I don't usually talk politics here, but sometimes . . .

Just spent a week way up in the Virginia mountains, in a place where we get no cell phone coverage, no radio, no television, no cable, no 24 hour talking heads. Just us, about 400 acres and stream, some cows, deer, birds, and when the night sky clears of clouds, amazing star gazing. On a moonless night with no light pollution,  the Milky Way is stunning.

For some reason, while on this short vacation, I decided it was time to re-read Atlas Shrugged. While the book is a hot mess in so

many ways (especially Ms. Rand's ideas on - uh- romance), I found sufficient parallels to current events to keep plugging away even through those things that a novel published in 1957 could not possibly get right about these modern times. But more often than I thought possible, the book nails aspects of these days.

Much of the novel deals with the issues of logistics and what the failure/disruption/mismanagement of logistics systems (in her case centering on railroads) would do to the country as a whole. Many of us who have toiled in logistics appreciate the concerns. Those of us who have experienced the logistical issues wrought by COVID-19 may have a clearer grasp on how tenuous a system it is, and how efficiently it has worked for us in recent years.

I am not alone in both criticizing this book, but noting the current relevance of some of its parts. I commend to your reading this piece from the Wall Street Journal, 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years by Stephan Moore.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.
***
For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.
***
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged" {note: Mr. Moore wrote this during the early days of President Obama's administration} The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

Ah, "windfall profit taxes" are familiar to those of us who toiled in the oil business.

From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%. The tax was repealed in 1988 because (1) it was an administrative burden to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), (2) it was a compliance burden to the oil industry, (3) due to low oil prices, the tax was generating little or no revenues in 1987 and 1988, and (4) it made the United States more dependent on foreign oil. The depressed state of the U.S. oil industry after 1986 also contributed to the repeal decision.

Get that? The attempt to rake in more taxes actually lowered productivity and decreased revenue. But it sure sounded good politically, and is back today. It's still nonsense.

I would note the efforts of the governors of California and New York and the mayor of New York City to somehow believe that people won't flee from higher taxes and worsening living conditions to sites of lower taxes and better conditions are a case of incredibly "magical thinking" on their parts. NYC's socialist mayor being the most magical thinker of them all for believing that people who leave his crowded overtaxed city for the suburbs will return because NYC is such a magical place. Rational humans make rational choices, and the rational ones are voting with their feet, Mr. Mayor, so you better figure out how to govern without their taxes and without the corporations that will desert your "worker's paradise" for less restrictive and less expensive venues.

"Magical thinking"is also present when the political correctness movement sees "free speech" as akin to a "one way street" - you are free to speak your mind so long as what you say agrees with them, otherwise you are "evil." It's "magic" that if we all say the same thing - whether true or not - then peace and love will break out. Ms. Rand knew better and so do you and I.

"Economic lunacy" will never disappear, especially when our more vocal "socialist" and "Marxist" politicians can proclaim nonsense without widely reported assessments of exactly how "looney" their idiotic ideas are and why they are so destructive of a free society that is driven by a market economy.

Read the book, mull over the real lessons (e.g. most politicians are in it for the power, not the benefit of all mankind. That power includes doing "favors" for their supporters as Ms. Rand sets out in the book. How do you fight the "looters" and "moochers?" By not accepting their terms, by not accepting undeserved guilt designed to force you to grant their power grabs.

President Seeks Control of the Supreme Court: The "Court-Packing" Plan

Perhaps better known as FDR's "Court-Packing" Plan:

After winning the 1936 presidential election in a landslide, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a bill to expand the membership of the Supreme Court. The law would have

added one justice to the Court for each justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices. Roosevelt’s motive was clear – to shape the ideological balance of the Court so that it would cease striking down his New Deal legislation. As a result, the plan

was widely and vehemently criticized. The law was never enacted by Congress, and Roosevelt lost a great deal of political support for having proposed it. Shortly after the president made the plan public, however, the Court upheld several government regulations of the type it had formerly found unconstitutional. In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, for example, the Court upheld the right of the federal government to regulate labor-management relations pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Many have attributed this and similar decisions to a politically motivated change of heart on the part of Justice Owen Roberts, often referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine.” Some legal scholars have rejected this narrative, however, asserting that Roberts' 1937 decisions were not motivated by Roosevelt's proposal and can instead be reconciled with his prior jurisprudence.

Some of you might recall that Mr. Roosevelt was not a Republican.

More at  FDR's Losing Battle To Pack The Supreme Court,

"Some suggested that Congress ought to be able to overrule the Supreme Court," he explains. "By a two-thirds vote, Congress should be able to overturn any ruling of the Supreme Court, essentially making Congress the last word on the Constitution and not the Supreme Court."

"He didn't think it was practical," says Shesol. "It takes a very long time, usually, to amend the Constitution ... enough to change the reality in the country. But secondly, and this is really important in understanding why Roosevelt packed the court, [is that] he didn't see any kind of contradiction between the Constitution and the New Deal. He didn't think there was anything in the Constitution that prevented him from doing what he needed to do. The problem as he saw it was not the Constitution; it was the conservatives on that particular Supreme Court. So what could you possibly do about them? So that's how he came to the idea of packing it."
****
"Age does not define ideology," he says. "Even though Roosevelt looked at what he called the 'nine old men of the Supreme Court' and suggested that the older justices were falling out of touch with reality, the oldest justice on that court in the 1930s was [Louis] Brandeis, the great liberal justice. And this was pointed out with glee with many of Roosevelt's opponents. ... So, you don't hear anything like that today. You hear concern on the part of progressives in this country that Justice Stevens and the other liberals are more likely to leave the court soon than any of the conservatives are, but I think we've come a long way since the 1930s, when that argument was made so forcefully by Franklin Roosevelt."

