Sleeping Air Traffic Controllers and the Battle for the Shop Floor

At Washington Reagan National Airport in late March, a sleeping controller failed to respond to two airliners seeking to land shortly after midnight.  The resulting publicity broke the silence on a long festering problem between the FAA and the air controllers’ union NATCA.  That there is a culture of sleeping on the job.  It is banned by long existent regulations, but ignored by the controllers especially on the midnight shift.  This is now the battle for control of the “shop floor.”  From an AP report dated April 18:  

It has been an open secret in the FAA dating to at least the early 1990s that controllers sometimes sleep on the job….

Much more common is taking a nap on purpose, they said. On midnight shifts, one controller will work two positions while the other one sleeps and then they switch off, controllers said. The unsanctioned arrangements sometimes allow controllers to sleep as much as three hours or four hours out of an eight-hour shift, they said.

The FAA does not allow controllers to sleep at work, even during breaks. Controllers who are caught can be suspended or fired. But at many air traffic facilities the sleeping swaps are tolerated as long as they don't affect safety, controllers said.

"It has always been a problem," said former controller Rick Perl, who retired last year.

In 1991, a Denver television station caught controllers leaving a regional radar center during midnight shifts to sleep in their cars, sometimes for as long as five hours. A former internal watchdog at the Department of Transportation, Mary Schiavo, recalled her office investigating a similar incident in Texas during the early 1990s.

The problem of tired controllers was raised by the National Transportation Safety Board after a 2006 crash of a regional airliner in Lexington, Kentucky, that killed 49 of the 50 people aboard.

The lone controller in the airport tower was wrapping up a schedule that compressed five eight-hour shifts into four days. He cleared a regional jet for takeoff and failed to notice the plane make a wrong turn onto a runway that was too short.

The board cited pilot error as the cause of the accident, but noted the controller had slept only two of the previous 24 hours. (emphasis added)

Part of the fatigue problem is the way controllers schedule themselves, often trying to cram 5 shifts into 4 days to enjoy a 3 day weekend.  But in doing so, they schedule the night shift, the one most susceptible to drowsiness, only 8 hours after prior shift and at the end of the string of 5 shifts.  From the Washington Post:

One of the most popular schedules is known as the 2-2-1. Under it, a controller begins the workweek with two evening shifts, does a quick turnaround to a pair of day shifts and then does another quick turn before an overnight shift.

Those quick turnarounds — usually just eight hours — have been blamed for controller fatigue, but the 2-2-1 is favored by many controllers because it compacts their workweek and creates a weekend of at least three days.

Under the new guidelines, which took effect over the weekend, air traffic controllers are guaranteed (sic) a minimum of nine hours off between shifts, an increase of an hour over the previous policy.

The changes also include a ban on trading shifts with other controllers unless the minimum between shifts is met; prohibited swapping of regular days off in some circumstances; and an extension of the hours a manager is on duty until 1 a.m.

“We expect controllers to come to work rested and ready to work and take personal responsibility for safety in the control towers,” LaHood said Sunday. “We have zero tolerance for sleeping on the job.”

LaHood’s final remarks hit the point.  It is the responsibility of the individual controller to get enough sleep.  If the  schedule  he chooses precludes enough sleep or he simply fails to get enough sack time and reports to work fatigued, he should take himself off duty.  That’s what airline pilots do. 

But the union philosophy differs.  Don Brown, retired controller from the Atlanta Center in his blog Get the Flick critiques the FAA’s decision to add a second controller to 27 towers on the slow mid shift.  It goes to the heart of the union’s sense of entitlement to set the rules.  It goes to the heart of who controls the shop floor. 

Assigning two people to one control position will revert to one person on position when they decide to split the shift in half. (One works the first half while the other sleeps and then they swap.) Even if you try to manage it, history suggests that at some point in time, the situation will revert to splitting the shift. It’s human nature. Besides, you would need to assign a manager to the shift if you wanted to “manage” the situation. In other words, another body that you don’t have….  The “best” way to manage the problem is to have three controllers assigned the shift. Two to man the position while the other rests. And yes, rest does mean sleeping. (emphasis added)

Military controllers don’t sleep on watch.  There, it is more than a firing offense.  It is a court martial offense.  Perhaps it is the mental discipline of the military controllers at Andrews AFB that caught the incorrect spacing of Michelle Obama’s aircraft when it was handed off from the Warrenton FAA (NATCA represented) center yesterday and ordered it to abort the landing.

