Why Sully may be the last of his kind The evolution of the modern airline pilot... Twenty-five years ago, we were a step below astronauts, says one veteran pilot. Now were a step above bus drivers. And the bus drivers have a better pension.
Interesting article...
#1
14 CFR 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A--General
Sec. 91.3
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
CFI's begin drilling their students on "Part 91" on the first day, with 91.3 being the codification of their rights and responsibilities.
Mr. Sullivan did the proper thing. He, the senior pilot, took control of the aircraft from the "OJT" FO (no slam, that's just the way it works.) when the situation warranted and applied his experience (including glider piloting) and skills to the situation.
The airline business model has diminished the image of the pilot in favor of brand, this no doubt, in part owing to the pilot shortage of the 80's and 90's creating a demand for men and women of obvious yoot. Nothing like a little gray hair and maybe a moustache to quell the butterflys of the pax!
Mr. Sullivan is, unquestionably, a hero, but, as long as CFI's keep providing proper and complete instruction (attitude and skillset), he, Sullivan, shall not be the last of his kind.
I come back from sick leave and theres a whole pile of wars in my in box, like one of those old office cartoons. Still got to write up the dustup in Gaza, and then theres the so-called final victory of the Sri Lankan Army over the LTTE. But for sentimental reasons Ive got to give first mention to my boyeez, the Somali pirates. This is what democracy looks like: the Somali pirates. This is what anti-globalization looks like when you do it for real, not like deadheads following the WTO from city to city, banker groupies in black masks and red armbands.
Not only are the Somali pirates doin it for themselves, theyre like a spotlight on all the most interesting stories out there. Remember that Ukrainian freighter the pirates grabbed a few months ago? That freighter was veeeeeeery quietly carrying 33 Russian tanks and a few thousand AKs, with ammo, to Mombasa in Kenya. But it wasnt the Kenyans who wanted all those Russian tanks. It was the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement, the gang that runs Southern Sudan right now, after using the Darfur distraction to force a ceasefire with those Arab hotheads in Khartoum. It seems the SPLM, a sensible bunch whove had years of experience in Khartoum treachery, decided that the best way to keep peace is to prepare for war. Not that that slogan means anything, actually. The best way to keep the peaceno such things. Too many variables. All those pundit-speak clichés are crap. You can find counterexamples to all of them. But knowing the sort of scum who rule Sudan, it just seems sensible to get as many tanks and aircraft as you can. In third-world vs. third-world wars like the one in Sudan, that sort of mid-price Soviet hardware works perfectly well. Its only when you go up against a first-world AF that it turns into scrap iron.
And we owe all this cool dirt on how the Sudan wars going to our friends the Somali pirates. Nobody would have known that this ship was sending all those tanks to southern Sudan until they grabbed it. Thats what I mean when I say these guys are natural stars, born hams, scenery-chewers. Theyre not in it for the publicity, theyre strictly about the money, but they just cant help stealing the show.
Like today: they officially handed back that Ukrainian freighter and collected their 3.2 million dollar ransom. But that wasnt enough: they did it in style.
The pirates zoomed out to the drop zone in their little boats, right in view of two USN warships, collected their loot, counted itI love that part, that they actually counted out the money, which mustve weighed a few kilos, right under the guns of the worlds most expensive navythen waved goodbye and zoomed off home, to turn their booty into SUVs, satellite dishes and extra wives. I hear the price of virgins has zoomed in the most pirate-infested parts of Puntland since these multimillion dollar ransoms started pouring in. This is the golden age, in Puntland. And why shouldnt they have their little fun time? Its not like thereve been a lot of golden ages in Puntland. Its kind of hard to feel too sorry for the oil companies, Russian arms dealers, or other sleazy fat cats whose insurance is going up. Especially when you remember that these pirates used to be fisherman, never bothering anybody, until the Asian trawlers took advantage of the fact that Somalia has no authorities, no government, to scoop every last sand-dab out of the fishing grounds. If you saw that happen, and all you had left was guns and little boats, and you had to watch the wonderful parade of global commerce going by flipping you the bird for a few years, you might start thinking Jack-Sparrow thoughts your own self. Guys, this is why the Pirates of Puntland exist. I bolded it to make sure. They're not some sort of Bond-movie evil villians, as much as everyone around here likes to shout "hang them from the yardarm". There are no fish for them to catch because oceangoing trawlers from Taiwan cleaned out the sea (and I mean, did a great job at it, too). Pirates are some of the most democratic folks around, too.