When the "progressive agenda" has been thwarted by the Supreme Court, some folks have suggested that court-packing might be a swell idea. Recently, for example, one Todd N. Tucker writes In Defense of Court-Packing with the delightful sub-title of "We shouldn't let a handful of reactionary judges get in the way of progressive change. It's time to pack the Supreme Court." -

With Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Trump’s Muslim ban, Wednesday’s decision attacking public sector unions, and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s announcement that he’s retiring, it is time to push a once-marginal idea to the top of the agenda: pack the Supreme Court. The conservative majority’s support of Trumpism and opposition to progressive objectives means it will pose a barrier to the agenda of even the most left-leaning president and Congress. This barrier must be confronted head on.
***
From the time the justices unilaterally asserted their power to strike down legislation in 1802, a democracy-eroding judicial supremacy has been an ever-present danger. One of the most significant confrontations came in 1937, when the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration decided to pick a fight with the Court.
***
That’s not to say court-packing is easy. Historians have documented how FDR badly managed public and congressional opinion, and would have had difficulty actually getting a favorable vote on his bill. His ultimate triumph came from being able to wait out the Court by serving more than two terms — something not available to politicians today, despite having relatively young conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch that will be around for decades to come.

Nonetheless, this shouldn’t dissuade us. Political scientist David Faris makes a compelling case that court-packing — along with statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico and other reforms — amounts to a prerequisite for lasting progressive change. In his new book, It’s Time to Fight Dirty, Faris proposes to expand the roster of the Court to eleven or thirteen immediately, and then pass a law allowing presidents to appoint a new justice every two years. Meanwhile, the most senior justices would be shuffled into a type of emeritus position with lesser responsibilities. The nine most junior cases would do most of the judging, with more senior justices momentarily pulled into duty in the case of a justice’s death.
***
A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past. With inequality and human rights abuses spiraling upward and justices making it all worse, the time to begin mainstreaming an enlarged Court is now.

I wonder if Mr. Tucker has considered that a conservative president might accept his argument for court-packing but in a manner Mr. Tucker would most definitely not approve? Wouldn't this scheme just lead to an endless shuffling of justices by succeeding administrations that differ in political viewpoints?

And, hey, what about the fact that the "most senior justices" might be the ones "progressives" would like to keep (Justices Stevens and Ginsberg, e.g.), while this idea would allow Mr. Trump to keep rolling in "conservatives." Indeed, that was one of flaws of Mr. Roosevelt's original court-packing plan - his successors could invoke the same concept to achieve their agendas - which may have differed greatly or completely reversed his.

Further, I wonder how Mr. Tucker views the Supreme Court decisions which he might like - say on abortion - are they examples of "democracy-eroding judicial supremacy?"

But, of course, the general rule in cards and politics is "winners always crack jokes, and losers say "deal." or, as Willie Nelson, that great legal scholar put it:

The winners tell jokes and the losers say deal
Lady Luck rides a stallion tonight
And she smiles at the winners and she laughs at the losers
And the losers say now that just ain't right

So, first, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Faris, you need to win . . . which didn't happen.

UPDATE: Idiocy runs amok with an opinion piece in the NYT on court packing Stacking the Court. Really, do these folks think that somehow the other side won't do exactly what they are suggesting except by loading the court with conservative justices?

An Update on Political Correctness Run Amok

Toward the end of my post Political Correctness Run Amok, I wrote:

... does not Gov. Cuomo open up his own state to similar acts by other states on the basis of NY laws with which they disagree? Suppose NY has laws which Texas feels violate the Second Amendment - will Texas now forbid government funding of travel to New York until NY changes its laws to meet Texas standards?

An answer of sorts to that question comes in a set of complaints, referred to in New York Gov. Cuomo accused of violating Hatch Act after state ads run in North Carolina:

A former North Carolina Supreme Court judge has filed complaints with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and a New York state ethics panel alleging that taxpayer-funded ads Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration has run in North Carolina violated the Hatch Act by interfering with the gubernatorial and legislative races in that state.

The commercials, which reference the state’s so-called transgender bathroom law, among policies by other states, “mention North Carolina and its leadership in a transparent attempt to criticize, interfere and affect the impending North Carolina elections,” according to the federal complaint filed by the retired judge, Robert F. Orr.
***
The federal complaint criticizes the ads as going “beyond appropriate economic-development recruitment,” saying: “By using public funds to promote New York as supporting certain policies and implicitly criticizing contrary political decisions made in North Carolina, an ethical imitation has been breached.”

The complaint specifically identifies Mr. Cuomo as having violated the Hatch Act, along with several employees of Empire State Development, New York’s economic-development agency.

According to this:

The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state, District of Columbia, or local executive agencies and who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants

***
Political Activities and Examples of Prohibited Activities
Covered state, District of Columbia and local employees may not:
*
use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination ...

Good luck, Justice Orr, in getting this matter heard in today's PC climate.