The FCC is up to No Good

Last Thursday, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial entitled “The FCC Muzzle” which spelled out the shenanigans the FCC intends to pull prior to next year’s presidential elections.  They seek to do an end run around the Citizen’s United decision and accomplish by regulatory fiat what Democrats in congress couldn’t do.  And that is to place requirements that top donors to organizations running ads be identified.  Current law requires only the organizations paying for the commercials to be identified.

In today’s politicized atmosphere, thuggish intimidation of Republican and conservative corporate support by leftists has become endemic.  It has reached absurd levels in Wisconsin where unions have threatened small businesses with boycotts if they don’t display signs supporting them.  The Journal’s editorial starts:

Congress tried and failed last year to limit corporate political speech in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, but the threat hasn't gone away. The new liberal hope is that the Federal Communications Commission will do the deed.

Liberal activists at the Media Access Project filed a petition last week asking the FCC to re-interpret decades of law to require that groups that run political ads disclose the names of their top donors. The 1934 Communications Act already requires any group paying for an ad—whether commercial or political—to disclose its identity as part of the ad. But liberals want President Obama's FCC to stretch this reading to require the on-air disclosure of any donor providing 25% or more of funding.

It continues with what the Journal considers the intent:

The goal here is to use "transparency" to intimidate businesses out of making political donations. Disclosure sounds good, but liberals have begun to wield it as a weapon to vilify business donors. Exhibit A was last year's smearing of Target Corp., after it donated to an independent group that ran ads supporting Minnesota GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org twisted the contribution into a claim that Target was "anti-gay" and organized a boycott of Target stores. The company stopped donations.

When the Citizens United decision was handed down, Senator Schumer went berserk and promised legislation (Disclose Act) to reveal contributors.  It failed.  So now the FCC has been given the task to carry Schumer’s water.

This is not the first time the ruse of “transparency” was attempted to intimidate and pressure political supporters.  It happened before in the Deep South in the 1950s.  There are parallels to what happened then and what is being happening now. Fortunately the Supreme Court then put a halt to it in NAACP v. Alabama which recognized that confidentiality was needed to prevent intimidation.

I used that case to write a Letter to the Editor of the Journal.  It ran Monday (4/4/11):

Sometimes Disclosure Begets Intimidation

The threat of intimidation against contributors that would come from mandatory FCC disclosure rules would have a chilling effect on the political process ("The FCC Muzzle," Review & Outlook, March 31).

Such was the case in the racially charged atmosphere of the mid-1950s, when the state of Alabama refused to allow the NAACP to do business in the state. The central issue was a requirement to force the NAACP to turn over its financial records and a list of its members and agents to the state, which the NAACP refused to do. In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (NAACP v. Alabama, 1958) for the NAACP, citing the need for privacy and the ability to freely associate to advance its beliefs and ideals.

Other organizations have modeled themselves after the NAACP to protect their members and contributors, most notably the National Right to Work Committee and its legal arm, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. This is done to shield its members and contributors from union intimidation.

Crosby Boyd
Sanibel, Fla.

Will this deter the FCC?  Probably not.  Recently they simply ignored the ruling of the 10^th Circuit that Congress had not  granted them authority over the Internet (Comcast v. FCC) and simply went ahead and issued regulations anyway.  Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that recognizes the importance of the First Amendment and its fragility.

Will a Stalemate in Libya lead to the Nationalization of Western Oil Companies?

The papers today were vey light on news from Libya so my guess is the polling numbers are not going Obama’s way. A week ago the rebels were marching west toward Tripoli. Gaddafi’s troops were in retreat and under attack from US fighter bombers. Cruise missiles were destroying Libyan air defenses. But the tide turned last Monday when Gaddafi’s forces repulsed the rebels at Sirte and retook the oil ports of Ras Lanuf and Brega. Note: Brega currently is being contested by rebels but is still considered in government hands.

NATO has since taken operational command of combat operations and the US has announced it has withdrawn its attack aircraft and will restrict itself to only tanker, jamming and reconnaissance mission. NATO has said it will not arm the rebels and the President and Defense Secretary have publicly ruled out the use of ground forces.