Its too good to last, of course. When the costs really start biting, well go inno use letting the Euros try to do it like were doing now, they dont have the will to pull the trigger any moreand well turn a few boats into floating splinters, and the good times will be over for Puntland. Too bad, too. Once the pirates are wiped out or chased back to their little burrows on the coast, people will start missing them and realizing how great they were, what goddamn heroes, actual reallife Robin Hoods they were. Thats how we do it in the big world: killem, then make movies about how great they were. Just ask the Sioux or the Highlanders. Yup. Anyway, go ahead and continue with the "die pirate scum, hang them from the yardarm" comments that usually populate this site.
#1
I love this article. I actually envy the pirates. I would TRUELY love to be able to join them. They are living life while I'm watching it.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
02/11/2009 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To echo gromky's point, pirates embraced democratic principles far earlier and with greater enthusiasm than many of their contemporaries. For example, the captain of most pirate ships was chosen by majority vote amongst the crew, and could be replaced at a moment's notice should his leadership and skippering skills prove less than worthy. It is also true that in most instances, the crew of the ship voted to determine the vessel's course of action (where to sail and plunder, whether to attack or not, etc.). Rarely was the decision left solely to the captain to make.
#3
Its kind of hard to feel too sorry for the oil companies, Russian arms dealers, or other sleazy fat cats whose insurance is going up.
It's not the owners and shippers I'm concerned about. It's the crews. Mariners generally don't make a hell of a lot of money (we'll exclude U.S. and certain European shipping companies and flags). And they're the ones who are hostages.
Bet you didn't think about them when you you wrote up your heroes-of-the-sea, didja?
#4
Eltoroverde: I doubt these pirates are following the same traditions the ones in the Carribean did. More like "They're not from my extended family, I can pay a mullah to declare them infidel even if they're a moslem from the Philipines, therefore they're not human, and I need to find a way to make money off of them, whether by holding them hostage or sending them off to the butcher."
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/11/2009 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The pirates don't harm their captives. The crews are innocents, to be sure, but far worse things happen to innocent folks the world 'round. In addition, the total number of people affected is quite small.
#8
Piracy may be romantic and the poor fishermen screwed by the Taiwanese or whoever may resonate, but this is a very serious problem that will get rapidly worse.
BTW, if you want to assign blame, the fault lies with the UN, which done everything it can to dcrew up the place, from creating the artificial state of Somalia in the first place, to pushing and pouring money into a so called government that has so little legitimacy that it can't even enter the country.
Then of course there is the morass of International Law, which prevents UN member states from doing anything about piracy, except being forced to offer them asylum as the Dutch are about to find out.
I'm not one of the 'hangem from the yardarm' types, but I do see a serious growing problem that the only feasible solution involves considerable violence, either at sea or in Puntland itself.
#10
By this kind of absurd logic, we should be dissing Fred for wasting his time running Rantburg, when he could have turned his his hand to internet banking fraud when he was made redundant. After all, the banks usually cover out losses.
A VIDEO showing Sam the koala being given a drink by firefighter David Tree among the devastation of the bushfires has become a global hit.
Pictures of Sam, who turned out to be female, travelled around the globe and featured in major newspapers including The New York Times, London's The Sun, with the video appearing on CNN. The image provided a much-needed picture of hope in a week filled with news of despair.
Yesterday, Sam was recovering in Mountain Ash Wildlife Shelter.
Sam the Koala is becoming overnight-famous in the way thats only become possible since the advent of the Internet. Since the picture above, taken on the spur of the moment by a fellow CFA volunteer with a mobile phone camera, was published yesterday, Sam (who is a girl koala, by the way) has become a globally-famous marsupial. David Tree, the volunteer firefighter in the photo who is also shown in video here during the rescue? Not so much. Sure, you and your fellow bush fire fighters are the real heroes here, genuine Aussie legends, and you deserve to be famous too, all of you, but what can we say? Sam is just that darned cute. But know that you and all of the volunteers who have been going almost non-stop day and night now, while you might not be quite as famous, still have our most sincere appreciation and admiration. Onya, mates!
#2
Screw PETA - this is true Ethical Treatment of Animals. Good for you, mate!
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
02/11/2009 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If you go to my full post on this which you've excerpted, there are some good pictures of little Sam recovering.
