraq is central to the Middle East and one of the three most important Arab countries, al Qaeda could not tolerate our attempt to establish it as a democratic ally in the war on terror. It would have been like the Cold War-era U.S. writing off a Communist takeover of West Germany.
If Vietnam was arguably a winnable war for the United States once we established a respectable South Vietnamese army backed by our air power Iraq was winnable for al Qaeda. In the chaos and civil war it stoked in Iraq in 2006, it came close to collapsing our war effort, and has exacted a stiff price for our intervention there.
The group remains dangerous, and if we throw away the gains we've made with a rapid withdrawal could mount a comeback in Iraq. Regardless, it still has its redoubt in western Pakistan. Suffering a Vietnam needn't mean a larger strategic defeat, as we ourselves learned. But the United States had the enormous resources of the world's largest and freest economy, and the essential justness of its cause. Al Qaeda has neither, just the animating hatreds that have been put on such stark, unflattering display during its Vietnam.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
Compare wid TOPIX > THE JIHADIST VIETCONG.
Also, KOMMERSANT > Cuzin-Bro LAVROV SEES A NEW COLD WAR. Argues that Dubya's proposed GMD in East Euro is a prelim advancement of the Amer strategic system for control and influence in Europe; RUSSIA IS SURROUNDED BY PROTECTIONISM + USA IS LOOKING FOR A SPARE AIRFIELD [GMD-TMD] IN LITHUANIA. Lithuania still has plenty of Cold War SovFacs around includ Misslery -USA may have to pay POLAND US$20.0Bilyuhn iff US doesn't emplace GMD-TMD there.
Another day, another shipment from the claptrap factory. AP story:
EVERYTHING SEEMINGLY IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL.
Thats the headline. First line:
Is everything spinning out of control?
No. But they go on:
Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.
Previous generations rolled up their sleeves and swam out there and saved those polar bears. As for abysmal home values, it depends where you are; Ill admit that people who sank everything in Miami condo markets are finding their psyches chipped and dinged, but A) lower home prices mean people who want to buy one but couldnt afford it now are sitting better B) the authors can take heart in this story about San Francisco being unaffordable for the middle class. Thank God! Theres hope!
Cue the obligatory heartland cant-do fella with busted bootstraps:
"It is pretty scary," said Charles Truxal, 64, a retired corporate manager in Rochester, Minn. "People are thinking things are going to get better, and they haven't been. And then you go hide in your basement because tornadoes are coming through. If you think about things, you have very little power to make it change."
Rochester has had zero tornadoes this year, if I recall correctly. Even if they do get one, it probably won't be as bad as the 1883 example, which was bad enough to have its own Wikipedia page. But again: what has happened to America that your optimism is insufficient to turn away rotating clouds? In the old days, by jiminey-crackers, wed hold up pictures of Roosevelt and the twisters would just melt away.
The guys 64 years old, and he hasnt figured out that some things get better, some things get worse, some things stay the same, and some things to which no ones paying attention will shape the news much more than the panic du jour in the news today? Hes 64, and cant figure out that grown men dont say scary unless describing how they felt about the Wolfman when they were nine?
It is amusing, really after sticking peoples heads in the muck every day for years, promoting every faddish scare, fluffing the pillow beneath every yuppie worry, swapping the straight-forward adult approach to news with presenters who emote the copy with the sad face of a day-care worker telling the children that Barney is dead in short, after decades of presenting the world through the peculiar prism that finds in every day more evidence of our rot and our failures, they wonder why people are depressed. Hang the banner, guys: Mission Accomplished.
Of course, not everyone feels this way; Id guess that people who watch television news are more inclined to pessimism. But theres another side to this: the pessimism among some may not stem from some impotent feeling that one is a cork tossd in a sea of cruel destiny, that you cant do anything, that nothing will get better no, the pessimism may arise from the suspicion that theres something abroad in the land thats had a good hardy larf about Horatio Alger and all the other manifestations of individual initiative for 30 years. The cool kids and the clever set have always smirked at that sort of stuff. You can get them going if you make a speech about our ability to solve things, but youd better phrase it in the form of a government initiative, or brows furrow: well, then, how do you propose to do it?
The bottom of the page says Average rating: two out of five stars. Our confidence in the media to undermine our happiness is being chipped away, too. Were in worse shape than we thought.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2008 06:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Everyone is down on the U.S. Air Force these days. Long criticized as being dethatched, and obsessed with developing and buying the latest (and most expensive) aircraft and technology, the air force was largely a victim of its own success. Critics should not forget that the U.S. Air Force has been the main reason the U.S. has dominated the skies, worldwide, for the last 65 years. That was no accident, it took a lot of effort and imagination. A certain amount of myopia regarding jet fighters, and how to shoot down everyone elses, was necessary to obtain that air supremacy. Without it, winning on the ground is difficult, if not impossible. Let's not forget that the zoomies are, above all, winners.
The Current Discussion: The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Rather than sending more troops, is it time to negotiate a truce there?
To make matters worse he concocted a false and misleading, indeed an operatic explanation that those mean Republicans forced him to take private money. . . . Moreover, many of his good government, liberal allies were distressed. Whats more, they went public with their distress.