So where does that leave the coalition? Not in very good shape. We backed a ragtag undisciplined group of rebels with no fighting experience and expected them to defeat a trained military. We expected a no fly zone to halt Gaddafi’s troops then stopped flying support missions ourselves. Neither battles nor wars are won by timid actions and this will unfortunately prove it.

It will probably end up a stalemate, but with Gaddafi’s troops chipping away at the rebels in Benghazi. Likely they will simply drift away with Gaddafi and his family still in power. What the coalition never contemplated was the downside of not achieving victory.

Dictators, even benevolent ones, don’t take kindly to JDAMs landing in their sleeping quarters. It is likely Gaddafi is more than a little bit ticked at having his sleep disturbed followed by announcements from Washington, Paris and London that he must go. Will he retaliate? Of course he will. This is the Middle East.

The most vulnerable assets coalition countries have in Libya are its oil companies.  They include -- US: ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Hess, Occidental and ExxonMobil, UK: BP and Anglo Dutch Shell and France: government owned TOTAL. Oil likely will continue to flow, but not under the ownership of the western oil companies. Likely substitutes to operate nationalized facilities are Chinese and Russians operators who are ever willing to take advantage of western missteps.

Lesson for the future: There is no substitute for victory.

Florida High-Speed Rail … The Monster that just won’t die

Just as in the horror movies, where the best efforts of pitchfork armed citizenry and repeated mortal blows fail to subdue the local monster, Florida high speed rail still continues to haunt us. It just can't be killed. Governor Jeb Bush killed it in 1999. But the zombie came to life again in 2000 in the form of a constitutional amendment. In 2004 the voters again killed it.

But the monster still lives, courtesy of the Obama administration. The administration wants to make Florida a gift of $2.4 billion to begin the first leg of the system. This project is wrong because Florida will have to assume any cost overruns and operating losses of at least a billion dollars annually; it won’t save the traveler significant time; and energy savings will be miniscule at best. If Transportation Secretary LaHood thinks it is such a good idea, he should turn the program over to Amtrak and let it shoulder the long term burden. But he doesn’t. Like so many other federal programs, he pushes off these unfunded mandates onto the states.

Our new governor Rick Scott, like his counterparts in Ohio and Wisconsin, rejected the government's offer. Governor Scott is wrestling with a projected state deficit of $3.6 billion and adding a billion or so more each year just doesn’t compute. Still, a group of legislators from Tampa and South Florida are attempting to form an authority to keep the project alive but doubts remain that they can put a viable plan together. LaHood set a deadline for this past Friday (Feb. 25) but has extended it until March 4, a sign there may be problems getting parties in agreement.

Costs of High-Speed Rail

Back in 2000, a study was made on the costs of the full system (Tampa to Miami). It projected losses for the full system at $617 million to $1.6 billion (in year 2000 dollars). From the Business Wire:

[I]nternationally renowned public policy consultant and transportation expert Wendell Cox has released eye-opening costs and data regarding Amendment Initiative No.1, which Florida voters will decide on Nov. 7,[2000]. According to the report, the estimated cost to construct a high-speed rail system connecting the state's five largest metropolitan areas would be between $8.2 billion and $21.9 billion; take 20 years to complete; and cost Florida between $617 million and $1.6 billion in annual deficits once in operation.

It’s safe to assume we are talking a billion or more per year in current dollars.

Time of Travel

Existing airline travel scheduled times between Tampa and Miami/Lauderdale are in the in the 1 to 1:05 hour time frame, compared to an estimated 2:30 to 2:45 hour/324 mile train ride. The route is covered by American Airlines and “two bags free” Southwest Airlines. Interestingly, all five metro areas have made plans to co-locate their train stations with their airports to save on parking facilities, putting the time comparisons on an even footing.

Prices are unknown, but using Amtrak's Acela service between Washington and New York (225 miles) as an example, the fares vary between $139 to over $200 depending on time of day and demand. This is in line with American Airlines($118-163 economy saver, super saver fares) but higher than Southwest ($69-123 wanna get away fare) to nearby Lauderdale.