Political Correctness Run Amok: Using the NBA All-Star Game to Punish North Carolina

This article in The Washington Examiner "George Orwell, call your office" with this great quote about Silicon Valley:

"People here pride themselves on a kind of militant open-mindedness," Manjoo writes. "It is the kind of place that will severely punish any deviations from accepted schools of thought."

spurred me to look again at the pressure being brought on North Carolina as a result of it now famed House Bill 2 (see here), now including the National Basketball Association's decision to move the 2017 NBA All-Star game from Charlotte:

“While we recognize that the NBA cannot choose the law in every city, state, and country in which we do business, we do not believe we can successfully host our All-Star festivities in Charlotte in the climate created by HB2,” the NBA’s statement read.

The league did however, acknowledge that the NBA and the Hornets have been “working diligently to foster constructive dialogue and try to effect positive change.”

The league issued a statement Thursday saying the alternate site for 2017 will be named in the next few weeks. The NBA is focused on New Orleans, league sources told online site The Vertical.

McCrory and state legislators who support HB2 have said important privacy concerns are at stake. Following the NBA’s decision Thursday, McCrory continued to defend the law.

“American families should be on notice that the selective corporate elite are imposing their political will on communities in which they do business, thus bypassing the democratic and legal process,” the Republican governor said in an emailed statement.

A spokesman for Attorney General Roy Cooper, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, called the All-Star Game news “incredibly disappointing.”

“How many damaging blows does North Carolina have to take before Governor McCrory realizes that HB2 must be repealed?” the spokesman said.

The "climate created by HB2? What the heck is that? No private enterprise is affected by HB2 - at least as far as bathroom usage. The climate is seems mostly to be an effort to attack the Republican governor and state legislature. Any resident of NC is now well familiar with the "Moral Monday" movement which has been complaining ever since the Legislature passed into Republican hands during the last election - complaints covering everything from redistricting to voter ID to HB2.

Dear Politicians - Of Course Your Actions in Office Will Be "Politicized" That's the Way Our System Works

Ok, so Hillary Clinton says Benghazi was a tragedy 'politicized' by opponents.

Let me see if I can get this straight - a politician, who once occupied a high office, and is currently running for the presidency, is complaining that her performance in that former office was "politicized" by other politicians who had the nerve to ask questions about that performance in office?

Yes, I know. This current "fauxrage" by Ms. Hillary is just silly. She might as well assert that her political campaign to become president is being "politicized" by Mr. Sanders, her opponent in the Democratic primaries.

Perhaps someone should remind Ms.Clinton that we have a political system. With two parties. And one party may frequently take swipes at the performance of the politicians of the other party. And, sometimes, even by members of your own party.

Next thing you know she'll be under investigation for something she did while in office . . .

Oh, the horrors. It's so hard being a victim. All the time.

"Politics ain't beanbag."

World Peace Through Green Tape?

I guess the current administration has decided to help the goal of world peace through executive action. How? It seems intent on wrapping up national defense in environmental and cultural green tape. With enough tape, the mighty engines of war fighting will grind to a halt. And peace will break out all over.

One bit of this nonsense about the new "climate change" mandate for military planners, weapons acquisition persons, training commands, etc is covered by my radio co-host CDR Salamander  here:

We are moving to full Soviet clown show where political cargo cults are being forced on military planning - not because military professionals see it as important, but because The Party demands it.

I wonder if we could get a study of the fiscal and preparedness impact this sort of "environmental symbolism" has and will cost us.

I'm sure a number of underemployed/unemployed attorneys stand ready, however, to assist with the preparation of all the environmental impact statements (EIS) that will be needed for Marines and soldiers digging foxholes and prepping firing positions in both training and combat.

I wonder if each mortar round fired needs its own EIS or if a series of such firings can be covered by a blanket EIS. I also wonder if EISs need to be filed to cover incoming rounds?

Pretty sure there are a number of currently unemployed archaeologists who can help perform "cultural resource investigations" that will be needed to make sure such digging doesn't disturb historically sensitive things:

Section 106 of the NHPA requires all Federal agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC or Commission), to take into account, prior to authorizing an undertaking (, the effect of the undertaking on cultural resources listed or eligible for the National Register (historic properties). The agency must also afford the Council an opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

I guess we should be asking potential enemies to provide environmental impact statements concerning their potential attacks on the U.S. - I'm sure the Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese and Russians will be happy to comply with descriptions of what a several megaton weapon might do the the U.S. environment. Perhaps,  pending those filings, we can get an "international court" to issue an injunction on wars brought by such states. Wasn't something like that done after Russia invaded the Ukraine? No - well, I'm sure that was oversight.

It might prove a little tougher to get those nasty "non-state" actors to comply though . . .

Speaking of which, has anyone seen the ISIS "cultural resource" filings on the destruction of ancient sites?  I'm pretty sure we didn't get one from the Taliban before they blew up those Buddha things.

Of course, that was 2001, so the NYT et al can blame Bush.

Not so sure about the environmental impact statements this climate conscious administration must have prepared for Libya, covering withdrawal from Iraq and our reentering Iraq, and the impact on climate change of drawing "red lines" while watching Syria implode. Perhaps the Executive Branch has put those some place off line.

Ah, those wars of choice.

Among other distractions, there is the irony of Opening All Military Occupations, Positions to Women and then having a debate on whether women should be required to register for the draft like their male counterparts.

Culture wars of choice.

"Why Are . . . Liberals So @&%*! Angry?"

