Author: sailorj

In the world of BRAC and saving money for the DoD and Navy, one has to question the purpose of building the new DD(X). Submariners have joked for decades that there only two types of ships… Submarines and Targets. Truly, no one expects to see great sea battles of WWII, and rarely has there been a need for large combatant escorts on the ocean. A modern Navy needs to reinvent itself.

Our Navy needs to concentrate on a three facetted supremacy, shore, airspace and waterspace. How can we accomplish this? First, Shore-based supremacy is accomplished by our Navy-Marine Corps Team. The use of Landing Crafts and other ships needed to transport Marines and Sea Bees to distant shores should be an acquisition priority. These ships should also be re-invented to provide ample self protection. There is no reason that they should need to be escorted by other warships. They are by definition, a warship.

Airspace supremacy is and has been accomplished by a very able Aircraft Carrier group. Maintaining the Carriers is a vital to establishing a forward deployed presence anytime anywhere. Carriers need to be reinvented to be multi-mission capable. Carriers need to carry their own set of deployable boats for littoral protection. Carriers should be virtually impenetrable fortresses from any surface or air strikes.

Finally, waterspace supremacy is virtually the domain of the Submarine. Any navy that does not have a submarine might as well not even attempt to conduct any sea-based operations. The US Submarine force has continued to evolve over the past 100 years, unlike any other part of the Navy. From diesel power to nuclear power, fast attack to being the last surviving leg of our nation’s nuclear triad, the submarine force is the “Tip of the Sword” for the US Navy. Using submarines to provide ship escort services, anti-submarine operations, special operations, forward deployed conventional missile batteries and on and on continues to prove that this where we get the most bang for our buck.

If the Navy really wants to save money, they need to get rid of these ridiculous surface ships that serve no real purpose, and concentrate on the three pronged approach to deploying forces. While I have not addressed non-combatant oriented ships, such as supply ships and mine sweepers, as long as their mission is unique, it should stand up to similar tests of need. The days of the “Great White Fleet” are over. Ships such as the Stark and Cole prove that deploying these types of vessels just do not make as much sense anymore, when a message to a submarine can mean the utter doom of shipping or war making capability of just about any country.

As we watch countries such as China and India invest more and more into submarines, we can be sure that the best defense is a more capable submarine platform. It is hard to imagine that there are better platforms that perform the missions as capable with less personnel than a U.S. Submarine. They are more capable, more survivable, and more threatening than any warship. The pittance that politicians are throwing at the Submarine Force to keep it afloat is a travesty to our Nation’s defensive posture. Without an effective and highly trained submarine force, our nation could essentially be considered defenseless.

The controversial, lauded, and trashed Cindy Sheehan seems to be the hot press item these days since she’s decided to camp out at the President’s vacation spot in Crawford, TX.

I sympathize with her on the loss of her son in war. It is a tragedgy beyond tragedy for any parent to have to bury a child. At 18-ish years old, he had his whole life ahead of him. As a person who has been in harms way to support this nation, albeit, not with bullets flying across my head, but none the less in harms way, I can understand how HE must have felt. Military folk face the possibility of death every day, but they just don’t think about it. If they did, they would have a difficult time doing their job.

But I digress… My real distaste for Ms. Sheehan is her citing of her son dying for Israel. Her simplistic and erroneous view of history makes you question her ideology. Especially with friends like David Duke coming to her side/defense. If you want to be a peace activist, great. I think everyone would love their loved one’s to come home soon. We’d all love peace. Trust me, military people don’t live for the next good war. They hope that there will not be another war.

It’s just hard to read a message of peace with a message of hate! Cindy’s claim that America is fighting Israel’s war is insane. Blaming Israel for the violence because they occupy areas such as the West Bank are also crazy if you read and understood the history of why the region is in the situation that it is in. A quick recap. 6-day war, Yom Kippur War… Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt get their asses kicked and Israel occupies those sovereign nation’s land to protect it’s (Israel’s) borders. Those lands have become the Palestinian disputed lands.

The Israel’s have been marked by the Arab community for extinction from before the days of an Israeli State. Until the Palestinians recognize that killing civilians is a moral and ethical wronging, and the authorities change the mental attitudes about suicide bombings, these problems will continue. They won’t be happy until Israel is no more. Is that Sheehan’s desire?