In the case of the private automobile, which has the advantage of portal to portal service, the time difference is insignificant. Using a hypothetical traveler going from downtown Clearwater (near Tampa) to the Fontainebleu Hotel in Miami Beach and allowing for travel time to and from the airports, the time by train is 4:15 hours vs. 4:35 (MapQuest estimate) by car. And using your car saves renting one or using taxis at the destination. Conclusion: Air travel beats rail significantly in speed and cars, because they offer portal to portal service, are almost equal to high-speed rail.

Energy

On the energy side intercity trains have an advantage over cars. The most recent Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 29—2010 (Table 2.12, page 63 in the pdf version - for the wonks) shows Amtrak’s energy use at 2,398 Btu per passenger mile vs. 3,437 for cars, a significant advantage. But when the 324 miles of train mileage and the 275 road mileage are factored in for Tampa to Miami, the car passenger uses just 22% more energy for the trip. It must be noted that the Amtrak figures are primarily for trains limited to 79 mph. Trains, like cars and aircraft are bound by the same laws of physics and when you double the speed to 160 mph+, air drag and energy use increase exponentially. It is doubtful high-speed rail energy efficiency comes anywhere near standard (slow) speed passenger rail.

So, Governor, seize the wooden stake and drive it into the heart of this monster. And do it before dawn’s light.

Will the Great Lakes freeze over this year? How to keep track

Update: Information here is the latest published data as of January 23, 2011.

With the recent blasts of frigid air into the mid parts of the US, there is renewed interest in tracking ice conditions in the Great Lakes.

Here are some maps and links to make it easy to follow. Two years ago, three of the lakes froze over: Superior, Huron and Erie. Normally the maximum freeze extent comes at the end of February or the first week in March. The first two charts come from this website and are updated twice a week. The web address has changed from last year, as well as the method of accessing them. After opening the site, under Category click on Charts and then select East Composite or West Composite. In the right hand box, click on the bottom listing to get the most recent data.

Another chart can be found here. It covers all the lakes in a single view and contains temperature information of unfrozen areas.

Merry Christmas Nina Totenberg

NPR’s Nina Totenberg’s recent offensive remark about Christmas (“forgive the expression”) would have had her fired had the network followed the same rules that saw Juan Williams’ contract revoked. But that is liberalism. Juan committed the unpardonable sin of appearing on Fox News, Totenberg did not. So she gets a pass.

The vicious attacks on Christianity by liberals usually peak at Christmas, one of the two most important celebrations for Christianity. Christmas is an easy target because it has devolved from a primarily a religious holiday, to a more commercial one. But even in its current form, it is a time of cheer, forgiveness and joy. It is when we enjoy happiness even in a time of war. It is when we wish peace to our enemies. It is when we sing carols and share our happiness.

I am not a particularly religious person. Only recently did I start regularly attending services, after a 50 year gap. I did it as much to please my wife as anything – but I also feel better for having done so. Last evening I attended a Catholic service, the religion of one of my daughters and her husband and their children. I felt as comfortable there as I do in my Episcopal church and as I do when I attend services at Congregational and Lutheran churches. As I sat through the service I thought about the recent attacks on Christianity and how trivial they are compared to past history. In Roman times, Christians defied lions in the Coliseum. They lived and practiced their religion in the catacombs out of fear of Roman reprisals.

Despite all of this, Christianity thrived and spread. It also survived in Soviet Russia, where the government refused the ordination of new priests and it survives in Communist China where it was banned and practiced underground until recently. Still it operates under restraints of the government. So a silly remark by Ms. Totenberg, or a suit to remove a crèche scene from a place used for dozens of years is insignificant. It reflects more on the perpetrator than on its target, Christianity.

In the spirit of the times, we all should turn the other cheek and wish these folks too can find the joy of the Christmas season. And with that in mind and in all sincerity, I wish Nina Totenberg a Merry Christmas.

Is the Washington Post about to spoil the NY Times’ big payday?

Last week Washington Post CEO Donald Graham, addressing a financial analysts conference in New York, said the Post has no current intentions of erecting a paywall to charge for his newspaper’s online content, making it one of the few papers not planning to do so. This comment was only lightly reported in the media, but it is earth shattering in the newspaper industry and especially for the NY Times which had announced it would begin charging for content in 2011.

