The Laughing Wolf

The Founding Fathers were a smart bunch, and when it came time to set up the government of the Republic, they played card sharp. What was needed was a dynamic stasis that would ensure the maximum amount of freedom and liberty, while preventing despotism and other ills plainly seen in the governments of Old Europe. A binary system is never stable (and is the reason the Republic is NOT a formal two-party system), just look at a see-saw, so they opted for the most stable structure of all, a tripod. In so doing, they not only stacked the deck, they stacked it so that it was almost frozen solid.

Not quite solid, mind you, for change is needed but they wanted to ensure it was not change of whim or passion. Change was only supposed to come after a lengthy and laborious process.

The key to ensuring this was the separation of powers. The government is divided into the Judicial, Legislative, and Administrative branches for a reason. Each has separate duties: different jobs and most especially different responsibilities to the Republic and to the Citizens of same. Knowing that the Legislative branch would be most readily susceptible to temptation, it was split into two houses, so as to provide a check. Knowing that the Judiciary would be the key factor in this Great Experiment, the decision was made to have it appointed by the Executive branch, with advise and consent from the Legislative. As a side note, it is this control that is at the heart of the current judicial appointments fiasco and really has been for about 100 years, since the Judicial branch is the deciding vote.

Since the beginning of the Republic, the different sides have tried to gain control of the system. Because of the clear separation of powers, this has been extremely difficult, and efforts have focused on other areas and issues. Sometimes, it has flared up into deliberate efforts to erode the power of one side or another. A good example of this is the War Powers Act, which no president has ever acknowledged as legal and binding. It was an attempt by the Legislative branch to seize control of the war making abilities of the Executive branch. Each side dances around it, but neither side really wants the courts to rule on it because each fears – rightly – the results of such a ruling. Until now, the same was true about testimony, especially testimony in a time of war.

At no time has the Legislative branch ever been able to compel a sitting president to testify under oath, except in an impeachment hearing. At no time has the Legislative branch ever been able to compel the top advisors to testify under oath, except in an impeachment hearing. The theory was that to do so would breach the separation of powers, and deny the President full faith, advice, and counsel by said advisors. That there could and would be no candid and full discussions, and through such that the ability of the President to make and set policy and decisions would be compromised. That then the Executive branch would be suborned to the Legislative, and the tripod destroyed. We would be back to the see-saw, except that this would also effectively give the Legislative branch full control of the judiciary, making it a monopod. A dictatorship or totalitarian regime in all but name.

I have heard the alleged agreement, that this will not be considered precedent. I have heard the platitudes that the Legislative branch can not and will not use this against this or any other administration by any part in the future. I have but one thing to say:

Bullshit.

When has any politician, and most especially politicians acting en masse for their own gain and to advance their party ever kept their word? Right now, I can only think of one member of Congress I would trust to honor this word, a Democrat, and he is leaving. Which means that I expect Congress to honor this so-called agreement in the same way I expect a shark to bypass a bleeding and thrashing animal in the water; that is to say, not at all.

If this goes through, there is no turning back and the damage can not be undone. The separation of powers will be undermined in a way that is clearly detrimental to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

To say that I am disappointed in President Bush is an understatement. To my mind, this is a clear violation of his oath of office, and to his duty to the Republic. What he is doing is the easy way, the way of the politician. Doing what is right is seldom easy, and most often is difficult and expensive to one’s person. Doing right, in this case, would have meant not unleashing Ms. Rice on television, but letting others carry the burden. Doing right in this case would have meant avoiding this situation, and most of all it would mean not setting a terrible, costly, and dangerous precedent for the future.

I expected more of Mr. Bush and his team. I expect more of any person serving as president. Over the last decade or so, I have been terribly disappointed in my Presidents, and in those serving in Congress. So, while I am disappointed in the President, I am hardly surprised.

The damage here is done. All any of us can do now, is try to make the best of a bad situation.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The largest reason to go of late has been one particular knife dealer. This person had a great selection of product from Columbia River Knife and Tool, and one time even had a bunch of seconds that were near perfect and very inexpensive. Given that one of my CRKT’s is missing, possibly dognapped on my last visit to North Georgia, I wanted to see what might be available to replace it.

The dealer had warned me that the show had been very slow for him the last two times, and sure enough he wasn’t there. Several of the dealers I am used to seeing were not there, and the pickings were slim. Given my general situation, I was looking for small items and some specialty ammo (match and other) and was very disappointed. So were the dealers that were there, with several of them talking amongst themselves about how slow it had been.

I hope that it does pick up, and that a lot of good dealers do come back. We need such a show, even if only for entertainment value or to annoy the gun control freaks.

-30-

« ...howl's done

LW

« ...howl's done

Israel has fought for its modern existence since before it was formally founded. Its enemies surround them, and have sworn to wipe them from the face of the Earth. It is important to note that not one of the Palestinian organizations has ever acknowledged Israel’s right to exist, and most openly call for its destruction. A number of them go so far as to call for the death of all Jews and any who support them.

Embarrassed and impotent on the battlefield, these enemies have turned to terror as a way to try and accomplish their goals. They deliberately target civilians, particularly women and children, for shootings and suicide bombings. Such actions are a way of life, and have been for a generation, if not more.

The “plight” of the Palestinians is ready fodder for The Old Media, and the terror groups play shamelessly to it. The Old Media and certain diplomatic missions buy into it and run with it, and in the process reveal a deep and malignant anti-Semitism. For it is always a justifiable event when a terrorist scatters bits and pieces of civilians over the landscape, but a cowardly attack when Israel strikes back. We had the massive event that was 9-11; Israel, on the other hand, has been dying the death of a thousand cuts for decades.

The problem that is Israel has refused to be fixed not because of Israeli intransigence, but because the opposition does not want it fixed. They do not want a solution because to them the only solution is Israel gone, and her people dead. They want as much misery for their own people as they can, because such is the way they stay in power and generate the cannon fodder needed for their political plan to work.

That time is over, and terror and desperation now drive in the West Bank and Gaza. One such change was pointed out by Steven Den Beste a while back. The fence will change things, and not in a good way for the terrorists. It will settle the two-state issue once and for all, and bring about a host of other changes. The other change is, Israel is fed up of being fed up, and is adopting a page from the U.S. War on Terror: They are taking out their enemies.

Israel has declared total war and is now prepared to wage it no matter what is said in the so-called international community. The people that head up the organizations who attack her citizens are legitimate targets, just as bin Laden and company are legitimate targets for the U.S. Just as we have used a variety of means, including missiles off Predator drones, so too are the Israelis. We can not condemn them for this, lest we condemn ourselves. There is no difference between the two, only similarities.

Many, particularly in the terrorist leadership, have failed to grasp the change. They see it, and they sort-of acknowledge that the world has changed, but they can’t seem to dance to the new tune. The declaration from Hamas this weekend is the best possible example of this.

Terrorists around the world have indeed gotten the hint that the U.S. is serious, and nothing demonstrates this better than the backtracking my Hammas in the Old Media from its first declaration of war. They understood that to not do so would not be wise. What they appear to have failed to understand is that the old way of publicly saying one thing, and privately telling their people another, no longer works. The spotlight is on and there are enough outlets of media, particularly New Media, that will gleefully spread the word when this happens.

So, they want a war. Let’s give it to them. Let’s drop the public concern and condemnation that greets each action by Israel, and give such actions our support. Let’s even go a step further, let’s urge them to take out these people and give them any intelligence and logistic support we can.

It will have no negative impact on our own war, and will actually help. I say that it will have no negative impact because according to bin Laden and other followers of the fantasy ideology, we already are infidels and are already as bad a Jews because we have supported Israel. To those of you who don’t get it, we are all Jews to them. They have already sworn to kill us, destroy our nation, and such, so what difference does it make? It will not invite retaliation, for the attacks against us are already on the books. Those attacks are coming, and nothing we do either way will either encourage or prevent them.

If we are serious about fighting this war, and making it the total war it must be, then we need to act. We need to quit pretending when it comes to Israel, and grant unto them what we have claimed for ourselves: the right of self-preservation and the right to wage total war. We need to let them remove the cancer from their midst, bring about democratic change, and most of all we need to make education in the “camps” real education and not terrorist indoctrination.