If you leave out the "North Carolina" from the headline - it's still a good question: From the WSJ, Steve Moore: "Why Are North Carolina Liberals So @&%*! Angry?". Part of his answer is even better:

So what are liberals of all stripes so angry about in North Carolina?
***
. . . the answer to my question is he and his followers are mad as hell about, well . . . everything

Mostly they seem to be angry that the NC government, after a zillion years of being in the hands of Democrats is now held by Republicans.

What's the old poker saying? "Winners count their money and the losers cry deal."

If you can't read the sign, it urges protection of "Mentally Ill/Unemployed/Students/Teachers/Prisoners/Uninsured/Elderly/Minorities/Disabled"

Most of them apparently "victims" of the need to balance the state budget.

Whatever.

Isn't it always about the money?

Sunday Reading Fun for the New Year: "Mind Your Own Business"

CNN headline: Hoyer compares GOP debt limit tactics to hostage taker threatening to shoot child

When a Congressman from one party compares members of the other party who are in vigorous disagreement with the direction the national government is taking to "hostage takers" it is time to take a look at where this sort of politics takes us (and, yes, Mr. Hoyer is not the first politician to use such language - members of both major parties are guilty of demonizing their political opponents).

A piece on what the politicization of everything means to us at Human Events "The bitter wastes of politicized America":

The rest of us should consider the contemptible behavior of people like Hoyer as we watch the expansion of politics into every area of our lives. The government grows; the private sector diminishes; everything becomes a political act. Soon you will see the phrase “none of your business” become an antique aphorism, as quaint as telling someone to “dial” a telephone number. Everything is everyone’s business now. That’s what Big Government means.

I'm no anarchist, but John Hayward has put his pen exactly on the problem with "nanny-statism" and the old theory, espoused back in my college days that "everything is political" and "the personal is political" (linked to C. Wright Mills and The Sociological Imgaination).

It is time to revisit the social contract. As Clint Eastwood said at the GOP convention:

We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.

In a society founded on protecting dissenting views, it is remarkably autocratic to suggest that only your view is the proper view and that is the "duty" of citizens to get in line.

Once again I invoke an old piece I read years ago,
Eric Frank Russell's planet of Gand, which introduced me "MYOB" - and you can read about it here:

‘A man has duties. He has no right to refuse those.’

‘No?’ She raised tantalizing eyebrows, delicately curved. ‘Who defines those duties—himself or somebody else?’

‘His superiors most times.’

‘Superiors,’ she scoffed with devastating scorn. ‘No man is superior to another. No man has the slightest right to define another man’s duties. If anyone on Terra exercises such impudent power it is only because idiots permit him to do so. They fear freedom. They prefer to be told. They like to be ordered around. They love their chains and kiss their manacles. What men!’

Do not allow our political class, nor other slavish followers of any would-be autocrat to decide for you where your duties lie. In this time, facing these enemies of republican government, reasoned dissent honors freedom of speech and thought.

Do not be cowed into silence.

Worst Post Veterans Day Idea Ever: "John Kerry's Name Being Floated for Defense Secretary"

Why not just issue an invitation to a Vietnam Veteran's March on Washington to oppose this incredibly stupid idea? John Kerry's Name Being Floated for Defense Secretary:

The Washington Post reports that President Obama is "considering" asking Kerry to take the post, currently occupied by Leon Panetta. The 74-year-old Panetta is expected to step down sometime next year, and when combined with Clinton's planned retirement, and the unplanned resignation of David Patreaus at the CIA, the entire national security team will need to be overhauled.

If Mr. Obama had announce this "considering" before the election, we could have saved a lot of trouble. . .

Neither "Horses or Bayonets" - Why the Size of the Navy Matters

From the Third Debate:

ROMNEY: “Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.”

OBAMA: “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. ”

Well,  I am counting ships. The Navy has, in fact, said this country needs a minimum of 313 ships to fulfill all the missions assigned to it. That 313, by the way, includes those marvels described by the President - aircraft carriers and submarines.

What do we actually have?

I put up a post that talked about the size of the fleet the other day. You can visit it here. In that post I discussed the size of the surface combatant force, which is on its way down to something under 108 ships. There are at least two more ships in commission today than at the end of the period shown in the chart above. One is a new LCS, USS Fort Worth, and one is USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112).

Now, for those you who might think a ship is a ship, let me suggest that there is a rather large difference between a ship intended to take the fight to an opposing force (a combatant) and the other ships which are intended to either support the combatants (the auxiliary force consisting of refueling and ammunition ships) and the "follow on force" designed to deliver land combat power from the sea (the amphibious force).

The total includes, as I have indicated, submarines (67 of which 14 are ballistic missile boats or strategic assets, the others are definitely combatants), aircraft carriers (10 after the Enterprise is decommissioned and before the Ford enters the fleet). We have 31 amphibs, 47 auxiliaries.

So, how do we use our fleet? From the Navy's own website::

Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 287
Total Ships Deployed/Underway Ships Deployed: 114 (40%)
Ships Underway for Local Ops / Training (USFF / 3rd Fleet) Ships Underway for Local Ops / Training (USFF / 3rd Fleet): 45 (15%)
Ships Underway
Underway Aircraft Carriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - port visit Naples, IT
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - 5th Fleet
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - West Pacific
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - 5th Fleet
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - Atlantic Ocean
Underway Amphibious Assault Ships:
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - 5th Fleet
USS Bataan (LHD 5) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - port visit Subic Bay, RP
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - 5th Fleet

Aircraft (operational): 3700+

USS Enterprise is on her way back home to be decommissioned after a zillion years of good and faithful service with a crew none of whom were born when she was commissioned in 1961.