For the past three years, newspapers have struggled with declining advertising and circulation with ad sales down on the order of 10 to 25% each year. Losses like this render their business model unsustainable. They have rued the day they decided to give away their internet content for free, and yearned to put Humpty Dumpty back together with a fee based system. But it’s not that easy. Should any direct competitor continue to provide free content, the one charging is committing suicide.

In December 2008, shortly after the election, Stanford journalism professor Joel Brinkley got the ball rolling by penning this gem:

Now, here's my idea: The newspaper industry should ask the Justice Department for an antitrust exemption that would allow publishers to collaborate on a decision to begin charging for their Web sites. No paper would have to charge, and each paper could determine its own price. But if most papers in a region - San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, for example - began charging for Web access at more or less the same time, many readers would likely subscribe.

An unsympathetic Tim Burden on his journalism blog Printed Matters comments on Brinkley’s proposal and puts it more succinctly (emphasis added):

Brinkley implicitly understands that unless all news sources start charging at the same time, everyone will just go to the free sources, killing the paid ones quick-fast. So he proposes a government-sanctioned cartel.

It didn’t take the administration long embrace the concept. In mid-March 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder told Reuters he was willing to consider loosening antitrust enforcement of the newspaper industry. While couched in terms of production and distribution cooperation between newspapers, those familiar with the industry know these are back burner items. The only issue that counts is getting unanimity on the online paid content issue. But coordinating between competitors is an anti-trust violation that can land publishers in jail. Did newspaper publishers take Holder up on his pass? It appears so.

In late May 2009, Atlantic.com’s James Warren broke the story that the NY Times and major newspaper chains were attending a secretive and unannounced meeting, entitled: Shhhh. Newspaper Publishers Are Quietly Holding a Very, Very Important Conclave Today. Will You Soon Be Paying for Online Content?

He goes on: Here's a story the newspaper industry's upper echelon apparently kept from its anxious newsrooms: A discreet Thursday meeting in Chicago about their future."Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois; slabs of concrete, exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants, whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport. It's perfect for quickie, in-and-out conclaves.There's no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all. A longtime industry chum, consultant Barbara Cohen, "will facilitate the meeting."One hopes it displays the same sense of purpose as, say, troubled world leaders did at Yalta in 1945 or, in a rather less respectable sector of the economy, beleaguered mob bosses did at a legendary Apalachin, New York, confab in 1957. Read it all. It will curl your hair.

Enter the Washington Post, which, it appears, was not a participant in the Chicago meeting. It has pretty much avoided the paywall issue in the past other than to say it has no plans for paid online content, similar to last week’s statement. It has become the spoiler, especially for the Times. Both have significant national and international coverage and following. If the Times goes the pay route and the Post doesn’t, online Times readers will gravitate to the Post, jeopardizing the Times’ reputation as the “newspaper of record.”

With the Post a holdout, something concerns me. It is the possiblity the administration is pressuring the Post to conform. The Post owns a substantial interest in Kaplan, a for-profit college operation. It is a highly profitable enterprise that contributes heavily to the Washington Post Co’s bottom line. Since this summer Kaplan and other for-profit colleges have been viciously attacked the in same way as the health insurance companies and bankers. And in at least one case it has led to a downgrading of Post stock. Coincidence? Maybe.

My guess is the Post is not being an opportunist. I think it has more to do with the legal aspects. While Holder may signal an easing of anti-trust enforcement, the law is the law. Another administration might not be so tolerant, and two years is not that far away. And there still remains the potential for civil suits that Justice can’t control.

Note: The last two paragraphs have been edited (12/15/2010 3:00pm).

Why is Lady Gaga’s music better protected than our state secrets?

Good question. Unauthorized publishing of Lady Gaga’s copyrighted music on the internet would most likely result in a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If that failed, then the offending website could be taken down. No such protection applies to classified material from our military or government agencies, except for the original leaker who will, no doubt, pay the price. Republishing leaked classified material carries no penalty.

Solution: Hillary, don’t stamp your cables SECRET. Stamp them COPYRIGHT.

Why the $250,000 tax threshold is so dangerous … It’s not indexed for inflation

Prior to 1981’s Kemp Roth Tax Act, which indexed tax brackets for inflation for the first time, Democrats were happy to watch inflation force taxpayers into higher and higher tax brackets. Bracket creep was the easy way to raise tax rates without putting themselves on record.