Hamas has declared war. Fine. Let’s give it to them. Let’s extend the change begun in Iraq to yet another area in the region. Let’s let the dominos begin to fall, with a wall and with rewards given that are so richly deserved.

-30-

« ...howl's done

We started with Chase-Limogere Brut sparkling wine from Madera, California. The nose was agreeably sharp with mineral and fruit, and went to a mouthfeel that was sharp at the start, but almost immediately grew wet and sweet. It had a nice finish with notes of pear and Granny Smith apple. Like many sparkling wines, it was a bit sweet, but not bad for less than $7.00.

Next on the list was Van Ruiten-Taylor Reserve 2001 Lake Country Sauvignon Blanc. A crisp nose of pear and green berries gives way to a medium mouth filled with fruit. Slightly bitter on the finish, but pleasant.

The third wine of the day was Ca’del Solo 2002 California Big House White table wine. This is a blend of about every white in the book, with the result of a nose that is sweet with fruit and hay and a medium mouthfeel of a variety of fruit. Mineral comes in on the finish, along with some slight wood notes.

The final white of the day was a delight, De Wetshof Estate 2001 Chardonnay from South Africa. The nose was crisp and woody, with fruit under. The crisp mouthfeel reveals wood, giving way to fruit on the long stretch. The finish is nice, and even nicer in my opinion is the way the wood does not overpower the fruit and other flavors in the wine. For those looking for a more traditional chardonnay that is much more than oak notes, this is a nice one to try. I'm telling you, keep your eyes on the South African wines...

The first red of the day was Ca’ del Solo Big House Red, again a mixture of about every red under the sun. The mixed nose reveals fruit, chocolate, and leather, and the medium mouth reveals a slightly sweet taste with fruit and leather then coming out. It was not as good on the finish, but was interesting.

The final wine of the day was Willamette Valley Pinot Noir, a most interesting surprise in that it in no way can be considered a textbook pinot. The nose is interesting, dusty leather and berries. The medium mouthfeel brings out berries and leather, with chocolate coming in long into the finish, with the finish itself being slightly sharp. Not at all what one expects from a pinot noir, but an interesting and fun wine to try.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Enjoy your day and your weekend.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Now, from the actions of all, it was clear that there was not a crisis, and apparently the person in trouble walked out and got on the gurney themselves. Oxygen mask and such went on, and all soon went away. A not atypical scene in many areas, but one that made me think.

I did not recognize or know the neighbor. I did not go outside and check on them or the situation. No one else did either. As I got back in bed, I thought back to my childhood and how the same situation had played out more than once. For it was different and that says something that we need to think about. Indeed, it said several things.

Today, I know my neighbors by sight far more than I do by name. A good bit of that is just my bad memory, but it also speaks to a bit more. I know the people in my breezeway, not well, but enough to say hi or nod to. When you think about it, I don’t really know them at all. The next breezeway is like another world, and I know no one there at all. I do know a couple of other neighbors: the lady in the building across from mine who works at my usual grocery; the chili head who lives near the mailbox building who is wonderful with animals and is owned by one or more parrots; the grandmother who is raising the charming 4-year-old. That’s about it.

In the past, I knew by name the neighbors on all sides of me, and most of the people for several hundred yards in each direction up and down the street. Shoot, we even knew some a block or two away – a huge distance for a small child. You knew when someone moved out, and you welcomed someone new moving in to the neighborhood.

When fire or ambulance vehicles came (police were a rarity on patrol or in response), you went and checked on where it was going. The neighbors came out and went to see, not just the sights, but if there was a way they could help. When the older neighbor approached a fireman to see how Vera was doing, she was treated politely, even if nothing could be said. She was never treated rudely, threatened with arrest, or manhandled – as things tend to go today.

Maybe it is the crowd thing, such that cops and others automatically see them as a threat. Perhaps it is much more. It is something to think about a bit, and about how I, and you, as individuals can do something about it. There is one thing I can do, and I will start doing it in the next few days: I can knock on some doors, and make some introductions. How about you?

-30-

« ...howl's done

Buzz Aldrin gave some good food for thought and was his usual tireless self. Even when I disagree with him, I respect him and what he does. While wedded to NASA and the current model, he is also up for a lot more commercial than currently takes place.

The economics panel went extremely well. The points that needed to be made were made and presented. At least some of the Commission members heard, listened, and understood. At least one of the members was obviously scared and/or horrified at the mere shadow of commercialism and profit, and that showed too. With luck, I will get to do some posts on some of the key issues raised next week.

The media panel was interesting, and well worth expanding in my book. Admittedly I am biased, but there were so many points raised that it was impossible to do them justice, on either side. The thing that interested me was that there was plenty of food for thought that needs to be chewed over here, by the Commission, by NASA, and by The Media, old and new. The one thing I did notice is that while two or more of us were blogging realtime, such was not apparently considered journalism by the staff. More than one mindset needs to be changed, and if things focus on the media that was, it will be the same as going back to Saturn Vs to enact the new vision.

The attendance was not nearly what I would have liked to see. Admittedly, it was a work day and all that, but this was a public forum/hearing for Citizens and to which Citizens had at least some chance in the drawing for making statements to the panel. As such, it was extremely disappointing.

Nor was the local Old Media much in attendance. I saw one reporter from AP, and that was about it. Maybe they covered things yesterday, but even the Commission members were commenting on the lack of local news coverage. Apparently, only the local Fox station had given any coverage to it that morning.

My other observations were all personal in nature. One member of the panel clearly loves to talk and/or hear themselves talk. Questions do not need to take five minutes to ask, especially when the actual question buried in the verbiage takes less than 30 seconds to state. I asked about one member, if they ever smiled. They reminded me much of a fire and brimstone preacher I knew in passing as a child, who perpetually glowered, knowing that somewhere, somehow, someone was having fun and they couldn’t stop it. This panel member had a similar expression and countenance, and in response to my query, the answer came back that they had not been seen to smile in the entire two days. I did get a brief semi-smile afterwards outside, when I passed them and wished them safe journeys, but very brief.

If you live in or near San Francisco or New York, you still have a chance to watch and maybe take part. I urge you to do so.

All in all, a productive and interesting day. What remains to be seen now, is what impact – if any – getting the message across about commercial space activities has on the panel.

-30-

« ...howl's done

What we truly face right now are two wars. The first is the root cause and the subject of much discussions, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. That war is the war on fantasy ideology, the war that was declared by bin Laden and those who think like him. Those that set in motion the attacks of 9-11, 3-11, and the so-called resistance movement in Iraq. It is the show and flash, but hides a second and more dangerous war.

That war is the one between the old way of politics and “doing business” and the new way. The old way was one of appeasement, greed, and thirst for power. It was and is nothing more than a continuation of medieval politics of nation states, but with dangerous new toys. The new way recognizes that the world has changed since the 1500s, and that most of all it has changed since 1776.

For the last two centuries, the Great Experiment that is America has played the international relations game by the old rules, despite the fact that America was a country of new rules. This makes sense when you think that America was a far cry from a power house in those early days. A powerful America did not really emerge until the late 1930s, and the full realization that we are a power, and indeed the last true superpower, has yet to sink into the psyche of most citizens. As a result, we have catered to the old boys club of international diplomacy, and accepted the idea that we were uncouth barbarians lucky, lucky mind you, to be allowed in the club at all given our appalling manners, lack of sophistication, un-appreciate of nuance, and the like.

For the last 60 or so years, the old members of the club have been hoping and praying that we would not wake up. That we could still be manipulated and controlled so that they would not have to give up those plush seats by the fire and all the other perks that came from being the bigwigs in the club. That they could regain faded glories and power, and once again earn those seats and perks. We have long catered to that fiction, comfortable with it and finding it something of a comfort given the mad world that was raging outside the windows.