Okay, 287 total ships.

And, as noted in my earlier post, plans are to shrink warships while slowing the building of new ones.
What does it mean if we have fewer than 313 ships?

It means longer deployments for aging ships. It means a greater demand on a shrinking sailor "workforce" - it means that our carrier fleet, so condescendingly described by the President to Governor Romney, goes to sea with escorts that cannot then be used for other missions. It means the ships we do have are ridden hard. It means maintenance slips.

It means that, as many us who are former Navy officers keep saying, that at some point the Navy will have to tell the President that there are missions we cannot do because we don't have the ships, despite the language of the poster nearby.

We don't have the ships because we cratered to the Russians on anti-ballistic missile sites in Poland and decided to put ABM ships into the Black Sea or off Spain or someplace where they cannot be diverted to other missions.

We are scheduled to build 55 Littoral Combat Ships which are proclaimed to be the "Swiss Army Knives" of multi-mission warships, but only if they have their modules (which they don't quite yet), their helicopters and a logistics support system that, in my view, has not yet appeared. We will use these under-gunned, undermanned but expensively high speed ships to show the flag.

Whoopee.

They may have a great potential - but do a Google search on "LCS" and then decide how you will feel when you or your son or daughter is assigned to one to "show the flag" to the growing Chinese fleet which, while it has problems of its own, has hardly under-armed the ships it obviously perceives it needs to push into the Cow's Tongue of the South China Sea.
.
As shown in my earlier post, of the 287 (+/-) ships of the U.S. Navy, less than 1/2 are meant to be combatant warships capable of gaining sea control by force. Amphibious ships and the auxiliary ships are "follow on forces" - they come in after the sea and air space are ours. Leave out the 10 carriers remaining after the Enterprise retires and we are scheduled to have 107 war fighting surface ships next year.

We are more than a "two-ocean Navy" - we operate world-wide, in the Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf. We keep 40% of our force deployed; 15% in training for deployment; and the remainder in the shipyards for repair or in port doing other maintenance.

Why the heavy maintenance schedule? The sea is a harsh operating environment. And, unlike a company that operates a fleet of trucks or cars, we can't just pick up a bunch of the new model year from the local dealer. You have to have a plan - have a strategy and build a fleet to match that strategy.

I guess shrinking your fleet because you can't budget to keep the minimum you need is a sort of strategy. Just not a winning one.

Pennsylvania Voter Identification Law: Let the Whining Begin!

Simple rule: No photo ID, no voting booth

Here's the headline: "Stringent voter ID law in Pa. could prevent 750,000 from voting." But if you look behind the numbers the headline is misleading. Here's the report:

New data released by Pennsylvania officials suggests that as many as 750,000 voters in the crucial battleground territory could be impacted by a stringent new voter ID law.

The law, passed this May ostensibly to prevent voter fraud, requires all voters in Pennsylvania to show a valid photo ID at the polls.

Among those acceptable forms of photo ID include a state-issued driver's license, a valid U.S. passport, a U.S. military ID, a government-issued employee ID, an ID card from an accredited Pennsylvania higher learning institution, or a photo ID card issued by a Pennsylvania care facility, such as an assisted living residence or personal care home.

According to the survey, 758,939 voters - 9.2 percent - could not be matched in state databases as having Pennsylvania driver's licenses, the most common form of photo ID in the state.

Of those 9.2 percent, about 22 percent - or 167,566 people - are categorized as "inactive" voters, according to the data. A person can be characterized as an "inactive" voter if he or she has not voted in five years and has not responded to a state inquiry about his or her current address. Federal and state law also mandate that an "inactive voter" be kept on the state registration list until he or she fails to vote in two consecutive general elections for federal office following the notification.

"Even though many voters identified in this comparison as not having PennDOT IDs are 'inactive voters', most of whom have not voted since 2007, we will err on the side of caution and include them in this mailing," said Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele in a statement released alongside the study.

Even if voters are classified as "inactive" with 100 percent accuracy, however, that leaves nearly 600,000 "active" voters who lack driver's licenses and may not be able to cast their votes on Election Day.

Or, if I were to write the story with a different slant:

Approximately 600,000 prospective voters in Pennsylvania need to get off their butts and find their way to a government office at which they can be issued a free photo ID capable of meeting the PA voting standards. "If they are too lazy or inept to get this done, it is doubtful that they should be voting in any case," said I.M. Ahack, a voting analyst from the University of Upper Yursnow, who continued, "After all if they can't find time between now and November to get a photo ID it's kind of sign of a lack of interest, don't you think?"

Another 167,566 former voters seem to have disappeared from the state as they haven't voted in PA in over 5 years and also haven't responded to state efforts to see if they are interested in voting. "Some of them may have moved out of state, gone to prison or died," theorized S.T. Atfreq from the voter registration section of the Demopublican party. "If they have died or moved, it'll be harder to get them registered, I suppose. Given that 750,000 total number reported by PennDOT only refers to those "voters" without driver's licenses it is possible that this whole report is a joke, because there are so many other forms of acceptable ID that some or all of these people may have. After all, I think you need some sort of photo ID to do everything in our society, like have a bank account, travel on an airplane, enter a federal building, and the like, so I think these numbers are way off."