The experience of the Carter years, with inflation (CPI) rates rising to over 13.5% made indexing a high priority for the incoming Reagan administration. And indexing has worked well. But there are reminders of disastrous consequences of unindexed tax legislation, most notably the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was intended to rectify the problem where several hundred millionaires were able to avoid all Federal income taxes through legal deductions. Now it ensnares millions and, because of its complexity, is becoming known as the tax accountants’ welfare act.

Lest you think Obama’s $250,000 threshold could not affect you, think again. During the Carter years, inflation rates rose from 6.50% in 1977 to 13.58% in his last year in office, 1980. It took Fed Chairman Paul Volker over three years, 20% interest rates and a recession to get inflation under control. It was bitter medicine, but necessary to stabilize the dollar. Yet the Fed now is throwing the 2-3% inflation rate limits to the winds with QE2, preferring to inflate our way out of the recession.

Nothing could be worse. Should Carter’s 13.5% inflation become the norm, $100,000 today will become the equivalent of $250,000 in about 7 years. A tax on the rich, as Obama describes it, will have the same result as the AMT, reaching deep into the middle class.

But this is the intent of Democrats. They are happy with inflation. They want stealth tax increases.

Mysterious missile launch most likely US Air Flight 808

Updated Network news and the internet were abuzz with the report and video by Los Angeles CBS affiliate KCBS of a reported missile launch late Monday afternoon -- around 5 PM. Both the Air Force and the Navy denied they had any missiles launches at the time. According to CBS News the Defense Department remains baffled.

"Nobody within the Department of Defense that we've reached out to has been able to explain what this contrail is, where it came from," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said. "So far, we've come up empty with any explanation." And they go on: The FAA told CBS News that they ran radar replays of a large area west of Los Angeles based on media reports of the location of a possible missile launch, but they did not reveal any fast moving unidentified targets in that area. The FAA also did not receive any reports of any unusual sightings from pilots in the area. The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, issued a statement jointly with the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, saying that the contrail was not the result of a foreign military launching a missile. It provided no further details.

A search for flights that could have left a contrail led me to US Air’s flight 808 from Honolulu to Phoenix. The flight took off from Honolulu at 10:06 AM HST, passed over Catalina Island at 5:03 PM PST and landed in Phoenix at 6:42 MST (5:42 PST). The flight entered the US just north of Camp Pendleton. It was at 37,000 ft and traveling at 582 mph.

The flight track is shown above (From FlightAware). Tracking data here (also from FlightAware) covers the time around 5:00 PM as the plane approached the California coast.

Time PST Lat. Long. -------Direction -KTS MPH -ALT

04:56PM- 33.04-119.1863° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
04:57PM- 33.10-119.0362° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center

04:59PM- 33.17-118.8962° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center

04:59PM- 33.23-118.7463° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center

05:01PM- 33.30-118.5963° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center

05:01PM- 33.36-118.4479° East ------487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center

05:02PM- 33.39-118.2680° East ----- 500 575 37,000 Los Angeles Center

05:03PM- 33.41-118.0882° East ----- 506 582 37,000 Los Angeles Center

05:04PM- 33.43-117.9181° East ------511 588 37,000 Los Angeles Center

05:06PM- 33.45-117.7482° East ------516 594 37,000 Los Angeles Center

It is extremely doubtful either NASA or the services would launch without a NOTAM closing the airspace. They didn't. If a missile were launched, NORAD would have satellite tracking of the boost phase. They don’t. It is highly doubtful a foreign country would be able to position itself and launch without detection. The only reasonable conclusion it was an aircraft contrail, most likely from Flight 808.

Death Panels for Democrats … The DNC’s new tactic to hold the House

The story that has the political establishment all abuzz today is the plan for Democrats to concentrate party resources on those with the best chances of winning so Nancy Pelosi can still wield the gavel. The sacrificial lambs and potential survivors will be chosen by party leaders in the next week or so. Not a great consolation for those from highly contested districts who were told they were better off voting for Obamacare than not.