To carry the analogy further, we have servants who function as staff and such, who take care of things at the club. They are the ones who arrange the parties, negotiate changes to the rules, and do all the things that allow the club to function. The servants, public servants as a matter of fact, are sworn to do what is best for the whole, yet they would be less than human if some self-gratification did not come from things. As with any such operation, there are ways to gain wealth and power, some legitimate and some not. The politics and alliances that allow this are complex, but the net result is that sometimes maintaining power means doing things that benefit that servant, and are not necessarily the best or right for the person sitting by the fire. When things get bad enough, it becomes obvious to those sitting around the fire, talking and drinking.

The gentleman in the chair has noticed. It has been clear for quite some time that some of the more elderly members have gone from being merely querulous to downright antagonistic. Only a blind man can’t tell that their servants are openly stealing and otherwise corrupt, and doing so in a way that puts him and his servant at a disadvantage. Worse yet, it is also clear that some of his servants care more about the goodwill of one or more of the other gentlemen, and the power and wealth that comes from maintaining the servant’s situation exactly as it is, rather than in doing what is right and best. For they are failing to deal with the barbarians trying to burn down the club. When the man tries to grab his sword and a bucket of water to take care of things, these other members scream at him, and actively prevent him from either putting out the fires or from killing the ones with the torches.

That is the situation we face. There are barbarians at the gate, and a second war within.

The choices this poses are not comfortable, and may pose a grave danger to The Republic and The Great Experiment it represents. The easy choice is to give up freedom, to go for an imperial leader and deal strictly by force of arms. Pax Americana. The opposite choice, and equally damning, is to give up freedom, and go for a socialist response that would maintain the illusion of power and control by the Old Powers, while adding a new and unchecked element in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. A third option exists, however, that threads the shoals and offers the chance of something truly new.

We take a page from the communists and socialists and export revolution.

Not just any revolution, but The Revolution. We export our ideas, our ideals, and our hope. The foundations of the Experiment go out to the world as seed.

This is no less than what is being done in Iraq as we speak. It is being done covertly in other areas and in a variety of ways. We don’t force our culture and choices on anyone, only the basic tools of freedom. What they do with those tools is then up to them. We can and should offer advice, assistance when needed and requested, and make sure that the Old don’t try to load the dice. The foreign drawback to this approach is that there will be failures, fixes, and wins by the Old. The foreign advantage to this is that there will be successes, and those successes will not only act as a beacon, but will export The Revolution to others as well. Success will breed success.

The domestic drawback is that we can, as we have always had the power to do, end our own Great Experiment and eliminate the freedoms that are its cornerstone. All will be done in the name of the greater good, of course, but it still is failure. It will still be letting the old ways win, by returning to the rule of the few instead of the Citizens. The domestic advantage is that we have the opportunity not merely to hold on to what we have, but to accelerate the process begun by the Founding Fathers. We can indeed bring individual liberty and responsibility to new heights, and prove the underlying postulates of The Great Experiment.

President Bush has not merely responded to the declaration of war by waging war, but he has also committed us to exporting The Revolution. In both wars, he has my support and in the export of The Revolution he has my full and unqualified support. On other fronts, that support is conditional and is subject to my concerns about maintaining and expanding the freedoms that we enjoy. I will not quietly sit by if we move to let the Old Ways win. I will not surrender my freedoms to any enemy, foreign or domestic.

Both of these are fights to the death, quite literally. The followers of fantasy ideology have made it clear that my physical death as well as the death of the culture and mores that I hold dear are their goal. The challenge is given and I accept it. If needs must, my life is a small price to pay to prevent them from achieving their goal.

As our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to The Revolution, so too must I for I can do no less than they; and, indeed I and every other Citizen today must do more. For that challenge was made to us by them, to not merely maintain but to grow, to advance ourselves and the world in which we live. That is a challenge truly worth accepting and I long ago accepted it. I swore holy oaths to that effect, and I do so again today before you all:

I, C. Blake Powers, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.

The duties I entered long ago are that as a Citizen, for this is what our forefathers committed us to, and what we must take up to discharge our duties to our nation and ourselves.

Are you prepared and willing to meet this challenge? Prove it.

Prove it by word, action, and deed. This is a heavy burden, and anyone who reads this oath and says they are not scared by it is either a fool or a liar. Meeting the challenges it poses is not an easy task, and will frequently cause a great deal of anguish and soul searching. It requires mental and physical agility, not rigidity, and the choices it presents are often painful, but the result is well worth the cost.

If you swear this oath, know that it requires you to truly think, as well as to act. The acts it requires are often onerous, and rarely are the do-or-die theatrics of the movies. It means that you have to vote, and most of all to be an informed voter. It means that you have to stay aware of much more than the latest hairdo of a given performer, but to be knowledgeable about the things that affect YOUR government, for that government and this nation are YOU. It means serving jury duty and giving fair and impartial consideration to the facts, rather than succumbing to emotionalism or self-interest. It means meeting the multitude of other duties that are required of a Citizen.

I made this choice long ago. I have made my choices on both wars, and openly and freely declare them in front of you. I will fight both wars tooth and nail, for both can destroy us, both can end our lives, and both can condemn us and our children to a future of slavery and servitude rather than to freedom.

So, who do you serve: the Old, or the New? The ideals of subjects and states, serfs and nobility, of cabbages and kings? Or, the idea that individuals are smart enough to rule themselves wisely? Of individual freedom and liberty for all?

What is your choice?

Choose wisely, for the future depends upon it.

-30-

« ...howl's done

It is an interesting experience getting in, as airport-style security has been set-up and I had to go back to the car and deposit my pocket knife before entering. Started to ask about the nail clippers, but decided not to push it. The site is interesting in that there are no publicly available drink or food machines, and only some people have access to bottled water and the like. Some are indeed more equal than others.

While I did not make it in time for all the sessions, I was here in time to here some of Buzz Aldrin’s comments. Buzz is, as ever, enthusiastic and made some good points. While I disagree with his focus on some things, he does bring up a number of interesting factors.

This is also a technology experiment for me. I had hoped to use Wi-Fi, but there is none in this building, or none that we can access at least. However, we do have Ethernet provided and I cheerfully making use of it. My trusty Nikon digital is here, along with a new multi-media card reader. If all goes well, I will try to post a picture or two this afternoon.

Things should start back momentarily, so stay tuned

1315 Hours: Mr. Michael E. Kearny, President and CEO of Spacehab is the first speaker. Things are running a bit behind, so let’s list some of the Players:

Chariman: Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge, Jr.
Gen. Lester L. Lyles (Ret.)
Dr. Laurie Leshin
Michael P. Jackson
Carly Fiorina
Dr. Paul Spudis
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Robert S. Walker
Dr. Maria T. Zuber
Steven G. Schmitt

The panel of interest to me is Commercial Space & Economic Feasibility. It will feature Mr. Kearny; Mr. Marco H. Caceres, Senior Analyst & Director Space, The Teal Group; Mr. Stephen Fleming, General Partner, EGL Ventures.

1323 Hours: Kearny: things have been challenging, but… Multiple contracts with NASA for Spacehab module and unpressurized pallets. Buy back un-used resources from NASA from own funds, sell to users. Contract has been good for NASA, but problematic as well. NASA not used to this type of contract, not normal way of government doing business. While all held to high ethical standards, not really working out as well. Discussions of different markets: Government launch and infrastructure vs. a typical robust market – in current market model, government is a limiting factor. Using commercial launch and infrastructure would benefit NASA and other customers. Six companies currently offer ability to take cargo to ISS at fixed price; government can go to fixed price contracts and get cargo to ISS in six months if they so choose. NASA should solicit bids for commercial services.