Regarding Tipper's observation on Koalas' normally grumpy/hissy/bitey behaviour, in an interview I heard with David Tree on radio last night, he also said,
"It was amazing, he turned around, sat on his bum and sort of looked at me with (a look) like, put me out of my misery. I yelled out for a bottle of water. I unscrewed the bottle, tipped it up on his lips and he just took it naturally.He kept reaching for the bottle, almost like a baby."
"I love nature, and I've handled koalas before. They're not the friendliest things, but I wanted to help him."
Often mistakenly called koala bears because they resemble a child's teddy bear, the marsupial is actually a rather grumpy creature with a loud growl.
"
Poor old Sam must've really been feeling sad & sorry for himself to have been so docile and gentle :-(
You'll be happy to hear he's doing much better.
Three cheers for our volunteer bush firefighters (CFA) and for the carers at the wildlife shelters and for the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have been so generously donating to our Bushfire Appeal Fund!
Elsewhere on our blog there is a post with links where you can leave a message of thanks on a bulletin board to the CFA volunteers and other emergency service volunteers, and links to "How You Can Help."
#1
In case you thought it was only the mainstream press in the US that is biased and disconnected from reality read this article. The European press is as bad or worse.
Sweden, like most countries in the western world, is obsessed with the Middle-East. The Arab-Israeli conflict receives constant media coverage and public interest, and the recent events in Gaza were no exception. As usual, they sparked a lively and sometimes violent debate. Sadly, and this too is usual, the debate is full of misinformation and misunderstandings.
Most Swedish political figures positioned themselves between strongly condemning Israel while mildly criticizing Hamas' actions on the one hand and totally supporting Hamas and its administration in Gaza on the other.
On the left many condemned Israel's military operation and the Jewish state in general. "I don't think Israel is a democracy worthy of the name. It's a racist apartheid state," said the Left Party's Hans Linde, calling for a boycott of Israel.
Continued on Page 49
The dalliance between Quebec sovereigntists and Palestinians can lead to embarrassing situations. Last week, Bloc Québécois MP Maria Mourani forwarded to all her parliamentary colleagues a so-called news bulletin about the war in Gaza. The e-mail message contained links to videos extolling Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, two groups considered terrorist organizations in Canada. When Ms. Mourani's initiative raised an outcry in the Commons, she explained she had not seen the links in the e-mail, but didn't apologize. Her boss, Gilles Duceppe, who keeps his MPs on a tight leash, declared Ms. Mourani was careless, but refused to sanction her for an unintended mistake.
Mr. Duceppe should know about such "unintended mistakes." In 2006, during the Lebanon war, he marched in a demonstration in Montreal alongside groups brandishing Hezbollah flags and posters calling for the extermination of Israel. The leaders of the two sovereigntist parties, the heads of the major labour unions and even Denis Coderre, then an organizer for Michael Ignatieff's leadership campaign, also marched in the demonstration. After they were widely condemned for their participation, the political leaders argued the demonstration was for "peace" - although the literature published by the coalition that organized the demonstration had only one side to blame: Israel.
This year, during the war in Gaza, the same scenario was repeated. A demonstration supposedly calling for peace turned into a loud show of hatred against Israel and Jews, with a sea of Hamas flags displayed in downtown Montreal. There was a difference, though. This time around the leaders of the Bloc and the Parti Québécois abstained from attending, and there was not a Liberal MP in sight. But the union leaders were there. Predictably, this show of solidarity with terrorist groups angered many Quebeckers. But there is no doubt that in Quebec, probably more than in other provinces, there is widespread sympathy for the Palestinian cause - and very little sympathy for Israelis who have been the target of terrorist attacks for years. Why is that so? There are several explanations.
One is that solidarity with the Palestinians, seen as the victims of a powerful and rich ally of the United States, is a staple of current leftist thought - this is why the union leaders, who want to be on the side of the downtrodden, were yet again marching next to Hamas supporters. This is also a common reflex in leftist circles in Europe and elsewhere, especially in Britain, which is at the forefront of the despicable movement aimed at a boycotting Israeli academics.
There are also homegrown factors behind Quebec's bias toward the Palestinian side of the complex Middle East conflict. The Montreal area has the largest Arab community in Canada. Since most Quebec Arabs come from North Africa and Lebanon, they are francophones, thus closer to old-stock francophones than the old Jewish Ashkenazi community whose first language is English. The Sephardim Jews, who settled more recently in Montreal, are French-speaking, but don't seem to have mingled as easily with the French Canadians. Politics play a role here.