From today’s NY Times:

[Democratic] party leaders are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority. In the next two weeks, Democratic leaders will review new polls and other data that show whether vulnerable incumbents have a path to victory. If not, the party is poised to redirect money to concentrate on trying to protect up to two dozen lawmakers who appear to be in the strongest position to fend off their challengers.

This is a disaster of their own making. Instead of governing from the center and including Republicans in the writing of highly controversial legislation, they sought to use their supermajority in the Senate and 40 odd majority in the House to cram through bill after bill drafted in secret and not made known until the last moment. The tone deafness of Democrats reached a peak this summer when many refused to even appear at townhalls after experiencing voter outrage during earlier recesses. While many freshmen House Democrats expressed their uneasiness, they were reassured by Speaker Pelosi the mood of the country would change once voters knew the content of the bills. This despite polling data for Democrats in general and Obama in particular showed impending disaster.

Those who went along with Pelosi’s charade are now being given the ultimate insult. They are being rewarded with the proverbial pain killer, or more likely Kool-Aid for their loyalty, especially on Obamacare. It is fitting medicine for a bill that will do the same thing to patients who in the view of bureaucrats are not worth saving.

When the dust settles after the November elections, the finger pointing will begin. Ultimately the responsibility for the impending disaster must point to the White House, where a truly clueless President has risked the political health of his party for a highly unpopular medical bill. At least Bill Clinton knew the health of the party was important.

This President does not.

Unusually good video of Restore Honor rally … from the Washington Post

I was pleasantly surprised by one aspect of yesterday’s Restore Honor rally on the Mall. It came from a surprising source, the Washington Post. It is Anna Uhls superb video coverage of the event. She covers it from the perspective of David Meister, a 40 something father and his 12 year old son Adam who took a ten hour “red eye” bus from New Richmond, Ohio to participate.

David expresses his concern that President Obama is taking us down the wrong path and to turn things around he would have to change his policies 180 degrees. He adds that as America’s first African American President, he has the opportunity to become one of the greatest. But thinks he won’t and will be a one term president.

The video is interspersed with clips of the rally and speeches of the event’s organizer, Glen Beck, and from Sarah Palin. It finishes with bagpipe strains of Amazing Grace which will bring tears to your eyes. The Post’s treatment here is in stark contrast to the scant coverage of last September’s Tea Party rally in Washington. There is no snarkiness and no mention of Al Sharpton’s counter rally. It simply treats the sincerity of David Meister and his son with the dignity it deserves.

Two thumbs up for Anna Uhls.

Pelosi wants investigation of mosque opponents. Time for the House Un-American Activities Committee?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a KCBS interview has called for an investigation of who is funding the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. From the Washington Times:

"There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how ... this opposition to the mosque is being funded,"

Now I’m not sure which House committee would handle this. Perhaps she can resurrect the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The name has an interesting ring to it. Comments like this show the utter disarray Democrats find themselves in. First Obama, in front of a Muslim dinner audience at the White House last Friday, praised the concept of the mosque and then waffled in less than 24 hours when the reaction set in.

Then Harry Reid broke ranks with the President and now Pelosi in an attempt to support the President begins to sound a bit like Joe McCarthy. The hallmark party discipline of Democrats is coming unraveled as panic over elections sets in. It’s not only Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Barney Frank has called for the elimination of Freddy Mac and Fannie May. Now that sounds almost Republican.

But you have to understand Republican Scott Brown nearly carried Frank’s district when he won in January. We will see more of this. Democrats rationalized their gubernatorial losses in the blue states of New Jersey and Virginia as flukes. Now they are reading the poll numbers and they are not reassuring.

Would Harry Truman have been impeached if he hadn’t used the Bomb?

As we approach the anniversary (August 6) of the employment of an atomic weapon against a wartime enemy, many will want to apologize for our first use without the knowledge of the bloodiness of the war or the consequences of not using it.

There was entirely a different mindset by Americans in that war than there has been since. Every family was involved in some way with the war, either having a relative in the service or in some way working or volunteering in the war effort. Food (especially meat and sugar), gasoline, tires were strictly rationed.

The news media covered the incredible brutality of the Japanese who had attacked us at Pearl Harbor without warning. The Bataan death march, a photo in Life Magazine of an Australian prisoner about to be beheaded and press reports and newsreels of the enormous casualties at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, did not leave Americans with a warm and fuzzy feeling about the Japanese.