1330 Hours: Caceres: Analyst, determine what is real and what is not. Was skeptic on President’s proposal, but willing to be convinced. Thought it was a stunt, given lack of cost and other information. Gave benefit of the doubt to it, because we need more launch services, we want more launches, satellites, etc., We want our companies to make lots of money, benefit economy. No matter how much a long shot something seems, we include it in our forecasts, until proven otherwise. Examples include Teledesic, Iridium, etc. Yet, even with a system the size and complexity of Teledesic, people were hopeful and it was given the benefit of the doubt, all wanted it to succeed, general consensus was to see how Iridium went before getting excited about Teledesic. As things progressed, began to include in forecasts. Ultimately, Teledesic went nowhere; but, we took it seriously even when not included because we could see it being successful. More on timelines, noting all including ISS were within 10 years. Problem holding attention and approval for anything over 10 years. Industry tends to look at things 5-10 years out. World-wide mission model is a 10 year model. Anything over 10 is data, but not considered real. Chances are that anything over 10 will not be implemented as originally planned. Kennedy speech brought up, with 10 year goal. (seems to be writ in stone). Kennedy vision short-term, not long-term; would not have had same impact if stretched out. Average person can’t or won’t see that far out. Just 8 years to meet Kennedy’s challenge. Reagan challenge similar, but underestimated costs and delays and budgetary problems. ISS (NASA) came across as a program trying to stay alive at any cost, rather than a realistic program with high goals. Unique construction project, no more. Good for contractors, jobs, and politicians. Has not caught imagination of public. Suffered from space no longer being new, no cold-war race with Soviets. Somewhere along the way, public lost interest. Teledesic suffered similar fate.

1340: Caceres: ISS gives a good model of how NOT to do things. Current vision must move faster, better, etc. If keep linking moon and Mars, it will result in information overload to public, loss of interest, etc. De-link the two efforts, or see both go down.

1345: Fleming: Spaceflight has been government monopoly for 40 years, Wall Street has never invested. Quick history lesson. National Railroad Program in the 1870s would have been doomed to failure: Automobile program, same; National Airplane Program, same; so why did we end up with a National Space Program in the 60s? What happened? Private industry never really engaged, still no privately funded space flight, compare with Kitty Hawk. Said the four most dangerous words in the English Language “It’s different this time.” Dissection of Kennedy speech. Flags and footprints make a lousy business plan. Went to moon to early, never went back. Shuttle not profitable, ISS same, no real interest from industry in investing. Wandering in desert of government monopoly. We can afford this, but what can we do with it? Flags and footprints? Or develop an industry with full economic benefits. What if we go to Mars? Flags and footprints again, nothing of sustainable value. Commission has two missions: minimize costs, and break mindset. We don’t want a series of spectacular stunts, but building of benefits/infrastructure. Today, it cost about twice the object’s weight in gold to put it in orbit. Costs have got to come down 10x to 100x. That is going to control what we do in future space missions. $37.00 stamps; $1,500.00 Fed Ex; $200/gallon gas, imagine it. This is why Wall Street has stayed away. $10,000.00 wrenches and $3 million cost to get someone there to turn it, along with two years planning, it can’t be done. Yesteryday, heard from from entrepreneurs who can help lower these costs. Build them all, let the market sort it out. Provide the payloads, reasonable regulation, and that will bring the costs down. This will vastly help with options to go to the moon and beyond. How to do it: BE A CUSTOMER! Don’t insist on design control, let a thousand flowers bloom. Let entrepreneurs be creative, some will go broke, that is what capitalism is all about. This is what Wall Street will invest in. We will (need) to make space launch boring. Profitable industries are sustainable, government programs are not. With private industry, costs of missions to moon and Mars will drop 10 to 100 times. “Reach low orbit, and you’re halfway to anywhere in the Solar System,” Robert Heinlein.

Aldridge: You are all implying a major cultural change. Government will identify what needs to be done, then turn it over to industry, instead of how now done

Fleming: The post office did not tell the airlines how to run a plane or airline. They let them do it.

Kearney: follow-ups and similar points

Aldridge: What recommendation can we make?

Several points and examples, but all agreed that government should provide the payloads, and not try to manage launches, etc.

Carly: (Given all), why do you think Spacehab contract was let? What made them decide to do it that way at that time?

Kearney: (summation) NASA was looking at trying to stimulate commercialization at the time, and this was such effort. Discussion of various business models and such, and how market selects, how Spacehab has changed. Astounding that NASA did it. Discussions of extensive NASA paperwork to launch, how commercial customers can’t or won’t do it. How Spacehab does it all, meeting every point (emphasized to Gen. Lyles) for 20 percent of what it costs NASA. Discussion of complexity and paperwork, and contrasts commercial venture with Russians on napkin versus the massive paperwork and complexity with NASA. To get to moon and Mars, must be done differently from current.

Tyson: When I think of business model, I don’t think of one where only customer is government. With airplanes, other customers. Given excess launch capacity reported now, where do you say, how does this square with not having other customers to up usage rate? For that to work, do you need more than the government.

Fleming: Yes, you do need and yes there is/will be. Volume is key. Need mass production because all rockets built now are essentially hand made, unique. Need reliable mass production to bring down price. Government as customer helps make this possible. When cost starts dropping by half, then other markets open up.

Kearney: disputes excess launch capacity info, pointing out costs, lost business, etc. Research, commercial research, that would love to fly and can fly at $10,000/pound, but can’t get it.

Spudis: It is different this time. Learning to use space resources makes it so. This is a mission to change the paradyme by no longer dragging things up from gravity well. Seems incensed at flags and footprints line.

Walker: If we were to put out an RFP reasonably quickly, how soon would the half dozen or so companies be ready to deliver goods to ISS?

Kearney: 30-36 months, explanation, possibly sooner

Walker: Before the gap then?

Kearney: Yes. More discussion

Walker: Moon prize, is that a valid figure?

Fleming: Yes, discussion of same and potential profits. Prizes do not make a business plan, but they can stimulate technologies.

Carly: Not a question, but a summary: I think what we have heard today is that the President’s vision is bold, that we should approach this bold goal with focus and a sense of urgency, we have heard that we have to approach it with the full set of resources at our disposal,; but fundamentally I think what we have heard is that we need to be more bold, to restructure the way we do things.

NOTE: THESE ARE NOT QUOTES, PARAPHRASES AT BEST

Fleming: I agree. Railroads as model, discussion

Caceres: You have to be bolder, we are a different society now

Kearney: discussion of free market and what it can do, now people can drive and change things. Pointed out that no customers on airmail flights, no passengers really at that time. Only later did that come about.

Jackson: If we are going to do business in a different model, I want to know what the whole toolkit looks like. I understand can’t lay out everything, but that being said ti seems the launching of the new model that seems the hardest. What other things can we use to help that. Investment, prizes, etc. Long discussion of various government agencies and programs. Should there be international help?

Fleming: what tools? Lot can be learned from DoD, part. DARPA. Make things more friendly to startups. DARPA model could go a long way to jump starting

Kearney: on the subject of FAR, there are ways. FAR part 12 gives mechanism as boilerplates can be waived. Multiple suppliers, fixed price. Second issue first and foremost when you are doing a business case is the market. How many will I be able to sell. First step is creating a stable and profitable market with multiple suppliers so that there is competition.

???: Brands? On Sides of Rockets?

Kearney: Why not? From a commercial perspective, if it is safe and won’t harm the astronauts, we don’t care.

Fleming: Advertising is good, and NASA should be able to advertise.

End of panel, thanks.

Courtesy of Stephen Fleming, here is his presentation:

Hope this works... It does, drag to desktop or click whatever is required to download it to your desktop...

Media panel underway, some of it preaching to the choir here. Mr. Daniel Stone, President and CEO , Space Holdings (Space.Com, etc.) up taking NASA to the woodshed on outreach, PIO, etc.

The Commercial Space & Economic Feasability Panel

Lot of good ideas and comments from media panel. Some things they call for, such as advertising and marketing, are illegal. That is why NASA does not do them. That is why NASA does Outreach instead. Interest is there, just needs to be tapped.

Discussion of multi-media, HD, etc., and how it can help with involvement.

Lyles: Rating top agencies to work, WaPo, how public doesn’t know NASA at top; AF experience, crisis in recruiting; is NASA at a crisis point?

Stone: Yes. At point, beyond. Special time given all that is going on. Comments on IRS and NASA as most visited gov sites, bet is that NASA is most popular. While there are ways NASA can piggyback, it will require a lot of money but it is money well spent. Good investment. NASA has advantage of having their brand on others.

Robbins: conversation with Whitson, ISS, focus on science. Realize now that didn’t have a lot to talk about, because not a lot of science going on. So if you are going to market NASA what are you going to do? People are kind of holding back a bit to see if this vision is real, if there is a cogent program that makes sense. More discussion, point is that by time Apollo 12 took off, interest had begun to plummet. Public didn’t think that one thing was building on another, leading somewhere else.