Most Jews, for obvious reasons, are suspicious of nationalist movements - and Quebec has absorbed deeply the sovereigntist ideology. For the sovereigntists, the Jewish community is an active "ally" of the federalist camp, while the Arab community is either sympathetic or indifferent to Quebec nationalism.
Last, but not least, there is the old factor of anti-Semitism, which still exists in Quebec as in so many other societies throughout the world. Nobody will dare voice plain, direct anti-Semitic remarks, but attacking Israel is an "acceptable" way for anti-Semites to express their Judeophobia.
#1
Imbalance is unnatural and against the laws of all sciences. Social imbalance can be "manipulated" for some time (hundreds of years) but eventually the manipulations are exposed.
#1
Small beer. They, after all, HAVE to generate yukks - it's their job.
The slavish, relentless, nearly insane propagandizing of every aspect of "news", comedy, movies, fucking restaurant reviews (!), etc. to demonize Bush, distort the factual and analytical framework of all major public policy issues, and specifically under cut GWOT elements like Iraq and detainee policy are a completely different animal than this.
Recall that Bubba was comedy gold for years - bimbo eruptions, theatrical mendacity, shrewish wife - but I can't recall a single gag or swipe that had anything to do with anything serious or policy-related. On that, it was the usual, brain-dead conformity.
Haven't watched 10 minutes of this show in my life, and will not watch another minute ever.
#2
John Leibowitz (aka stewart) is a f*cking myopic clown who panders to an audience of drooling retards. He has about the political depth of knowledge as the morons that write the irrelevant rubbish at Rolling Stone Magazine. All douchebags, but what do you expect when the public school system is watered down to a 3rd grade level. Our Founding Fathers were talking gold standards and the inherent rights of freemen and our current idiots think they can tax themselves out of a recession & piss on the U.S. Const in the process - dangerous retards. Our electorate is looking more and more like the movie idiocracy every day.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is finding that her job description is dissolving under her feet, leaving her with only a vestige of the power she must have thought she acquired when she signed on to be President Obamas chief Cabinet officer.
Since her designation:
Vice President Biden has moved vigorously to stake out foreign policy as his turf. His visit to Afghanistan, right before the Inauguration, could not but send a signal to Hillary that he would conduct foreign policy in the new administration, leaving Hillary in the role of backup.
Richard Holbrooke, the former Balkan negotiator and U.N. ambassador, has been named special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He insisted on direct access to the president, a privilege he was denied during much of the Clinton years.
Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine), negotiator of the Irish Peace Accords, was appointed to be the administrations point man on Arab-Israeli negotiations.
Samantha Powers, Obamas former campaign aide, who once called Hillary a monster, has been appointed to the National Security Council (NSC) as director of multilateral affairs.
Gen. James L. Jones, Obamas new national security adviser, has announced an expansion of the membership and role of the NSC. He pledges to eliminate back channels to the president and wants to grow the NSCs role to accommodate the dramatically different challenges of the current world situation.
Susan Rice, Obamas new United Nations ambassador, insisted upon and got Cabinet rank for her portfolio, and she will presumably also have the same kind of access to Obama that she had as his chief foreign policy adviser during the campaign.
So where does all this leave Secretary of State Clinton?
While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, one cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that has historically occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in the current administration.
Hillarys essential problem is that she is an outsider in the current mix. She was the adversary in the campaign, and Rice and Powers at the very least know it well, having helped to run the campaign that dethroned her. Can they and she be devoid of bitterness or at least of normal human trepidation? Not very likely.
The fact is that the power of the secretary of State is not statutory, nor does it flow from the prestige of the posts occupant. Former Gen. Al Haig, once supreme commander of NATO and chief of staff to President Nixon, found that out when he was undercut as secretary by the White House troika of Mike Deaver, James Baker and Ed Meese. Bill Rogers, Eisenhowers attorney general and Nixons California confidant, found himself on the outs from the moment he became secretary of State, with Henry Kissinger soaking up all the power through his direct access to Nixon as national security adviser.
The power of the secretary of State flows directly from the president. But Hillary does not have the inside track with Obama. Rice and Powers, close advisers in the campaign, and Gen. Jones whose office is in the White House all may have superior access. Holbrooke and Mitchell will have more immediate information about the worlds trouble spots.
So what is Hillarys mandate? Of what is she secretary of State? If you take the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan out of the equation, what is left? One would have to assume that the old North Korea hands in the government would monopolize that theater of action. What, precisely, is it that Hillary is to do? The question lingers.
And for this she gave up a Senate seat?