Let’s face it, there are lots of dynamics that play here, weapons, water, strategic locations and religion. This is no bandaid fix like Sheehan would suggest.

So, like I say, Sheehan, leave Israel out of your message and stick to your no war message and be heard my others.

Recently I read an article that questioned whether or not the US needed to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It made some claim that the US didn’t realize how close Japan was from surrendering. So I thought that it was interesting that 60 years later we are talking about this in a sort of Wednesday morning quarterback type of situation. I mean let’s face it, Monday and Tuesday have passed, and we are well into the week after the game has been played out.

Anyways, I do believe that there is a flaw in this idea that we should become self-loathing American’s for being the only country in the world to use Nuclear Weapons. While we can agree that it is regrettable that they were used in warfare we still have to look at a much smarter view of World War II. The fact is that we firebombed plenty of German and Japanese cities, laying 100’s of Tons of ordnance. Germany developed Blitzkreig, and was ruthless in treating Millions of people.

There are lots of commentary that give the following reasons supporting the Bomb:

• It was developed at great cost to the US and need to be proven.
• We wanted to show the Russian’s that we had the upperhand, and it would give us a better negotiation hand.
• We wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor.
• Dropping the Bomb would save American Lives.
• Dropping the Bomb would end the war sooner.

There may be other reasons as well, but this was the basic thoughts that I have read that is out there. I believe that the last two were accomplished by dropping the Bomb.

When you consider that communications to the Empire of Japan was slow. Their treatment of American’s as POWs was aweful (see Baatan Deathmarch). And the population was dedicated to the Emperor, no matter what. If people did not come to know that this weapon was so aweful, they would have scoffed and continued to fight in disbelief of the US capability.

Nuclear weapons serve their purpose, in the past and in the present. We can regret that they needed to be used, but we can acknowledge that is was necessary. 60 years ago, the earth stood still. Let’s hope that deterrence can now work.

Turned 21 for the 15th time… Today!

I think that in light of things that are going on, McClellan himself may have more to fear about potential jail time than any of us know. First he informed the press back in 2003 that Mr. Rove had nothing to do with the Plame leak, and now after being so candid in the past finds himself tight lipped. Maybe he was part of the cover up back then, or quite possibly knows who gave Rove the information.

Whether or not you like Plame and Wilson really is irrelevant. The fact is, one was an undercover CIA agent. It is against the law to reveal the identity of our agents. There was no way based on Wilson’s bio to know that Plame was in fact an operative for the CIA. The truth is she doesn’t even go by the Name Plame. She goes by Wilson, as reported by many press accounts.

Anyway, my point here is that this must be a pretty big deal for there to be no real denial, but instead a continuation of the same statement, “I’m not going to comment on an on-going investigation.” Well, isn’t that McClellan’s job? He is the President’s Press Secretary.

The next question you have to ask is who is Judith Miller protecting? Since Karl Rove has already been outted as the source for the leak… could she know who told Rove? And is that a bigger deal?

Is she the Susan McDoogall of the Bush Whitehouse?

A crime was committed, and the American people deserve honest and candid information from the Whitehouse. If McClellan can’t speak, then maybe the President should at least make a public statement addressing some of these press questions, and put it to bed once and for all.

Welcome to the school of the Ministry of Misinformation.

I’ll give you a quote, you decide! 😉

Who said it?

1. I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place.
2. Well, I mean, you can state the obvious.
3. These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying.
4. I think you all in this room know me very well. And you know the type of person that I am. You, and many others in this room, have dealt with me for quite some time.
5. You’re making an assumption that I wouldn’t make either. So — go ahead.
6. This is unbased.

The answers: 1. BB 2. SM 3. BB 4. SM 5. SM 6. BB

Did you win?

Read Scott McClellan’s evasion of the media at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-4.html#

Well, let’s revisit our friend, the old bill o’ frights, I mean, Bill of rights. It seems that some folks would want to interfere with our friends in the press. And now comes a very interesting debate.

The first amendment states: (copied from billofrights.com)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So now the Supreme Court or some court must ultimately decide if Judith Miller’s decision to protect her sources abridges freedom of the press. Let’s face it, there is a strong belief that if her source(s) turn out to be Whitehouse Staffers, there could be some huge problems for President Bush, and the GOP. This also may be why we haven’t seen too much heat from the GOP in wanting to see her reveal the sources, (ie, comply with the Special Prosecutor/Grand Jury’s requests). Ah when the shoe is on the other foot.