Discussion

Lyles: Rating top agencies to work, WaPo, how public doesn’t know NASA at top; AF experience, crisis in recruiting; is NASA at a crisis point?

Stone: Yes. At point, beyond. Special time given all that is going on. Comments on IRS and NASA as most visited gov sites, bet is that NASA is most popular. While there are ways NASA can piggyback, it will require a lot of money but it is money well spent. Good investment. NASA has advantage of having their brand on others.

Robbins: conversation with Whitson, ISS, focus on science. Realize now that didn’t have a lot to talk about, because not a lot of science going on. So if you are going to market NASA what are you going to do? People are kind of holding back a bit to see if this vision is real, if there is a cogent program that makes sense. More discussion, point is that by time Apollo 12 took off, interest had begun to plummet. Public didn’t think that one thing was building on another, leading somewhere else.

Robbins: need to change NASA? Need to change culture of academia! Need to assure them that it is okay to talk in plain terms. Discussion. If science community is not speaking in a clear voice, then I can’t put it in paper. NASA needs people who can translate into plain language. Science, academic community need to do this.

Tyson: Mercury 7, didn’t have to advertise. Marketing is a four letter word because when you hear that you have to convince people to like it, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. How handle? (much longer to make point).

Stone: has to be somewhere in middle, served up in a way that children will be willing to consume. Bit of arrogance in deciding what is good for you. Has to be truth and credible, but consumable. That is not a four letter word.

Robbins: JPL and good media relations. JSC, no.

Tyson: Could you judge between interest in space as represented by missions and space as represented by scientific discovery? Can you judge where split is?

Stone: yes, baseline at Space.Com is on astronomy and scientific discovery, surges when missions, over time what we have seen is an increase in the base as more people sucked in by missions, which brings it together. What we do is help bring those worlds together, ties it all together. Not discrete, but a whole.

Robbins: Doesn’t need launch, just be interesting. Get info out in a way that is compelling, and it will be received. Flintsone factor. If scientists can better convey what they do, it will get out.

More to come?

Well, some at least. I am here with Michael Mealling of Rocket Forge who is also live blogging. Actually, I think he is true live while I am semi-live. :) Not sure how much I will cover the rest today, but will just see how it goes. Some of the key points I wanted to hear and see made, and both are satisfied.

Public statements going on right now. Dog's breakfast. Hope Michael gets to speak, not one of the first four names called. Nor among the next two names called. Drat.

Some good points being made, about removing some of the fear of failure, leadership, and more. Some very interesting points and comments as well. Keeps it interesting. Most is very predictable. Drat again. Lots of buy in to current model and mindset. Double drat.

Michael still not one chosen to speak. Bleep.

NEOs have come up, not surprised. NEO=Near Earth Object. Wait one, not an Armagetdown or similar bad movie thing, seems to be focusing on exploration potential. No exploitation mentioned yet, but different. Nice twist.

Michael not chosen yet again. Bleep.

One speaker passes; latest is author who wrote a book about the truth about Challenger, headed where? Clear to him that NASA charter needs to be overhauled and that is how to implement all these great ideas. Second point is that to be in space business without heavy lift capability is essential. Build the rocket and they will come. Finally, propulsion R&D is vital. Cryo, nuke, etc. all need to be explored. Need to hit, and restore the total belief that the American public owns NASA. It has to be the will of the people. Decide, then go forward, lots of rah rah, offers his services.

Next speaker makes points, including low turnout, lack of coverage here. Reaching out is important, because solid public support is a must.

Third public hearing is concluded. I intend to visit, get some good Indian food, and head back home.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The fact is, we must learn from the past without becoming bound to or by it. Too strong an adherence to tradition and traditional modes of thought can be just as damaging as blind adherence to radical thought just to be different. There are lessons here that stand forth, and provide some starkly defined choices.

The fact that cannot be ignored in all of this is that we are at war. There are people out there who have sworn to destroy all who do not believe as they believe and all that they feel is profane. Since this includes most of modern civilization, from hygiene to music to art to abstract ideas such as freedom and individual choice, it is a war against civilization. These followers of a fantasy ideology want to return the world to a simpler time, a time of hunger, brutality, savagery, and worse. A time in which they rule, and all who live – especially those who were or are infidels – live to serve them. Make no mistake that we are at war.

The fact is also clearly evident that this is not a law enforcement matter. Law enforcement has been tried for decades when one considers the case of Israel, and it has failed. It has failed in all cases to stem the tide and provide safety and viability for civilization as it currently exists.

The fact is, we have returned the favor and entered into war. Two governments are down, and the umbrella organization is pursued on many levels. A new government is forming in Iraq, a counter to Iran and the Afghanistan that was, and the winds of change are blowing across the Middle East as a result.

The fact is, that Iraq was not made a peaceable land of milk and honey overnight, and no one ever said it would be. This is a project for years and decades, perhaps even centuries, not of mere days. The good fairy what sits in the sky is not going to magically wave its wand and make everything right: it is going to take hard work and sacrifice by everyone.

The question before us is simple: What do we do now? The answers are not simple ones, nor are they easy. There are three basic answers and they entail risk, heartache, destruction, and more. One of them leads to peace and prosperity in the shortest time, but with a high cost. One leads eventually to peace and prosperity, but comes at an even higher cost. The final one leads to the fall of civilization as we know it, and the highest cost of all.

We will start with the highest price of all: the choice of surrender. That choice is ours to make. We can look at this war and its costs, and we can despair. It can be decided that the price is too high, and the choice made to hand victory to the other side. They can establish their theocracy and make the fantasy ideology the law of the world. Social, scientific, and all other progress can be stopped. We can return to an effective stone-age level of existence, slavery, and all that entails in hopes of saving lives and showing respects to the beliefs of others.

Such thought automatically assumes that there will be reciprocity, and that other beliefs will be respected. Yet, in every area where this fantasy ideology has been allowed power, the opposite has been shown. There has been no respect, no tolerance, nor any other norm of civilized behavior. Women become as property, to be controlled and used and abused. Those of other faiths or beliefs, or who dare challenge in any way the mullahs and leaders, are killed. There are mass graves in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran to prove this.

Nor would all the millions of deaths be acts of direct violence. Returning to this simpler time means the elimination of modern farming, animal husbandry, and food distribution. We are talking the most basic of agriculture and herding after all, and this will not be sufficient to maintain populations as they currently exist. Stalin and others have proven that famine can kill troublesome populations just as neatly as a bullet, and at far less cost. This is not a lesson that has been lost by our enemies. Factoring into this also is the loss of medical advances and research, as well as the modern medical establishment. The latter depends heavily on the very infrastructure targeted for destruction to work. Think about that a bit.

So, we do have the option of surrender, of giving up our freedoms and becoming slaves in the hope it will save lives. Yet, there is also the certainty that ultimately this will not work and will have an extremely high body count, if not the highest count of all.

There is a middle road for those who hate to make a firm decision. We can return to a law enforcement approach with very limited military action. We can withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, and abandon the people there to whatever fate awaits. We can refuse decisive action for the most noble of reasons, try to establish international good will, return to the game of old and all the old ways and corruption. The old ways that saw hundreds of thousands die, the rape and torture of as many more, and the degradation of millions. The ways of Stalin and Hitler, the gulags and the death camps, the whip and the pistol.

We can once again let despotism flourish within safe havens, and fire yet again the mighty guns of U.N. resolutions and endless talk. We can watch as our enemies not merely return to previous strengths, but grow. We can watch as they finish the race to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and deploy them in a unified fashion.

Most of all, we can count on continued attacks. 9-11, 3-11, and everyday attacks like those in Israel will be the rule, not the exception. The temptation will be great to give up freedoms for the illusion of safety, and we will gain neither. We will destroy ourselves from within, and in so doing grant victory to the other side. We can do so until such time as someone finally says enough, and moves to end the problem once and for all.