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/11/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lest we fergit, NOT EVEN FOREIGN GOVTS WHOM HATED DUBYA = USA ARE CONVINCED YET THE BAM-MAN WILL STILL BE POTUS AFTER 2010 or 2012???
#5
Lets see what happens to these special envois (I understand India already told Holbrooke to FOAD, and I don't expect much more enthusiasm in Israel for George O'Ahmad.).
#6
Obama has created many new positions, created new committees, expanded the size of existing ones (ala NSC in the article), and has not clearly defined roles, responsibilities or authority. This is going to be an extraordinarily chaotic administration.
#8
ARE CONVINCED YET THE BAM-MAN WILL STILL BE POTUS AFTER 2010 or 2012???
Unless he is impeached, which I judge highly unlikely, President Obama's term will end in 21012, JosephM. I doubt he will manage to get himself re-elected, and may choose not to run after the experiences of these next four years.
In response to the sweeping condemnation in the Arab and Muslim world of Israel's actions in Gaza, and the calls to prosecute Israeli leaders for war crimes, liberal Arab writers have accused the Arabs and Muslims of hypocrisy.
The liberal website www.elaph.com has published two articles in this vein, by Egyptian liberal Kamal Ghobrial and by Kuwaiti liberal Fahker Al-Sultan. Both writers point out that the Arab and Muslim world is quick to express outrage over atrocities and human rights violations when Arabs or Muslims are victimized by non-Muslims, but turns a blind eye or even condones the violations when the victims are non-Muslims, or when Muslims prosecute their own brothers, as happened in Saddam's Iraq and is happening today in Darfur.
The writers argue that this double standard stems from the problem of hatred for the other, and especially towards Jews. Al-Sultan emphasizes the role of the traditional Islamic mentality and of political Islam, which exploits this mentality in promoting inflexible xenophobic and antisemitic attitudes.
the best part of this is that the story has a Ball, a Wiener and a Breedlove; the second best part is it happened in a smug liberal bastian and the writer realizes it
Our saga begins in September 2007, when the young and wonkishly handsome Adams--a popular, ruthlessly effective city councilor who seemed all-but-destined to win the following year's mayoral race--faced a sudden, shocking threat to his political career. Local real estate developer Bob Ball, also gay and a political rival, had planted a rumor to end all rumors within Portland's political set: Back in 2005, he alleged, the then-42-year-old Adams had entered into a clandestine sexual relationship with a 17-year-old legislative intern from Salem.
All was blissful in the Adams camp until last month, when Nigel Jaquiss, a reporter for the alternative paper Willamette Week, came calling. Jaquiss, who famously uncovered another Portland mayor's underage sex abuse, confronted Adams with evidence that he had lied about his relationship with Breedlove--which may have included sex while he was still a minor. The rattled Adams maintained his innocence, but when it became clear that WW intended to publish the story, he had no choice but to come clean. The day after WW's revelation, Jan. 20, Adams hosted another press conference, this time to admit that he'd never really mentored Breedlove and that he had persuaded the teen to lie about their romance
#1
I wonder if we will find George Soros behind this.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
02/11/2009 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yup, F Dan.
And he's going to want his payoff from Bambi sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/11/2009 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pamela's a loon.
Did the Congressman miss a zero or two?
If you take 550B$ out of the money markets in an hour, where, exactly, does it go? Maybe they bought stocks.
Kanjorski (D-PA, Capital Markets Subcommittee Chair) claims that 5.5 trillion dollars would have been withdrawn within four hours. Where in hell would 5.5T$ go that fast? FDIC insured bank accounts? Foreign accounts? Does anyone here have a clue? Is he credible? Or is this guy just part of the 'talk the economy down' show?
#1
Proposed solution from the cited article:
"Some $6 trillion in income taxes were paid by individuals in 2006, 2007 and 2008. On a pro-forma basis, send out those 10 billion shares of each [newly nationalized] bank to taxpayers. They paid for the recapitalization.
Each taxpayer would get about $100 worth of stock for each $1,000 of taxes paid. Of course, each taxpayer has the ability to sell these shares on the open market, maybe at $40, maybe $20, maybe $80. It depends on management, their vision, how much additional capital they are willing to raise, the dividend they declare, etc. Meanwhile, the toxic assets sitting inside the Treasury will have residual value and the proceeds from their eventual sale, I believe, will more than offset the capital injected. That would benefit all citizens, not the managements and shareholders who blew up the banking system in the first place"
This solution looks like Communism with more paperwork, from the Wall Street Journal, yet. The articles I read keep giving me the impression that all major US banks are insolvent & have been shuckin' and jivin' for months in their efforts to not face the music. The really small banks that are still solvent don't amount to a hill of beans.
