Cruisin' for a Bruisin'

So, an ominous but not really unexpected development in the naval balance in the Pacific:
China has evidently assembled a stockpile of weapons specifically intended to destroy aircraft carriers.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Now, that's not particularly surprising. Any rational individual would expect a globally significant economic and military power with long-standing regional territorial claims to begin working on ways to control those areas.
That naturally means first disabling our carriers, which can project force over a significant area, and have served as a deterrent to China's ambitions for decades.

The frightening part is not that they have these weapons, but the Navy's reaction, as described in this excellent article:

The Navy’s reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified.

That the Chinese would have come up with a solution to our carriers is hardly surprising; that our Navy has been caught totally off guard by it is frankly terrifying.




Another troubling portion of this report comes in as a remark in passing in the first article:

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

This approach stands in stark contrast to our own. Examples might include our highly publicized and agonizingly slow development of an effective ICBM shield...

Couple this with a few related facts, the discovery of a new Chinese submarine base on Google Earth, the scandalous reduction of our human intelligence resources, etc. It boils down to that we have much less idea of what China is up to than we ought to.

The situation in some ways mirrors our relationship with Japan before the Second World War.
Our resources increasingly diverted by other conflicts, we had less and less force with which to counter Japan, traditionally not seen as a naval threat, but continued to adjure them to abide by previous policies and agreements.

"Peace through Superior Firepower" is not just a great t-shirt slogan, it's a truism.

Do not believe that China will sit idly by as their growing naval capabilities are met at best with remonstrative statements from Washington about unnecessary build up.

If we allow this situation to continue, one day we will quickly and simply lose any control over that area of the Pacific. Officials will claim that they could not have expected it, heads will roll, public outcry against China will rage, but the truth is that, as with so, so many "sudden catastrophes", it was seen coming, and could have been avoided.

-()4|<.

Decatur Alabama Tea Party

On a warm Saturday morning at Rhodes Ferry park by the Tennessee River, a few score citizens gathered to celebrate their freedom and protest Washington's encroachment on both their rights and their pocketbooks.

Things were a little slow at first; it was the first time that some people had attended this kind of meeting. But as it went, things picked up steam, and pretty soon we had a full-fledged political assembly going. The Republican party was heavily represented, of course, but seemed almost apologetic, whereas some of the open-mic speakers commented that both parties were responsible for the current mess.

After the scheduled and open speakers, petitions were brought forth to be signed, and things ended on a more or less hopeful note.

The Verdict:
It's a beginning.

If that meeting constitutes the sum of the region's efforts, then it will not have accomplished much. However, if this is the first step towards gaining a voice in Washington, then combined with all the numerous towns doing the same, it might not have been in vain.

The idea is that this is all leading to a massive crowd converging on Washington on July 4th.
We shall see, but if such an event occurs, there is at least a decent chance that MC will be there to cover it...

I hope to attend the "tea party" in Huntsville in a couple weeks, being the area's largest city it may have a somewhat higher turnout. The more people show up, the less excuse the media have for ignoring it. If you are sick of listening to the depressing news and want to actually do something about it, come on down. Here's the info...


-()4|<.

One small step

I am happy to report a piece of good news.
The aforementioned new policy that would have greatly restricted available ammunition on the civilian market has been retracted, thanks evidently to two Democratic senators from Montana.

"Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale," Cunningham wrote.

The Defense Department liaison was responding to a letter yesterday to the Defense Logistic Agency's Vice Admiral Alan S. Thompson from Tester and fellow Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus. The senators argued "prohibiting the sale of fired military brass would reduce the supply of ammunition – preventing individual gun owners from fully exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We urge you to address this situation promptly."

We don't know the full details behind this story yet, but you can bet there were some calls and letters sent to their offices... Gun owners are not pleased to see their rights being undermined. This is what we need to happen on multiple fronts.

Even small victories are encouraging these days. Hopefully we will see more of this.

-()4|<.

You wanted change?

My fellow Americans.

Despite my and my associates' best attempts to dissuade you, you insisted on electing as the leader of America a man whose loyalty to America is questionable at very best.

So how are Hope and Change progressing thus far?
Let's see what's on the administration's agenda, three months in.


1. Going after farmers

H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 could end farmers’ markets as we know it by requiring growers to register, be subject to inspections of their gardens by federal agents, and maintain safety records related to food production or face large fines.

Under H.R. 875, all participants in farmers’ markets will be forced to register, otherwise the market will be shut down as an illegal operation. Failure to comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 would result in a fine of up to $1,000,000 per violation.

Yes. Because organic produce helps the terrorists win.


2. Going after gun owners

"From now on, remanufacturers of military brass will not be able to buy surplus brass from DOD--actually from Government Liquidators, llc.--the corporation that sells surplus materials for the U.S. government. At least, not in any form recognizable as once-fired brass ammunition.