Or, we can do that now. We can say “ENOUGH!” and finish the fight. We can do all that is needed to end this madness right now. We can stay the course and do the work of decades so that Iraq and Afghanistan become beacons of democracy despite the naysayers and those who oppose such out of simple venal greed. We can apply our military, we can apply our aid, we can allow private organizations and private enterprise to enter the fray as well. We can commit to total war as our enemies have done.

Our version of total war is different however. Where necessary, we apply overwhelming force of whatever type is needed. Where our enemies murder the innocent, we will eradicate the murders. We will succor the wounded. We will build schools and teach not just ideas, but ideals. We will unleash the cruelest and most horrendous thing known in the world: hope. For hope denied is suffering unimaginable. Yet, hope fulfilled is the greatest gift of all. Hope is never easy, but then again neither are great things.

Yes, we will see soldiers die. We will see the innocent suffer. The difference in these futures, however, is that if we fight we will limit the damage by ending the threat once and for all, in the most expedient means possible. Total war is the shortest and least costly route to peace. We will give comfort to those afflicted, hope to those with dreams, and most of all we will give them the intellectual and physical tools needed for them to build a better future for themselves.

Therein lies the key. You see, in the first two choices given, we make the choice for not merely for ourselves but for the world. In the final choice, we make the choice simply for us, not for anyone else. For you are either with us, or against us. You are either for freedom and prosperity, or you are for the terrorists. If you are a terrorist, you will be destroyed. If you are with us, we are your friends and we will stand by you. We give the ultimate gift to the world, freedom; and, we let them choose what to do with it. All we can and should do is provide them the tools, all else is up to them.

If you read the writings of those from Iraq, you can already see this process starting. If you read the writings of those from Iran, you see the hope building that they too will have a future of freedom. Hope is already spreading.

In the days ahead, think upon the three choices. Take the time to explore them and consider the options between them. Then think some more. The choices you make in the days ahead will decide which choice is made, and thus the future of this world. The future is in your hands. Choose wisely.

-30-

« ...howl's done

9-11 ended everything that came before, on more than one level. It was then that chance and fate changed all the assumptions and all the games that were then in motion. Bin Laden himself has admitted that it worked far better than he had planned, even though the entire plan was not carried out. Citizens living up to their responsibilities and the immediate grounding of all planes stopped thing cold.

The one thing 9-11 was not, was a declaration of war. That had actually occurred many years before, and was even a formal document. It was a fatwah, rather than an act of congress, parliament, or the like, but it was a declaration of war all the same. The initial acts of war were not seen as such, and largely ignored or dismissed. Rubbing salt into the wounds of such dismissal was the treatment by the U.S. of these acts as law enforcement issues. This ignoring could not be borne, and along with a failure to do anything other than symbolic retaliation and running away, guaranteed that something larger would be done. Like a kid having a temper tantrum, bin Laden and all those organizations who were under the Al Queda umbrella were determined to be noticed.

They succeeded.

And they failed as well.

America was indeed shocked at the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It has changed our society and brought these people to the full attention of the government of the Republic. It has failed to hold the attention of most Citizens of the Republic. For that majority, this is not a real war. After all, it was not a nation that attacked us, but a group of insane fanatics. It was a symbolic act, reinforced by coverage in the Old Media that focuses entirely upon the symbol of Ground Zero, and willfully ignores that which lies beneath.

The attacks on the World Trade Center were indeed symbolic, and their loss has become a symbol to this country. The problem is, that by focusing on the symbology, the true act of war is lost. The attacks on Washington DC were not symbolic, but calculated acts designed to limit an effective response. Those attacks were designed both to prevent full retaliation and engagement against not only the umbrella, but all enemies around the world. It was designed to cripple and maim the command and control of America.

Never forget that.

Responsible members of government have not done so. The shock, the horror, the awe, and the anger of that day did something that bin Laden and a host of others who contributed to this never considered: it changed the game. The old games and the old rules were out the window. The sleeping giant was waking up, and it was not happy.

That was said very clearly by President Bush, who informed the world that you were either with us, or with the terrorists: so choose. To those wrapped up in the games, this was mere rhetoric. To those who were listening and paying attention, it was the announcement of a totally new game with very new and deadly rules. Examples were needed, and they were found.

Afghanistan was the first to find out that America was serious. Rhetoric and such were no match for troops and bombs, and the Taliban was removed from power. Not gone, but removed and hunted. Unlike the last 60 or so years, America did not cut and run. America committed to the long haul and began reforming and rebuilding that nation, and it is a long-term project. America also tried the full international monty, by having other nations and the United Nations take part.

That has not been entirely successful. To no one’s surprise, the United Nations has done very little in Afghanistan. At the first backfire of a vehicle, the agencies involved cut and run. It has been two plus years since the Taliban fell, and efforts to bring control and government are still fledgling at best because the international community is not truly backing it. Only the U.S. and a few key allies have troops and aid organizations out and doing anything much beyond Kabul city limits. Take a hard look at what is being done by the U.N. in Afghanistan, and then look at what is being done by individual countries and private aid organizations. The difference is astounding. The difference was noted by the government of the Republic as well.

The next example reached the world, and those playing the old games were not happy. Iraq tried to continue its game of bluff and bluster, as well as providing financial and other real support to the terrorists. They were warned, they were given every chance in the world to straighten up and fly right. They did not. Saddam and that government are gone.

The world was horrified. Or, rather, the world of the old games was horrified. That cowboy, that ignorant American was serious. Mon dieu! Did he not understand the game? After all, it had been being played for nearly 100 years. You made the token attack, you postured, and you bribed. In the process, you also took bribes, kickbacks, and more so that you made personal fortunes while advancing your country. Who cared if it was at the expense of others, it was THE GAME! It was politics as usual.

But it wasn’t politics as usual. The President meant what he said and said what he meant. Such was unheard of in modern politics. The ramifications scare many, and their fear shows.

They are right to be scared, for this is an entirely new game and they have not adapted well. Worse yet, a lot of nasty things have been exposed for the world to see, if it has the will to do so.

First off, America completed the fastest military action of all time, in taking out a major nation in a matter of weeks. This nation on paper was very powerful, with one of the largest and best equipped armies in the world. Using new tactics and weapons, this army was neutralized rapidly. In that few weeks, for just a few hundred casualties, the war was won. Nothing like this has ever been done before. Even today, there are less than 500 total combat casualties for the war and the rebuilding phase. Yes, less than 500 – the figure used so often in the Old Media includes not just combat casualties but accidents, illness, etc.

One major fact ignored in the Old Media about this rapid campaign was the intelligence windfall it produced. Among the papers grabbed early on were lists of bribes paid to journalists, politicians, and other opinion makers around the world. There were accounts of the massive corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program. There was more, so much more.

France stands exposed for a lot of crooked dealings, deliberately betraying a formal ally to an enemy of said ally, and there are interesting suggestions that a number of individuals will be exposed as being on Saddam’s payroll. Her immediate dreams of power and wealth from Iraq thwarted, France is concentrating on trying to control the EU and bullying Taiwan with its new best friend Communist China. The picture here is far from pretty.

Germany is trying hard to be a dominant power in the EU, but its economy is now in shambles and some interesting things are coming to light there as well. Including what may be government collusion in dealings by German companies to provide Saddam and his friends with technology banned by the U.N. Again, not a pretty picture.

Russia is less than happy at the loss of hard currency that Saddam represented, along with exposure of its violations of sanctions and such. The extent of what went on here may not be known for decades, as there is some vested interest in the U.S. for making that so and preventing Russia from becoming a very serious problem in other ways.

One unexpected occurrence was Libya seeing the light in a big way. Concerned that they were the real target, or next, Libya came clean about a lot of bad things. The prize on this was the underground nuclear network being run by Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, and North Korea, with apparent help from China and others. Interesting indeed, and casts an interesting light on France’s “new” relationship with China, given France’s role in early efforts by Saddam to develop nuclear weapons. Efforts only thwarted by an Israeli airstrike that took out reactor, cover, and research. Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea are reportedly very unhappy with Libya over this. One other nation is reported to be as well, but until there is something citable out there, Moi will hold fire.
Now, let’s turn to Iraq itself. Saddam is out of power and his venomous sons are dead. The rape rooms for children and adults are closed. The torture chambers are closed. The use of chemical and other weapons – weapons of mass destruction – against segments of the population has ended. The imprisonment of children as weapons against their parents is over. The mass executions are ended. The feeding of people into tree chippers is ended. The list goes on. The Iraqi people now have the opportunity for a better future.