The forms of ID allowed under PA law:

Reining in the Federal Government: "Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You"

As I wrote earlier, I think that Chief Justice Roberts outwitted the forces pushing "Obamacare."

Here's another voice expressing what I meant, "Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You" - Emmett Tyrrell:

Firstly, he reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at The New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.

Secondly, for the first time since the New Deal, the Court rejected a law for exceeding the spending power of Congress. The Court invalidated the part of Obamacare that gave the federal government the power to coerce state governments to spend money on Medicaid.

Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous as the power that the Court limited, namely, the commerce power. Laws passed under Congress's power to tax and spend may only take our money. Our recourse against this tax is the same recourse we have been employing since 2009, to wit, mobilizing and going to the polls. In 2010, it led to an historic sweep at the state and federal level. In 2012, the sweep will continue landing Mitt Romney in the White House, where he says he will make repealing and replacing Obamacare his preeminent priority. He can also refuse to enforce the tax by executive order. The next Congress can repeal it using reconciliation to avoid a Senate filibuster if necessary. (emphasis added)

However, the key is to get out the vote and use it to boot out supporters of this awful law.

It is foolish to fault the Court for failing to protect us from the ideologues we allow to be elected to Congress.

One link on "Obamacare"

Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare.

I don't think all the Democrats have figured this out yet, but it's gonna limit how the federal government expands.

It's a smart decision.

Nice job, Mr. Chief Justice.

UPDATE: Okay, I was wrong, one more link.

UPDATE2: Wrong again, here's #3.

Fundamentally, it seems to me that the majority decision just tells the American voting public to "grow up and start paying attention to how important your votes are."

UPDATE: One more:

So, as it turns out, the 2012 presidential election won’t really be about same-sex marriage. Or deportations. Or Bain Capital. (Well, mostly not about that stuff.)

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding President Barack Obama’s health-care reform law, the election will–at its core–be squarely about Obamanomics, and whether American voters are happy enough with the results of four years of radical economic experimentation to give the go ahead for four more of the same.

LAST UPDATE: Chief Justice Roberts is correct - it is not up to the courts to strike down bad but constitutional legislation. It is the voters' job to toss out of office politicians who do not reflect the voters' interests. It has long been the Democrats who race to the courthouse to get rulings they could not get passed by any legislative body and it ill becomes the right in this country to expect to be saved by the same courts they have so bitterly decried. Man up and get out the vote and send the offending pols back to their homes before they can do any more harm.

Midrats Episode 126: "National Security in the 2012 Election" -5pm Sunday, June 3 on Blog Talk Radio

"Political Season," like "Hurricane Season," is upon us and it is a good time to look at some of the ramifications of the votes to come, which is exactly what we are doing this Sunday, June 3 at 5pm (Eastern U.S.) with Midrats Episode 126: National Security in the 2012 Election 06/03 on Blog Talk Radio

Five months and a bit to the November 2012 election.

The war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is adrift - but the underlying cause of both remains. OBL is dead yet the drone wars expand.

Our traditional European allies have never been weaker in living memory. The old order in the Arab world is changing, and the western Pacific grows in focus.

A military worn out by a decade of war is also looking at decreasing resources in a sluggish economy.

Where do we prioritize? What is the best mix of strategy and programs to best prepare our military for the challenges of this century?

Which issues related to national defense will make it in to the 2012 contest? How do President Obama and Governor Romney differ in their views, plans, and priorities for our nation's military?

Our returning guest for the full hour will be Mackenzie Eaglen, Resident Fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Mackenzie Eaglen has worked on defense issues in the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate, and at the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on the Joint Staff. She specializes in defense strategy, budget, military readiness and the defense industrial base. In 2010, Ms. Eaglen served as a staff member of the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission established to assess the Pentagon's major defense strategy. A prolific writer on defense related issues, she has also testified before Congress.

Join us live by clicking here or later by downloading the show from here or from the iTunes page.

World Oil Transit Chokepoints - Add One More to the List

The U.S. Energy Information Agency has a dandy list of those narrow places on the earth where oil flowing in commerce on ships can be threatened by "pirates, terrorist attacks, and political unrest" at World Oil Transit Chokepoints. The list includes the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal, Bab el-Mandab, the Bosporus, Panama Canal, and the Danish Straits.

Time to add another narrow area to the list, the "O Gap" sometimes located in Washington,DC and, unique to chokepoints, known to be more a part of a calculation than a real spot on the planet.

Shown below is a rare capturing of the "O Gap" as it begins to close off a route of oil to the U.S.:

Some might feel that the "O Gap" would be better known as the "Keystone Twist". Many people are unhappy with its existence, as set out in Expected Keystone XL permit rejection strongly criticized:

US Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the primary sponsor of legislation that set a deadline for a decision, said the administration misled the American people on the pipeline. “In the face of Iranian threats against oil affordability, [it] once again is trying to blame Congress and the State of Nebraska instead of taking responsibility for American jobs and security,” he said during an appearance at a Greenwood, Ind., instruments and gauges manufacturer who potentially would be doing work for the project. “This political decision offers hard evidence that creating jobs is not a high priority for this administration,” said US Chamber of Commerce Pres. Thomas J. Donohue. “By placing politics over policy, the Obama administration is sacrificing tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs in the short term, and many more than that in the long term.”*** “Blocking the Keystone pipeline would be an enormous mistake by the Obama administration,” said National Center for Policy Analysis Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. “We need the oil and we need the jobs it would bring. This is as ‘shovel ready’ as anything Obama has proposed, yet because his radical environmental constituency objects, he’s apparently halting the pipeline.”