#2
Watching the House hearings with the banks. We need a constitutional amendment that no one can hold political office at the federal level with an IQ less than 70. These people are literally below the moron level.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
02/11/2009 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, Jack, John Kerry thought those who couldn't do anything went into the uniform service, ignoring the blatant example he set in turn by going to Congress.
The nominal income or cash flow received by households determines how easily they can repay debt contracts fixed in nominal terms. In the same way, the nominal income or cash flow received by companies determines how easily they can repay debt contracts in fixed currency.
At the most general level, nominal GDP is in some sense the "national cash flow" -- and determines how easily the economy as a whole can support an overall debt structure fixed in nominal terms. Nominal GDP growth becomes exceptionally important, especially at times when debts are at a high level.
The attached charts show quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year growth in GDP in both nominal and real terms since 1947.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: ed ||
02/11/2009 08:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
but every wage cut and price reduction is also reducing the cash flows which households and firms need to pay their debts, deepening the crisis.
False statement. What the author fails to acknowledge is that there is some and even a lot of gouging in prices. That 'every' price reduction doesn't reduce cash flows to reduce debt as much as profit margins. Where was it written in stone that companies and stockholders were entitled to double digit profit margins or to operate inefficiently without consequences?
#3
There is something deeply flawed in this way of thinking, having to do with moral hazard and a collectivist mindset. Collectivist in the sense of: the responsible people who didn't take on debt that was unsustainable in a downturn should share the pain of the irresponsible people via inflation, which is a tax on everybody.
The Derb man strikes again
If professional investment advisors sometimes can't make sense of the economy, how good do you think politicians and bureaucrats are at it? Right. They don't have the beginning of a clue. Keep that in mind when you hear them talk about "stimulating consumption" and "creating jobs." The congresscritters, paper-shufflers, and gubmint time-servers of Washington D.C. don't have a freaking clue. They're not wealth-creators; they're wealth-eaters.
That includes the new administration. Why would they have a clue? Very few of them have ever done anything an ordinary citizen would recognize as work. Here's the Obama cabinet.
Attorney General Eric Holder Government lawyering
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack Lawyering, politics
Secretary of Commerce Judd Gregg Lawyering, politics
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates CIA, MilInt
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan Education bureaucrat (never taught)
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu Research physicist, academic Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle MilInt, politics
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano Lawyering, politics
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan Govt. bureaucrat
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar Lawyering, politics
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis Professional Hispanic
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Politician's wife, Politician
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood High School teaching, politics
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy_Geithner Lobbyist, bureaucrat, diplomat, tax evader
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Eric Shinseki Military
Just look at those résumés! Military service is certainly honorable; Steven Chu seems to have added something to human understanding and capability; and I suppose there is some necessary number of lawyers, bureaucrats, and even politicians we have to put up with. (Though in these days of telecommuting, I don't see why they can't all be sequestered on one of the Aleutian Islands so we don't have to look at their sleek, smug, self-important faces.) Nobody in that list, though, not one, has any acquaintance with the production of wealth.
Our civilization rests on our having enough citizens possessed of the ability to turn a nickel into a dime, and a government that keeps out of the way while they do it. Nobody in Obama's cabinet has any idea how to turn nickels into dimes, least of all the Wealth-Eater-in-Chief. In his autobiography, Obama described his one brief experience in the world of private enterprise as a sort of endurance test--a purgatory he had to suffer before ascending to the heaven of "community organizing." He felt, he tells us, "like a spy behind enemy lines." Those private-sector money-grubbers, trying to squeeze some wealth out of a reluctant world--that's the enemy in Obama's universe. A friend would presumably be someone who squeezes wealth out of big, litigation-whipped corporations, guilty white liberals, foundations taken over by leftist ideologues, and of course the ever-milkable taxpayer.
This is an administration of wealth-eaters and wealth-spenders, not wealth-creators. If you were to sit at Obama's cabinet table with all officers present and ask them where money comes from, they would reply in happy unison: "Why, from a government paycheck, of course! Everybody knows that!" The grubby, demeaning work of pulling things out of the earth, or harvesting things grown on the earth's surface, or turning things into other things, or persuading people to buy things--all of that is mysterious to them, and they would prefer it to remain so.