Of greater importance from the viewpoint of the war, the funding and training assistance provided by Iraq is now gone. Whatever other support and assistance may have been taking place, or planned, is now gone. The sharing of intelligence from the services of Iraq or provided by alleged allies of the U.S. is now gone.

We must not forget, however, that certain things have also been exposed in the U.S. Serious flaws in intelligence have been revealed. Just as politicians abroad are showing their true stripes, so to are politicians in the U.S. Some are rising to the occasion. Others, alas, still try to play by the old rules and are interested in continuing to mouth the platitudes and gain power for themselves. By their acts, so shall ye know them. That, however, is for another day.

So, where are we right now? Two governments that supported terror and the fundamentalist war against the U.S. and all other infidels are gone. Politicians around the world stand exposed for what they are. Most of all, we stand exposed for what we truly are. By our decisions, so too shall we be revealed.

Tomorrow: The future.

-30-

« ...howl's done

This is the Barrett M82A1. It will cost about $9,000.00 decked out.

Now, what I will take is the following:

This is the Armalite AR50, and it is a bit under half the cost of the Barrett. I figure that I have a much better chance of getting it than the Barrett, so…

Thanks again to Aaron for starting this great idea last year, and continuing it again this year. Go make a donation to his fund too, so he can get his first! Blogopoly Rules!

-30-

« ...howl's done

The fact is that Iraq and its leader both served as a useful fool for a variety of interests, and made full use of useful fools elsewhere in support of its imperial ambitions. Even as other countries were using it for this purpose, they were being used as well. Nor did such use stop there. It can and should also be said that Iraq was a useful tool as well, for that is where things started.

Saddam’s rise to power was not an earthshaking event for most, including his neighbors. The methods used, his reliance on clan, and other such factors were pretty much par for the course. From the start, he made full use of others to advance and enhance his position.

The Soviet Union/Russians were very interested in him because he not only could prove to be a client state, he was also a client state who could pay in cash and other coin. He provided a ready market for weapons and systems, military advisors, and other delights. As Soviet fortunes changed, the relationship changed as well as he became a bulkwark for the Soviet presence in the Middle East. Through him, they balanced the U.S. presence in the region and managed to make money at the same time.

Yet, there was more to it than mere hard currency. What better place to test and develop than someone else’s country? What better place to spread or foment discord than through an intermediary? Finally, what better place to counter the growing Islamic/Islamic fundamentalism problem in parts of the Soviet Union, than through a Middle Eastern state?

Nor was the Soviet Union the only one playing this game. France was also involved, well past its eyebrows. At this point, France had only the most tenuous claim to being a world power, a fact that grated raw upon it. The empire was gone, client states were in revolt, and the economy was in shambles. A significant part of this economy was a weapons production complex intended to show that France was indeed still a major player in the world. France alone could not keep it afloat, so exports were needed. Iraq was a major market for that, for nuclear systems, and more. In return, France and her politicians could count on hard currency, oil, and other delights flowing their way.

There were deeper games here as well. France was determined to be a presence in the world, and that mean that it had to oppose both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. France wanted and needed to be a superpower, a kingmaker, and more, and Iraq gave it the perfect opportunity.

Saddam’s neighbors were also involved in things. They may or may not have liked him at the start, but most importantly he was a semi-known quantity. The main parts were simple: he wanted power and more power. He wanted a dynastic reign and to become, in effect, yet another Arab royal family. This and related issues were well understood and used by the neighbors.

As with the others, there were currents below the surface as well. There was the need to have him on board in terms of oil, so that OPEC and the Middle East could maintain and expand economic power. There was the fact that Iraq could also be useful in developing weapons to use against Israel, weapons that could then be decried by said neighbors once Israel was no more. There were also minor things like port and ocean access, trade routes, and other factors as well. As the years went on, Saddam became an integral part of slowing down the Islamic revolution and the spread of fundamentalism (and the rise of the Mullahs).

The United States as interested in Iraq for the obvious Cold War reasons, but also because it provided a means to fight against both the Islamic Revolution and OPEC. It was a long-shot, but Iraq and Saddam offered a means of slowing the revolution and as a secular state very interested in number one, it also provided a potential lever for moderating OPEC. The U.S. neither liked nor trusted Saddam, but saw him as a temporarily useful tool for a brief time.

Bin Laden was interested in Saddam for several reasons. First, he could provide funds. More importantly, however, was that he could provide areas for training, intelligence for operations, weapons of all types, and serve as a lightning rod to keep attention focused away from ben Laden and his merry band. If he succeeded in his dreams, so much the better for it would be a blow to the U.S. and the fall of the House of Saud. If he was destroyed, no great loss (infidel and all) and potential gain yet again. .

Saddam, on the other hand, saw all of the above as both useful tools and useful fools. Everyone was a source of cash, weapons, technology, and the power he craved. His goals were far more lofty than many realized, for ultimately he wanted the majority of the Middle East as his kingdom. A student of history, he was fascinated by Hitler and Stalin, and made full use of certain lessons.

One of them was to keep track of his “friends” and the gifts provided. He bought what he could, and people of influence were merely a tool for him. The records he kept were more than simple accounting, they were a lever to use against those “friends” at need. What use the carrot without the lash?

He was also aware of the original “useful fools” concept and played to it. Like many in power, he was aware of both the Wilsonians and the utopianists who came to the fore around the time of WWI. Just as such people supported Lenin and the Revolution, Saddam knew that they could be brought into play to support him. They would either never see or would overlook the truth in support of the dream. They would be useful in delaying actions against him, or in encouraging support of him and they were a part of his plan from the start.

So, between being a useful tool and being thought a useful fool, he built his power and position. Somewhere in the process, however, he began to believe his own propaganda. To make it worse, no one would tell him the truth about things out of fear, for themselves, and their families. The stories got out, but were easy to dismiss as fantasies, for who would believe tales of mass murder, random and systematic rape, torture, and more in this enlightened age? Mere lies, of course, spread by enemies of Saddam and the utopian dream.

Kuwait was the miscalculation writ large for the world to see. It exposed the fallacy of the neighbors who thought they could control him. It exposed the fallacy of the Soviets/Russians who thought they could control him. It confirmed for the U.S. that he was a danger and not subject to control. It made him even more valuable to bin Laden, because it not only presented an opening to be exploited, it also brought the United States into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and opened the full doors to jihad. It also exposed the problems in the system to Saddam and his top advisors, but these were things they did not want to see.

There were lessons aplenty, but many were lost or ignored in the chaos. We must not loose them today, even in retrospect, for they still play large upon the world stage.

Tomorrow: The Present.

-30-

« ...howl's done

One of the few things that I liked about The Passion of the Christ was the fact that it at least obliquely pointed out the extremely fractured situation of the time. This was not merely the kingdoms, but the many different sects of religion and religious belief – even within well established religions. That fracture, that zealotry, is the foundation for what is happening today. Ignore it at your peril.

Nor am I going to spend a great deal of time on the foundation of the modern Arab state and the countries that now form the Middle East. That too is fascinating, and bears strongly on modern events. The many lies told, on both sides, and the lack of faith in dealings remains fresh upon the psyche of many in power. Nevermind that the events occurred a hundred or even a thousand years ago, the culture of the region keeps such things forever green in the fields of the mind.

No, for today I am going to go back to the 70s, and start there. Israel had been formed through blood and fire, and this had not gone over well. The fact remained that the so-called modern Arab states had staked all on preventing this, and failed. They tried hard to remove it by force of arms, and failed. This had an effect completely out of proportion to reality, for it involved psychology and the psychology of religion.

To many, it was clear that normal force of arms would not prevail, so they decided to adopt time honored methods used in the region against occupiers: they decided on passive and not-so-passive resistance. You block as much as you can passively, and when opportunities arise, you use force to kill and destroy. The official cooperation that exists with local “leaders” masks the reality of the operations. That same prelate who screams and tears his beard to the Macedoneans/Romans/British/etc. over an incident oft was involved with planning and executing the outrage. They were most especially involved with reaping the rewards of same. There is not a clan, tribe, race, or culture in the region that has not done this to greater or lesser extent.

