And discussion about the wisdom of going to Iraq in 2003 is worthless now. We did go to Iraq. No one can change that now. We cannot reverse decisions made in 2003 now in 2014. That's water over the dam. Talking about it won't change it.
Responsibility is discussing what we do now that it's hit the fan. Not carping about the rightness or wrongness of going there in 2003.
I don't see any good options. The Malaki government isn't much good. ISIS are terrorists. The Kurds are the most reasonable party in the theater, but dealing with them will seriously disrupt our relations with Turkey. We could send Petraious and Crocker back to pull the Anbar Awakening forces back together, but we would have to offer them Malaki's head on a platter to do much good..
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
RAF loses the Battle of Bureaucrats.
The US was going to bring the Brits on board the Rivet Joint signals intelligence business. Rivet Joint intel has been collected by RC-135 electronic intelligence aircraft. The Americans donated an RC-135 to the RAF for signals intelligence. These are the trusty old KC-135 Stratotankers which have been flying in USAF service since the Eisenhower administration. Some of them were converted into ELINT aircraft in the 1960's by removing the fuel tanks and installing electronics. They have been flying for 50 years. You would think that anything with that kind of record would be safe to fly.
Not for Brit bureaucrats. They have a six step process for certification, after which they issue a clearance to fly the aircraft. One step is "Type Certification Basis" (TCB) requiring paperwork going back to the 1950's. Which was unavailable. Especially as no one in America every heard of a TCB, let along knows what goes into one. Second step was to show the RC-135 complied with its TCB. Needless to say, the lack of a TCB stopped that step in its tracks.
So, the RC-135 sits on the ramp at Waddington UK for seven months while the bureaucrats shuffle papers. This is an aircraft the Americans have been flying for fifty years. If it doesn't have the right paperwork it must be a death trap.
Did I read that our NASA was demanding a mountain of paperwork from SpaceX to "certify" their Falcon booster?
Anyhow, after a seven month hold, the RAF is finally allowed to fly the aircraft.
Not for Brit bureaucrats. They have a six step process for certification, after which they issue a clearance to fly the aircraft. One step is "Type Certification Basis" (TCB) requiring paperwork going back to the 1950's. Which was unavailable. Especially as no one in America every heard of a TCB, let along knows what goes into one. Second step was to show the RC-135 complied with its TCB. Needless to say, the lack of a TCB stopped that step in its tracks.
So, the RC-135 sits on the ramp at Waddington UK for seven months while the bureaucrats shuffle papers. This is an aircraft the Americans have been flying for fifty years. If it doesn't have the right paperwork it must be a death trap.
Did I read that our NASA was demanding a mountain of paperwork from SpaceX to "certify" their Falcon booster?
Anyhow, after a seven month hold, the RAF is finally allowed to fly the aircraft.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Obama to buy two new Air Force One's
Aviation Week says the only time a multi-billion dollar procurement of a new presidential aircraft is possible is the last years of a president's second term. And so, the Air Force is expected to issue a request for proposals this fall. The proposal is open to all, Europeans included. But nobody expects the Americans to buy a foreign-built aircraft for such a publicity heavy role, so Boeing will get the job. Boeing will offer a new model 747-8, which is somewhat bigger than that of the aircraft in service. Wingspan will increase from 195 feet to 225 feet, length from 231 feet to 250 feet.
Boeing and GE are doing some work on defenses already. They are looking at mean to suppress the IR signature of the engines in order to confuse heat seeking shoulder launched missiles. Presumable there will be something like Common Missile Warning system to see the flare of missile engines, warn the crew, trigger the flare dispenser, and perhaps aim an IR laser at the incoming missile to dazzle its seeker head.
Price humungous. They are talking about $1.65 billion in just "research and development". As part of the R&D program they will buy one aircraft. The Air Force declined to estimate the cost of all the electronics or to estimate the total program cost to procure the second aircraft, in flying condition. Guess it would be another couple of billion or so.
The current Air Force One's have been flying since 1987, which makes them middle aged as aircraft go. They are younger than the B-52's which are still flying combat. Unlike cars, aircraft never wear out. As soon as anything shows wear, or fails, it is replaced. The air crew will refuse to fly an aircraft that isn't in tip top shape. A couple a hundred DC-3's, built in the 1940's, are hauling passengers to this day. And there is nothing in an aircraft which cannot be replaced. They replaced all the wings on the C-5s some years ago.
If it was up to me, I'd just keep flying the current aircraft. I might be willing to fund some electronic updates, but other than that, I'd fly 'em another 25 years.
Boeing and GE are doing some work on defenses already. They are looking at mean to suppress the IR signature of the engines in order to confuse heat seeking shoulder launched missiles. Presumable there will be something like Common Missile Warning system to see the flare of missile engines, warn the crew, trigger the flare dispenser, and perhaps aim an IR laser at the incoming missile to dazzle its seeker head.
Price humungous. They are talking about $1.65 billion in just "research and development". As part of the R&D program they will buy one aircraft. The Air Force declined to estimate the cost of all the electronics or to estimate the total program cost to procure the second aircraft, in flying condition. Guess it would be another couple of billion or so.
The current Air Force One's have been flying since 1987, which makes them middle aged as aircraft go. They are younger than the B-52's which are still flying combat. Unlike cars, aircraft never wear out. As soon as anything shows wear, or fails, it is replaced. The air crew will refuse to fly an aircraft that isn't in tip top shape. A couple a hundred DC-3's, built in the 1940's, are hauling passengers to this day. And there is nothing in an aircraft which cannot be replaced. They replaced all the wings on the C-5s some years ago.