Now all brass ammunition will have to be shredded, and sold as scrap."

(Be sure to check out the "What can I do" section at the end of the linked article)


3. Going after veterans

The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

So, giving away trillions is a matter of course, but that $540 million (.077% of the 700 billion dollar bailout proposal, by the way) is just way too much for the government to spend on soldiers who were wounded in combat into which the government sent them.



None of this should be surprising;
Obama was the most liberal senator.
Liberals have consistently despised and attacked small town/rural America, gun owners, and those who defend our country. Only after 9-11 did they start doing lip service to soldiers, all the while still screaming that their cause was evil. Now a majority of Americans, some well-meaning but misguided, others with similarly warped views, have given them the reigns.

You won't know America once they're done, if they keep at it, and you certainly won't want to live here. But by then, you probably won't be allowed to leave.

"Da, komrade... everyone who applies for an exit visa gets one. There is just one small problem with your papers..."

-()4|<.

What has been shall be

Let us consider a word of wisdom from the late Adrian Rogers:

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for-that, dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

I believe that sums the whole situation up well.

-()4|<.

Eugenics, 21st Century Style

Genocide based on racial or physiological differences has been so thoroughly (and rightly) lambasted in our society that even the idea of it is execrable.

But when economic incentive is introduced, no act of murder is too vile to withhold from the unborn and defenseless.

We have evidently arrived at that anticipated (and dreaded) point in history at which point "designer babies" have begun to emerge as available for purchase.

The LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.

His clinic also offers sex selection.

How convenient. You can just pick out a baby that has the traits you in your wisdom deem most desirable for the upcoming generation. But perhaps there are some negative aspects to this technology?

The science is based on a lab technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. This involves testing a cell taken from a very early embryo before it is put into the mother's womb.

Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes - or in this case an embryo with the desired physical traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes - to continue the pregnancy, and discard any others.

"Discard any others". That is to say, they find the embryo out of that batch that they want, and let the other ones die. Now for those who argue that a 6-cell embryo is not yet human, I have two questions. First, if it's not human, what other form of life is it? Second, is it not brazen sophistry (let alone blatantly hypocritical) to say that the technology is there for people to pick out hair and eye color for their child, then in the same breath say that it's not a child?

Now of course, such a ground-breaking step is fraught with controversy within the scientific community.

"It's technically feasible and it can be done," says Mark Hughes, a pioneer of the PGD process and director of Genesis Genetics Institute, a large fertility laboratory in Detroit. However, he adds that "no legitimate lab would get into it and, if they did, they'd be ostracized."

But Fertility Institutes disagrees. "This is cosmetic medicine," says Jeff Steinberg, director of the clinic that is advertising gender and physical trait selection on its Web site. "Others are frightened by the criticism but we have no problems with it."

Mark Hughes is either being outrightly deceptive, or a victim of wishful thinking. Jeff Steinberg represents the future of this clinic. There is unbelievable profit within this technology. How many parents would pay to make their child more intelligent, taller, more athletic, etc, if the means to do so was readily available to them?

A recent poll taken shows that there are already a number of them that would.

In a recent U.S. survey of 999 people who sought genetic counseling, a majority said they supported prenatal genetic tests for the elimination of certain serious diseases. The survey found that 56% supported using them to counter blindness and 75% for mental retardation.

More provocatively, about 10% of respondents said they would want genetic testing for athletic ability, while another 10% voted for improved height. Nearly 13% backed the approach to select for superior intelligence, according to the survey conducted by researchers at the New York University School of Medicine.

And this is just the beginning. Once the technology begins to be more widely used, and if it displays consistent results, imagine the clamoring of competitive parents for their offspring to have the advantage that other parents are giving theirs. Imagine the testimonials of proud parents touting their gene-selected children's success in school.

Now of course, all this is not so simple. Success in anything is not merely the genes one brings to the table. One can argue whether leaders are born or made, but the truth is that at least a great number of them have been made. The same is true of the rest of life. While success in school often comes to very intelligent children, it comes arguably more consistently often to children who have parents who love them, discipline them, and reinforce their education.

Athletics, one of the prime fields I can imagine this technology being advertised for, is the same. How many "sports dads" can be persuaded into taking this route just by being asked "What if you prevent your son from a future in sports by withholding this advantage from him?"

Of course, the other way of phrasing the question: "Are you willing to kill off several to many future children in exchange for having one with a possible slight advantage?" will never be asked.

A Brave New World indeed.

-()4|<.

Califonia Dreamin'

Well, it looks like California is having some trouble. 10% unemployment. Now, do we really want to nationally emulate the kind of active government that California has had?