Or, as set out in the video linked at Instapundit, “He chose Venezuela over Canada.”, which really ought to be watched.

China must like the result, Canada will look to China to sell its oil. I guess the oil tanker owners will be happy, too.

Remember the "O Gap" - the new chokepoint. UPDATE: Here, read Re-Election Obsessed Obama Goes Political On Keystone By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON

Taiwan arms sales bill introduced in US Congress

Reported in Taiwan as Taiwan bill introduced in US Congress - Taipei Times:

A major new bill to strengthen and enhance the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) has been introduced to the US Congress by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairperson of the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee.
***
“This bill supports the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan and endorses a wide range of defense exports to the island, and strengthens congressional oversight of defense transfers to Taiwan,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
***
“China must not be allowed to dictate US policy in the Pacific,” she added.
***
It has been introduced at a tense moment in US-Taiwan relations, with Obama nearing a self-imposed deadline of Oct. 1 to announce his decision on whether to sell Taipei 66 advanced F-16C/D jets.

There has been extensive speculation that he will bow to Chinese pressure and refuse to sell the fighters, choosing instead to update and refit Taiwan’s fleet of aging F-16A/B planes. However, if the new bill became law, it force Obama to make the sale.
***

On the question of arms sales, the bill contains a long list of items that should be made available to Taiwan, including modern surface-to-air missiles, vertical and short take-off and landing aircraft, access to satellites for remote sensing and communication, submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles and enhanced senior-level training.

The bill also calls for an extensive review into whether Taiwan’s air defense forces retain the ability to effectively defend Taiwan “against China’s ballistic missile and air threats.”

Taiwan has sought new diesel electric submarines for some time. The G.W. Bush administration suggested purchases from a third party, such as the Netherlands (Taiwan already possesses 2 older Dutch designs) or Italy. Taiwan proposed building its own.

For more on the history of the Taiwan Relations Act, see below.

The hang up on foreign sales to Taiwan is the big mainland Chinese dragon, for example (referring to the stalled submarine acquisition):

Even if a locally-built submarine is more costly than one purchased from abroad, Taiwan has to build its own underwater fighting craft, because naval powers around the world refuse to sell them to Taiwan for fear they might offend the People's Republic.

For those of you unfamiliar with the China-Taiwan controversy, see here for a primer. Another excellent resource is this pdf, "China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei" from the Congressional Research Service.

He hates these cans

On the President's speech on "jobs" (the main focus of which, to me, seemed to be keeping his and those of his cronies) --you can find the text of the speech in its entirety here.

It is good to remember in reading the speech that somewhere between 10% and 20% of working age citizens are out of work. The level of unemployment rises with the level the of lack of education; i.e. a higher percentage of people without high school diplomas are out of work than those with PhD's in nuclear physics or chemistry. On the other hand, 80 to 90% of Americans are employed.

The president seeks to address the needs of the 10-20% because it's some sign that some employment "compact" between workers and their employers has "eroded."

Well, erosion is caused by something - and in this case, we have laid off home building workers because the market for new housing tanked. Why did that market tank? Because the greedy home builders decided they would make more money without workers? Because of government policies that encouraged lending money to any Tom, Susie and Harry who walked into a loan office? Who caused the housing market to tank? Home construction workers are just one example  - you can fill in other jobs impacted by government policies.

The President's favorite rhetorical device is the "straw man" argument. For example, "I'm also well aware that there are many Republicans who don't believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows. While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary - an outrage he has asked us to fix. We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share." What this argument ignores is the almost 50% of the population who pay no income tax, due to "loopholes" passed for their benefit. Indeed, some Americans not only pay no income tax, they receive "credit" (such as the "earned income credit") that may cause them to receive a "refund" of tax they didn't pay. Is this a great country or what? And the basis for a "fair" tax system is that "you can afford it?" What's the old communist saw? "From each according to his means . . .?"

More straw men: "Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations.***But what we can't do — what I won't do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy.***In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone's money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own — that's not who we are. That's not the story of America." Now, honestly, have you heard any rational opponent of the President demanding a choice between "jobs and safety" or rolling back "rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury?" Or any of the other straw men he tossed out there?

 My favorite non sequitur in the speech was this gem: "Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?" Really? Does he mean we are going to build China's "newer airports and faster railroads" right here in America? Or does he mean somehow that China's airport and railroad construction has anything at all to do with whether or not we choose to build our own newer airports and etc.?

Some where along the way, I got reminded of this scene from "The Jerk"



Navin has an excuse for his wrongly drawn conclusions, though.

How to Screw Up National Defense

Read this The American Spectator : Obama's Machete Hacks Up Pentagon Budget and then come back for a discussion.

The President of the United States,flying blind into the world of national defense, comes up with a "magic number" that he must "feel" is the right amount to cut the U.S. Defense budget. That proposal is another $400 billion cut over the next 10 years in addition to the last $400 billion the president says has already been cut. So, what will be removed from national defense by hacking $800 billion?

Well, as pointed out in the article, who the hell knows?

He wants the analysis to find an additional $400 billion to cut from the Pentagon budget in the same ten years [NB as the first $400B] and redefine our "role in a changing world." It's both necessary and proper to make the analysis the president proposed. But, once again, he's set the amount to be cut before performing the essential threat analysis.