If it was up to me, I'd just keep flying the current aircraft. I might be willing to fund some electronic updates, but other than that, I'd fly 'em another 25 years.
Friday, June 20, 2014
I can believe IT chucked Lois Lerner's harddrive
The part that still needs explaining. What are the requirements for record retention at IRS? They ought to have some, in writing. Lets see them. Do they back up desktops/laptops over the network? How often? Where are those backups? What does federal law require for record retention? Is the IRS written policy in accordance with that law? What does IRS use for an email server? Microsoft Exchange? Why does not the server archive all email?
If indeed, the IT people at IRS serviced Lois's computer and found the hard drive gone bad, they would replace it. The old one would be chucked. That part I can believe.
The part I have a lot of trouble believing is the idea that IRS email isn't routinely archived somewhere, just in case some bureaucrat needs a copy of something to prove a point.
I also have trouble believing that six of Lois Learner's partners in crime would all suffer total email loss at the same time.
I figure the Administration would rather take the heat from losing/refusing-to-furnish email than the heat they might get from a Lois email implicating the president in the stick-it-to-conservatives scandal. That fact suggests that Lois had some pretty incriminating emails.
If indeed, the IT people at IRS serviced Lois's computer and found the hard drive gone bad, they would replace it. The old one would be chucked. That part I can believe.
The part I have a lot of trouble believing is the idea that IRS email isn't routinely archived somewhere, just in case some bureaucrat needs a copy of something to prove a point.
I also have trouble believing that six of Lois Learner's partners in crime would all suffer total email loss at the same time.
I figure the Administration would rather take the heat from losing/refusing-to-furnish email than the heat they might get from a Lois email implicating the president in the stick-it-to-conservatives scandal. That fact suggests that Lois had some pretty incriminating emails.
Drinking Windex
So I'm watching TV. Commercial comes on. Cheery background music, elegantly dressed woman, tall martini glass. Full of something bright blue. Looked just like Windex which is horrible smelling stuff that you don't ever want to drink.
Dunno what that commercial was pitching, the lady drinking Windex absorbed my limited attention span.
Dunno what that commercial was pitching, the lady drinking Windex absorbed my limited attention span.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Does New Hampshire care about an immigration bill?
If you believe Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus,( I do) an immigration bill was what toppled Eric Cantor, number 2 Republican in the US House.
Question: Is an immigration bill that important up here? If so, what should be in it? Considering that we are far from the Mexican border, in fact about as far away as you can be and still be a US state. The Quebec border is only a hour's drive from here. Of course you don't hear all that much about illegal immigrants from Canada. There must be some, but they sure don't make the TV news.
There are several issues that might be addressed in an immigration bill.
1. Do something about the 10-11 million illegal immigrants already here. Partly this is a matter of plain humanitarianism. Right now they are outlaws. subject to jail and deportation if they come to the attention of the authorities. A simple traffic stop can lead to deportation. Democrats are in favor, 'cause they think the illegals will all vote democratic if they ever become citizens. Republicans seem to be OK with this 'cause they think it will improve their Hispanic community vote. Business is OK with this 'cause it offers them a lot of workers, willing to work for less.
2. Increase the number of H1B visas granted. H1b visas let engineers, computer programmers, and other skilled technical workers come and work in the US. Business is strongly in favor. US born engineers are less than enthusiastic. In a related vein farmers and growers want a deal to let in more farm workers.
3. Revise immigration laws to favor the young, the educated, the married with children, people who will contribute to the economy. Current law favors the aged parents of younger immigrants.
4. Increase security along the Mexican border to prevent more illegals from gaining entry. The ultimate end of this policy will give us a Berlin wall stretching from San Diego to Brownsville.
5. Something else?
I'd be interested in comments on this one. What do you think?
Question: Is an immigration bill that important up here? If so, what should be in it? Considering that we are far from the Mexican border, in fact about as far away as you can be and still be a US state. The Quebec border is only a hour's drive from here. Of course you don't hear all that much about illegal immigrants from Canada. There must be some, but they sure don't make the TV news.
There are several issues that might be addressed in an immigration bill.
1. Do something about the 10-11 million illegal immigrants already here. Partly this is a matter of plain humanitarianism. Right now they are outlaws. subject to jail and deportation if they come to the attention of the authorities. A simple traffic stop can lead to deportation. Democrats are in favor, 'cause they think the illegals will all vote democratic if they ever become citizens. Republicans seem to be OK with this 'cause they think it will improve their Hispanic community vote. Business is OK with this 'cause it offers them a lot of workers, willing to work for less.
2. Increase the number of H1B visas granted. H1b visas let engineers, computer programmers, and other skilled technical workers come and work in the US. Business is strongly in favor. US born engineers are less than enthusiastic. In a related vein farmers and growers want a deal to let in more farm workers.
3. Revise immigration laws to favor the young, the educated, the married with children, people who will contribute to the economy. Current law favors the aged parents of younger immigrants.
4. Increase security along the Mexican border to prevent more illegals from gaining entry. The ultimate end of this policy will give us a Berlin wall stretching from San Diego to Brownsville.
5. Something else?
I'd be interested in comments on this one. What do you think?
Maybe Immigration did beat Eric Cantor
Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus discuss this possibility on Glenn's Web TV show. Mickey relates that both sides in the campaign concentrated on the immigration issue in the last weeks of the campaign. I have confidence in both Glenn and Mickey, they might be onto something here. Mickey said that an immigration bill offering amnesty (although calling it something else) and freer immigration of workers is popular in with Republicans in DC. They think it would gain them votes in the Hispanic community, and their corporate donors like the idea of more cheap labor. The idea is unpopular outside of DC where voters see amnestied illegals gaining political power with the vote, holding wages down, and competing for jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)