I only hope that this means a bipartisan push to solidify the strength of the 1st Amendment when it comes to freedom of the press. The next question today is what defines the press? With the Internet and bloggers and webportals and emerging guerrilla journalism, it seems that this profession has evolved into something potentially larger than our founding fathers ever could have imagined.

Honestly, I don’t believe that the Internet has yet drawn the masses away from mainstream media outlets such as Newspapers, TV News, and Radio. However I do believe it provides some of the first and best coverage that anyone is able to get on a wide variety of topics. These bricks and mortar News Agencies draw from the Internet in a big way, and the blogging community becomes a source unto itself that may need some protecting… ie the first amendment.

And the circle is complete.

Plug for the day: Huffingtonpost.com

The US Supreme Court proved that they are once again not too concerned with the Constitution of the US when it comes to property rights. As you may know, the Judicial body chose to allow local governments to take individual properties under the guise of eminate domain laws, and then sell that land/property for redevelopment to a realize a tax base gain.

In the US, for some reason, property rights are the last rights that we have. Government should not have the power to seize your property and give it to private industry. If they need to build a road or something that the govenment needs to do, then I can understand it. If it is to just change the neighborhood, then no way.

I think that here in Florida, if I can find people who would like to form a PAC we could at least get the signatures on the ballot, and stop people from losing their property because one or two guys on a city council want to seize your property.

Bob Barr

That former Congressman from GA, goes from Patriot Act supporter to Libertarian, recommending that powers be removed from the government when they expire is a breath of fresh air. You can find his editorial at huffingtonpost.com.

If you have been watching the Entertainment portion of your news, you may have heard about a romantic interlude between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. No big deal, it’s Hollywood, right! Wrong!

This is about Cult activity. Sure Katie Holmes is over 21 and can make decisions for herself, but in her star-struck state, she might do anything to please her would be love. As for Tom Cruise, we could only guess as to his motive.

But with all of this going on, I had to ask myself what the big deal was. After all, I’m progressive, live and let live and all that jazz. Yet as I looked at what it was, I have become concerned that the active recruitment of converts flys in the face of live and let live. Therefore should be under close examination and scrutiny. After all, how can you protect yourself from those who would do you harm, if you don’t have the facts. Before you even research Scientology, familiarize yourself with the warning signs of a cult.

Here is one persons overview of Scientology

To Quote Scott McClare, “I have never been a Scientologist, nor have I ever met one to my knowledge. As a result I have drawn some fire from Scientologists and others for saying the things you’ll read here. Some people believe it is not proper to criticise Scientology unless the critic has had some involvement with it. In my opinion, this reasoning is unsound. I do not need to have been a slave to oppose slavery. I do not need to have been poor to oppose poverty. And I do not need to have been a Scientologist to oppose Scientology.” Visit his website!

But what is a cult, and do Scientology meet the definition. Well read the Facts at CultWatch.

Here’s some Warning Signs

MORE – Warning signs of a destructive cult

Do you know someone in a destructive cult?
This is from Factnet.org

Anyone could attack a group they disagree with by unfairly labeling it a destructive cult. How would you know whether it really were such a cult or not? Isn’t there an objective method to evaluate groups for cultic tendencies? Yes. The following early warning signs can help you reasonably determine whether or not a group is likely to be a destructive cult, and if you should be concerned about a friend, coworker, or loved one being involved with it.

The main reason that the following destructive cult tactics are so damaging to both the individual and society is because they debilitate rationality and reduce empathy. Rationality and empathy are indispensable in making good personal and social decisions. History is littered with personal and social catastrophes where a lack of rationality and lack of empathy were its core causes.

Ask yourself if the following criteria apply to the group you are concerned about.