We should, therefore, do well to heed the words of Arnold Kling:
Sooner or later the U.S. government is going to have to get serious about stripping the assets of those of us who have tried to live within our means. Sooner or later, the profligate are going to take from the prudent, the grasshopper is going to confiscate the property of the ants.
I feel sure the wealth-eaters--Obama and his pals--are furious with the productive working people of the country for somehow having fallen down on the job--the job, that is, of providing wealth-eaters with, as Sir Robert Walpole used to say, "enough pasture for all the sheep." We exist to feed them. Without the money they take from us, they will have nothing to eat. Kling is undoubtedly right: When their fury abates, they will set about taking their revenge by robbing us blind, using all the force of law, all the power of the federal government, and all the gassy pseudo-inspirational rhetoric our Wealth-Eater-in-Chief can muster.
#1
Two of my personal prerequisites for President.
1. Has to have worked for ten or more years in the for-profit private sector.
2. Has to have served in the military.
Obama has neither. And we'll all suffer for it.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/11/2009 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I very much enjoyed being lectured in generalities by a haughty Tim Geinther on the telly the other day. The longer he spoke the more I felt like pitching a chair through the screen. The thieving bastard was just about all I could stand.
#3
Simply a load of arrogant, pompous clowns. Peloosi isn't cabinet but certainly one of the dumbest trogs in DC. These bumblers will do one thing only, turn gold into lead.
#5
> When their fury abates, they will set about taking their revenge by robbing us blind, using all the force of law, all the power of the federal government, and all the gassy pseudo-inspirational rhetoric our Wealth-Eater-in-Chief can muster.
But only ONCE! After the golden goose is murdered you will have nothing and the other golden flock will fly away.
#7
This is a radical overthrow of our form of government. When the officer corp starts to leave, Obama and his minions will then raise their "brown shirt" domestic army to control the rest of us. They said it could never happen here. Bah.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
02/11/2009 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I would not be at all surprised to see General Petreaus drop his retirement papers any day now.
It will make it illegal to own a firearm unless it is registered with the database in Washington D.C. As a gun owner you will have to be finger printed, you will be required to provide your DL#, SS#, you must maintain a valid address at all times, submit to mental amd physical health records being put on file, you will also be required to file any address changes and you any ownership changes even if private sale. Each update will cost $25 and if you fail to comply you will lose your right to own firearms. This bill and its language mirror almost completely one defeated last year in the House of Representatives by soon to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Will we the citizenry be as lucky this time?
Pass this on to everyone who believes in strict Constitutionalism and remember that laws only apply to those who obey them. Criminals by definition and nature do not abide by laws. New laws and restrictions only apply to the law abiding citizen and are not written with the criminal in mind. With guns, it is not about having laws on the books to prosecute individuals, it is about taking guns away from the people so that no one has them in the first place. One last item to note, when assuming power and creating a facist state, Hitler was a proponent of strong gun laws because a disarmed populace was much easier to control than an armed one. The kings of old also outlawed weapons of any kind in any region that they conquered to quell the ability of the citizens to uprise against them.
The Founding Fathers of this nation understood all of the above and because of this they included the second amendment in the constitution. In fact, they knew that at some point in every society's life span that the need for the population to arise came about. To this end they made the right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical state an absolute right that could not be revoked. They did this because the first thing tyrants and despots do is to remove a populations right to defend themselves. When this is done the tyrants have no problem with the destruction of society as we know it.
#3
While it happened in the UK, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Austalia I don't think it will happend here without the declaration of martial law and house-to-house searches. Make no mistake however, it's certainly on their bloody agenda.
#4
For me, one of the scariest things about the possibility of having to fork over our weapons is that "the authorities" that come to take them from us will be our local cops.
You know, the guys and gals we see at the coffee shop or at church.
It's hard as hell to shoot at someone you hate - what am I going to do when it is my neighbor?
#6
While it happened in the UK, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia I don't think it will happend here without the declaration of martial law and house-to-house searches.
How do they get around the very real possibility that the active military (whose combat-arms personnel come mainly from the real America) will at least refuse to enforce martial law on behalf of a leftist agenda, and probably actively rebel against it? And there's all those National Guard armories, too...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
02/11/2009 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Besoeker: Not so fast with the story of the Bonus Army. It was actually the *second* Bonus army. The first was right after the American Revolution, when veterans surrounded the capital building, forcing the evacuation of congress.