Yet, this time, there was a crucial difference: Israel. This was no longer a patience, and the invader will eventually go away in disgust thing. It was, instead, a we-must-destroy thing. This presented certain opportunities to the Soviet Union and its philosophical adherents. Given that the U.S. had backed Israel, this immediately and forever made them an enemy to the modern Arab states and all who followed most of the major sects (and quite a few minor) of Islam. The religious and other fallacies can be debated ad infinitum, but the fact will remain that this is in practice a very true statement.

It did not help things that this occurred during an upsurge in fundamentalism in religion. This was not limited to any one religion and was instead a global event. It was, however, particularly true to and in Islam. Like most religions, Islam was having a crisis with the modern world. The fact is that things now are not as they were 2,000 years ago. While this does not/should not have any bearing on the core beliefs of any religion, it has a heck of a lot to do with the secondary beliefs and outward manifestations. Those outward signs and behaviors were no longer relevant in the modern world.

Simply as a quick example, look at the ritual of washing of feet. In a day with no paved roads, no sewage systems, and simple wooden sandals, this was much more than mere ritual. It was necessary, it was proper, and it was right for the day. In a day with modern transportation, footware, and sewage, it is no longer a necessity. Yet, it is an ancient custom called forth in several religious works, which in turn leads to many questions. Should it still be practiced? How should it be practiced? Why?

The reality is much more complex, but this is a good example of things facing a number of beliefs that sprang from the Middle East. Changes in society, advances in scientific knowledge, and other factors of modern life challenge not religion, but the outward practices of same. In all religions, there are those who hold that as things were, they must forever be. These fundamentalists can be quite extreme, and a unique combination of forces made them even more so in terms of Islam and the Middle East.

The regimes that were opposed to Israel quickly realized the power of such fundamentalism and embraced it, as a means of retaining and expanding power. This was aided and abetted by the Soviet Union and others, who saw it was a way to fight the U.S. and U.S. interests by proxy, and obtain defacto control over a region of critical importance to them. This was more than warm water ports, it was oil. Everyone wanted and needed it, and it became the basis of most policy in the region. Net result was that several regimes became actual or de facto military regimes with Soviet help and supply. Most of those turned towards more fundamental religion as a means of appeasing and controlling the masses.

This is contrasted with other countries who tried to carry both worlds. They wanted to be modern and progressive, and make the most of the world. The fact is, however, that they were easy to paint as weak, decadent, and lacking in faith. Add to that severe repression, as in the case with Iran, and you have the potential for disaster. A disaster that came with a fundamentalist revolution, and a massive change in Middle Eastern politics and religion. Suddenly, there was a state that existed according to very fundamental religious doctrine, and that state was a beacon to others of like mind. It also served as a staging ground for exporting revolution against unbelievers, and did so quite effectively.

This was a threat to other states, so some balance was needed. Most of this was accomplished through Iraq, with a blind eye turned by its neighbors onto many of its practices in the name of expediency. This did stop some of the direct pressure, but it still allowed and encouraged the spread of a particular school of Islamic fundamentalism. Most states turned a blind eye to this, fearing the consequences of opposing it.

Add to this mix a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and resultant guerrilla war, and the ultimate creation of yet another hard-line fundamentalist state, and you get a lot of very nervous countries. You also get a person named bin Laden.

Now here we have a person who is an extreme fundamentalist, bright, and at a unique place in history. He has the chance to help fight one of the evil oppressors of his land, an oppressor who has not only invaded a country of the faith, but also has prevented other Arab nations from destroying Israel. He is well aware that most Arab countries would rather just let things lie in regards Israel, but that public and religious opinion limit this option. Seemingly a born organizer, he begins organizing not only the resistance in Afghanistan, but like-minded groups around the world. Groups that are primarily Islamic, but also all those opposed to Israel and any who would support her – such as the United States.

The fact is that Al Queda has always been an umbrella organization. There really is no vast network of this organization: it is a vast network of individual cells and organizations that have agreed to work together. In this respect, it is much like the hydra of myth, for with the loss of the head many new heads will spring forth. They have been there all along, but have simply chosen to subordinate themselves to bin Laden in return for plans, intelligence, financing, etc.

Bin Laden and his organization are extremely pragmatic. They accept aid from the U.S. and other “enemies” to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. They accept aid from Iraq, even though they are technically an enemy, though that is kept quiet to avoid problems with Iran and others. Iran is an ally, but they do not have the oil and other revenues that Iraq can provide. They even accept money and aid from fellow travelers in Saudi Arabia, though they despise the government. What matters is not the short term, but the long term. Using the base provided by fundamentalist rulers in Iran and Afghanistan, they want to take their war to the world.

Well, not specifically the world. Right now, there is one major obstacle to plans to convert the modern Middle East into an Islamic theocracy and destroy Israel: The United States of America. America is the enemy on so many levels it can’t be counted. It supports Israel. It exerts considerable power in the Middle East. It is a decadent culture that produces entertainment and other products that are an anathema to their version of the faithful. It stands as a beacon of all that is against them. Clearly, this power must be destroyed, because while they are not yet ready to take their war to the full world, the full world is indeed their goal. First the Middle East, then Asia, then Africa, the Europe, then the rest. But first, the United States must be driven from the Middle East and reduced as a power, so that it cannot stop what is to come.

Thus begins a series of small-scale attacks against the U.S., and a general increase in Middle Eastern terrorism – particularly against Israel. The more that situation can be compounded, the better. It keeps the world focused elsewhere and it almost guarantees condemnation of Israel no matter what. All the better if Israel can be pushed into doing foolish things. The Gulf War shows that direct force of arms will not work for now, but it also sets the stage for exporting the way of ages in the Middle East.

Saddam is an infidel and enemy to them, but he is a useful fool. He helps support these efforts openly and clandestinely, and indeed gleefully takes center stage in his support of murder and terror in Israel. This helps mask what is to come by keeping people focused on him. So, we get the towers, the embassies, and even the first attempts on the World Trade Center. Rather than being treated as the acts of war that they are, they are relegated to law enforcement which has no power outside of the United States.

Then came 9-11, and a strategic miscalculation. Yet, that is for tomorrow, when we look at that which lies beneath.

-30-

« ...howl's done

It is a very honest book in terms of self-revelation, and it offers an insight into how one person became a firefighter. The book touches on many things, but focuses on the author’s journey in life and his faith, and how his faith brought him to this calling. He makes no bones about the fact that he speaks only for himself, but it also offers a fascinating glimpse into the mentality – and courage – it takes for people to rush into disaster, instead of away from it.

A literary great it is not, though there are echoes of Report from Engine Company 82 in it, a book I much loved as a youth. What it is, is the start of something larger and greater, that Stuart must now write and finish. But, it is a start that is well worth the read. It moved me on several levels, and gave me pride in what he has done and is doing. Sometimes we miss that with the people with whom we share childhood, and I am glad for the opportunity. Good Job, Stuart.

-30-

« ...howl's done

At Pauli’s yesterday, we tasted six wines from Graham Beck Wines and I had a very large surprise. Actually there were several surprises, but the major one was in the number of wines I really liked and can recommend. When you do tastings, you encounter a large percentage that are at best average, with many of the remainder falling well below that. Out of the six tasted yesterday, I can recommend all six and strongly recommend three for the summer.

We started with Graham Beck Waterside White 2002, which is a blend of Chardonnay and Columbard grapes. Now, I admit that I am part of the backlash against Chardonnay because so many have become so one-dimensional, and that dimension is oak. This delightful wine shows what you can do with Chardonnay when you have balance. The nose was quite nice, with dusty flowers holding forth over fruit. This followed into the body, which has a good mouthfeel, crisp at the start going rich with tropical fruit. The finish is nice, with green pear and kiwi showing up at the sides. Not a trace of oak anywhere, and a refreshing white to sip on a hot summer afternoon, either by itself or with fruit and light cheeses.

The second wine was Graham Beck Sauvignon Blanc 2