1. A destructive cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of its members’ behavior. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail not only what members believe, but also what members wear and eat, when and where members work, sleep, and bathe, and how members think, speak, and conduct familial, marital, or sexual relationships.
2. A destructive cult tends to have an ethical double standard. Members are urged to be obedient to the cult, to carefully follow cult rules. They are also encouraged to be revealing and open in the group, confessing all to the leaders. On the other hand, outside the group they are encouraged to act unethically, manipulating outsiders or nonmembers, and either deceiving them or simply revealing very little about themselves or the group. In contrast to destructive cults, honorable groups teach members to abide by one set of ethics and act ethically and truthfully to all people in all situations.
3. A destructive cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. Altruistic movements, established religions, and other honorable groups also recruit and raise funds. However, these actions are incidental to an honorable group’s main purpose of improving the lives of its members and of humankind in general. Destructive cults may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality such claims are superficial and only serve as gestures or fronts for recruiting and fund-raising. A cult’s real goal is to increase the prestige and often the wealth of the leader.
4. A destructive cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the ONLY viable system for change that will solve life’s problems or the world’s ills. But these claims are empty and only used to recruit members who are then surreptitiously subjected to mind control to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.
5. A destructive cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader’s wishes. There is no appeal outside his or her system to a greater system of justice. For example, if a schoolteacher feels unjustly treated by a principal, an appeal can be made to the superintendent. In a destructive cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.
6. A destructive cult’s leader is a self-appointed messianic person claiming to have a special mission in life. For example, leaders of flying saucer cults claim that beings from outer space have commissioned them to lead people away from Earth, so that only the leaders can save them from impending doom.
7. A destructive cult’s leader centers the veneration of members upon himself or herself. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and other leaders of genuinely altruistic movements focus the veneration of adherents on God or a set of ethical principles. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.
8. A destructive cult’s leader tends to be determined, domineering, and charismatic. Such a leader effectively persuades followers to abandon or alter their families, friends, and careers to follow the cult. The leader then takes control over followers’ possessions, money, time, and lives.

If you know someone who belongs to a group that demonstrates a significant number of these warning signs and you would like more information on how to deal with destructive cults or mind control, go to www.factnet.org.

Thanks to Factnet.org and others for this blog posting.

note: I posted this today on the MacGuild mailing list as well, I figure since I wrote it, I could put it here too. Feel Free to quote me, just give me the credit! 😀 -Judd Spitzer

If anyone here has seen the movie, The gods must be crazy, then you may already know what I’m alluding to. The straight forward synopsis from IMDB.com is, “A Sho in the Kalahari desert encounters technology for the first time–in the shape of a Coke bottle”

Maybe Steve Jobs is getting ready to drop a Coke bottle down on the users of Intel-based computers (Windows users).

I for one was a skeptical about this announcement as any avid MacUser. I like to believe that some of the passion that drives the emotionally attached MacUser is the fact that WE love to understand the architecture behind our product, and can defend in many ways why it is superior to other computers. Hence forth, MacTel or MacIntel, or whatever… does this mean we’re just like them?

Honestly, I don’t think that this really should have come as much of a real big surprise to the Mac Development community. After all, Darwin has been fully supported on x86 based machines since OS X came out for the most part. See: http://www.opendarwin.org/en/downloads/

Occasionally, I’ll glance into my crystal ball and attempt to guess at what those leopards are doing at Apple. Maybe the old adage that leopard can’t change its spots isn’t true, or so Apple is betting on. Yet, what could the future hold?

Some possibilities to consider:

1) Apple plans on releasing Leopard to go head to head with Longhorn, and make it run on a Intel box of opportunity, and directly go for market share as companies look to do corporate refreshes.

2) Apple has seen the Linux community support both x86 and PPC based architectures for years and realizes that it isn’t out of the realm of possibilities to maintain both sides of the house for greater leverage of market share.

3) PPC based computers have traditionally demonstrated better scalability and future growth. Apple may be planning on keeping servers on the PPC based side to garner those better chips that IBM is keeping in the back room, since there is no way IBM can make enough for PC production.

4) Government Conspiracy, They simply don’t want too powerful computers getting into the hands of unfriendly governments. The Apple has leveraging technologies built into the OS. Imagine what Iran could do with 1000 G5 Macs? Maybe they want to stifle competition in the PC processor market for a while.

5) Apple and Intel could be working on a completely new chip based on x86 technology, but is enhanced by Apple’s Engineering team for OS optimization.

Well, I thought I’d throw some theories out there and see if anyone thinks the are worth their weight in LCD pixels.

Rosetta and Leopard sound great, now lets see what that famed Marketing department can do in the damage control department.

Judd Spitzer
(juddspitzer.com)
MacGuild Contributor