In other words, fire, then move the target to claim a hit.

Again, to the commentary,

We will no longer plan for the future and invest in the tools of war we will foreseeably need. The cuts Obama and Gates have already made will result in a force that is shaped differently from the one we might need were an enemy to disagree with Dr. Gates' belief that we won't have to fight another conventional war. Or if American satellites were attacked in space. Or if we were to suffer the kind of cyber attacks that were made on Estonia, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia by Putin's Russia. Or if any number of other real threats were to be realized.

To borrow Obama's phrase, let's be perfectly clear. Our nation's security and that of our allies is at risk because of the cuts that have already been made in the absence of a realistic analysis of the threats we face. We cannot afford another round of "hope and change" at the Pentagon. The armed services need a budget that enables them to meet and deter or defeat every serious threat.

This is no way to plan any part of government, let alone that devoted to national defense. It's time for serious people to look at all aspects of the budget, and set realistic goals, not pull "magic numbers" out of the air.

It might even be possible that the President's dollar amount is exactly right. Stranger things have happened. But the wrong way to find out is when we really need a military we don't have.

Good Political Advice: The Tortise Strategy

Worth reading by the conservative/libertarian opponents of the current executive branch.

The American Spectator : Don't Let Alinsky Win:

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength," wrote Alinsky in Rules for Radicals. "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step…."

Cloward and Piven, meanwhile, called for "a political crisis… that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty." They propose actions that "would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions…. [B]y the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level." And: "Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy."

A crisis is Obama's friend. An angry reaction is his ally. Disorder is his goal.

His mortal enemy (speaking tactically), on the other hand, is steady, sober, thoughtful, rational pressure by political adversaries who are willing to take the time to consolidate gains, explain themselves, reassure the public that it (the public) has nothing to fear from them (Obama's adversaries), and which constantly calibrates their words and actions to make it evident that they are keeping the moral high ground. A government shutdown does not fit this model. Forcing a debt crisis does not fit this model. Incendiary rhetoric doesn't fit the model, nor do all-or-nothing ultimatums.

In short, slow and steady. In fact, "relentless" may be a better term than steady.

You think it doesn't matter about keeping calm but steady pressure? Look at these two new White House efforts to . . . goad conservatives? Further expand the federal government?

1. Boeing may not be your favorite company, but what happens when a company's right to move to less unionized state is attacked by the federal executive branch? See Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead. Given that the argument is that the Boeing effort is purely a anti-union move and the NLRB has couched its complaint as responding to a Boeing "retaliation":

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

Really? So it is thus okay to force Boeing to remain in higher labor cost Washington? What about all those companies that moved production offshore to take advantage of lower labor costs (much of it related to union activity)? Can we force them to bring it all back to the U.S.? Can we make the auto makers who located plants in "open shop" states to require union membership to make it fair, when one of the reasons they left Michigan and Ohio to begin with was to avoid union hassles? Can we make Ford move factories back from Mexico? Can we make U.S. airlines buy only U.S. made aircraft? Who will pay the price for the higher costs? Oh, the consumer? Big deal, I guess.

If Washington state doesn't like businesses moving out because of more "business friendly" labor laws, why doesn't Washington state modify its laws? You know the answer - the power of union votes and money.

What prevents the Washington workers from moving themselves to South Carolina?

By having the feds step in this manner, questions must be raised about all those other inter-state competitions (such as sweet tax deals and other incentives to induce a business to relocate from California or New York to North Carolina or Mississippi)?

What about things that might be attractive enough to induce residents of states that have high income taxes to move to states that have no or much lower income taxes (Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming)? Isn't that "unfair" to the high tax states? UPDATE: For all you living in New Jersey and New York who are planning to retire to Florida - better do it soon, before it requires a federal permit that shows your expected tax contribution to NJ/NY is so negligible that you can be allowed to move. All you multi-millionaires - good luck getting such a license to move.

Was the goal of the founders to let each state exercise its own path in determining its laws and regulations or to allow the national government to force its views on individual states. If the latter, then why have states? Let's get rid of all the excess money spent on state legislatures, governors, state courts, and state laws and constitutions and give have one national legislature, executive and judiciary running the whole show.  Create your scenarios.

This battle needs to be fought in the courts, slowly and carefully. You know, unless like the idea that all states should become New York.

2. Okay, how about demanding that companies doing business with the federal government give up their free speech rights? See Obama administration considers moves to limit anonymous donations:

The White House last week began circulating a draft executive order that would require companies seeking government contracts to disclose contributions – including those that otherwise would have been secret – to groups that air political ads attacking or supporting candidates.

This a "push back" against the U.S. Supreme Court decsion that allows corporate donations to political campaigns. See here:

“No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporation,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Is this an intimidation tactic? "Get along to go along?" Will there be an impact on the flow of government business your way if it turns out that your corporation has donated money to the opponents of a current administration, even if the donations are totally legal? What do you think?

So, two examples of action/proposed action that could foment an outraged response. Time to take a deep breath and win the little battles that win the larger war. Slow and steady.

On the Path to Understanding "American Exceptionalism"

Perspectives Of A Russian Immigrant: Elena Kagan And "The Urge To Alter"

No individual or business can harm another as much as powerful and unaccountable centralized government. The reason people of all ethnicities, religions and backgrounds come to and succeed in America more than anywhere else is that America has a Constitution that limits the power of government.

Photo by Dennis Mulligan, from the NPS website.