MacArthur (PBUH) was ordered to evacuate a secondary Bonus Army compound, which was done in something of an orderly fashion. But then he exceeded his orders and attacked the primary Bonus Army compound, using adamsite (vomit gas), and causing considerable injury and death.
MacArthur (PBUH) suspected that communist and anarchist agitators were attempting to organize the Bonus veterans to overthrow the government.
I might add a few other bits. First of all, active duty soldiers attacking veterans happened elsewhere after WWI (and was mentioned in Erich Marie Remarque's *other* book, called "The Road Back", taking place in Germany).
But more importantly, the vast majority of the US military is Republican. Any officer who ordered his soldiers to attack or even abuse US citizens would not only be at risk from his own men, but his peers as well.
#10
Not completely forgotten. What is interesting about the Wikipedia article is that it points out the involvement of MacArthur and Patton but ignores Eisenhower's role as MacArthur's #2 responsible for coordination with the DC Police. Interesting oversight in what was undoubtedly the nadir of all three careers. But concepts of order and duty were far different then.
#11
Good discussion. Governors standing in school house doors don't seem to do the trick either. Things pretty nearly got out of hand that day as I remember, but the end-state was never much in doubt. If a federalized national guard with Garands and Carbines locked and loaded says move aside, well, thats the end of it.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
02/11/2009 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#15
to all those who don't think the army would hesitate to shoot civilians if ordered you're living in a dream world. and our beloved police forces wouldn't object at all. The LAPD would love it.
#16
..... to all those who don't think the army would hesitate to shoot civilians if ordered you're living in a dream world. and our beloved police forces wouldn't object at all. The LAPD would love it. Posted by: Glusing Peacock7143
After the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4, 1968, violence erupted in the black ghetto on Chicago's west side, eventually consuming a 28-block stretch of West Madison Street. Looting and arson took place primarily in the corridor between Roosevelt Road on the south and Chicago Avenue on the north.
The next day Mayor Richard J. Daley imposed a curfew on anyone under age 21, closed streets to automobile traffic and banned the sale of guns, ammunition and flammable materials[citation needed]. About 10,500 police were sent in to protect the fire fighters, soon joined by 6,700 Illinois National Guards. After President Lyndon Johnson ordered 5,000 troops into the city, the General in charge declared that no one, including residents, would be allowed to congregate in riot areas. He ordered his troops to use tear gas against looters; Mayor Daley told the Chicago Police to shoot to kill anyone in the act of committing arson, and shoot to maim anyone looting.
It took two days to restore order, though some youth bands continued sporadic looting and burning. There were over 125 fires. Eleven people -- all black -- were dead and over five hundred were injured. Almost three thousand persons were arrested. Many buildings were burned to the ground; others were damaged so badly they had to be taken down before they collapsed. The 210 buildings affected were worth roughly $10 million. Power lines and telephone lines were knocked out. At least a thousand people were left homeless.
The destruction was concentrated on the west side, though there was some in the south side ghetto and the near north side. The south side ghetto escaped the devastation that plagued the west side primarily because two large and well-organized street gangs, the Blackstone Rangers and the East Side Disciples, co-operated in controlling their own neighborhoods. Their leaders did not want to see them ravaged and ruined.
#18
I can't help but remember that just a little more than a year ago the National Guard closed my neighborhood in the San Diego area during the wildfires. They wanted everyone evacuated and we weren't allowed back to our homes for nearly a week. Guys with m-16s and Humvees blocked off many of the neighborhoods that week. It happened so fast. I couldn't help but think what if these guys were deployed for some other reason? My mind started to wander.
#20
Glusing Peacock7143, just what the hell are you smoking? The US Army is going to gun down civilians by the order of OBAMA??? First off, the Nuremberg Standards DO apply in the US and illegal orders are just that -- illegal. Secondly, the US military is overwhelmingly Republican -- upwards of 85% depending on whether you are talking about enlisted, NCOs, or officers.
Thirdly, the US military has had 5 years of fighting in countries where the government had gunned down opponents as a matter of routine, and you think that the military would just go along with that IN the US??
#21
Posse comitatus. No, we wouldn't do it, we wouldn't fire on U.S. citizens - even in a rebellion unless they were attacking a military base for some odd reason. We cannot follow unlawful orders - firing on citizens is out of the questions. I would resign my commission and join in on the 2nd CW and overthrow our sitting gov't if they choose to violate the 2nd Amendment so clearly and so thoroughly. My oath is to the U.S. Const, not a person, not a piece of soil, but to an idea and 27 amendments.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