Wars are won by swift, decisive action. The comparison of WWI with its drawn out trench warfare and the German blitzkrieg in 1940 is an example. Despite millions of deaths in WWI, Germans never got within 70 miles of Paris. In 1940 with surprise and overwhelming force, France fell in 38 days with minimal casualties on both sides.

President Truman in 1945 was faced with the same realities. He could use a dramatic new weapon that could end the war quickly, or he could order the invasion of Japan. With the experience of Iwo Jima (6,822 KIA, 19,217 WIA in 33 days) and Okinawa (12,513 KIA, 38,916 WIA in 82 days), projections of US casualties varied from about 100,000 to 250,000 killed depending on the duration of the campaign.

So he did what was necessary, and the Japanese announced their surrender 9 days after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. What would have happened had we not used the bomb? Would there have been a political reaction from the hundreds thousands of families whose children or brothers had been killed or wounded? You betcha!

The secret of the bomb would not have remained secret. And the wanton waste of life would have become a major political issue. At best Truman would not have survived the election in 1948. But there is a distinct possibility he would have faced far worse, impeachment.

Obama Disapproval hits 50.0%

Real Clear Politics’ Presidential Job Approval polling data shows Obama’s disapproval at 50.0% and the spread at minus 5.3%, both records.

Insult by non invitation

It seems Democrats these days are expressing their anger by not inviting those one would normally expect to attend. What caught my attention was a piece on Jamie Dimon, the highly competent CEO and Chairman of JP Morgan Chase, and a former supporter of Obama. But he has become a major critic starting with the after-the-fact pay and dividend restrictions for accepting TARP funds, calling them a Scarlet Letter. For this and objecting to provisions of the financial reform bill, he was rewarded with a non invitation to Obama’s bill signing ceremony.

To show insults can work both ways, Obama was not invited to Chelsea’s wedding. It’s not about having too many Presidents present as Obama implied. It is simply that Bill Clinton hates Obama’s guts. It goes back to Obama’s campaign aides accusing Hillary of racism more than once, an unpardonable sin in blue on blue confrontations. But the insult doesn’t stop there. The invitation list is loaded with Clinton supporters who can be more than helpful should Hillary decide to challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012.

While rumors of the list are rife they are quite unreliable, most sources mention Barbara Streisand, Ted Turner, Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, close friend Denise Rich, former British PM John Major and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Clinton loyalists all. Notably absent is Al Gore, Bill’s VP.

Over on Big Government Paul Rahe pens a somewhat tongue in cheek article comparing the upcoming Clinton wedding to the opening scene of the Godfather, where Don Corleone holds a private audience with wedding guests who seek his help. For those who remember the Godfather, Corleone after helping his loyalists, expects and gets their help. The implication is Bill will be asking them to side with him (and Hillary) when he goes “to the mattresses” in a Democratic civil war, the 2012 presidential election cycle.

It’s interesting to see the battle lines forming. My advice: In a mud slinging contest, never bet against the Clintons.

Was the “Russian Spy Scandal” roll up just another White House screw up?

The whole escapade makes no sense. With the exception of the “money man” Christopher Metzos who escaped, none represented a threat. It would have been far better to keep the remaining 10 under observation, as they had been for years. So the question is why did the FBI roll the operation up at this time?

We tend to think operations like this are well thought out and run according to plan. But it is more likely this was an enormous screw up between the FBI and the White House. First, no FBI director in his right mind would conduct such an operation without first notifying the White House. It just doesn’t happen.

There was a sense of urgency however. Metzos was planning to leave the country and he was the one person who had some value. He knew the purpose of this group and he probably had contact or knowledge of other groups in the US. My guess is the FBI’s request for action languished on somebody’s desk at the WH or even made it to the President’s reading folder without action. When it became apparent Metzos was actually leaving the country, likely there was a flurry of activity but with a decision that came too late capture him before he boarded his flight.

The rest is history. At our request he was detained in Cyprus, granted bail and slipped away. The whole spy swap charade appears to be an afterthought. None of the four swapees are US operatives. It’s just an after the fact cover to give some rationality to all of this.

Al Sharpton surprised at the support from the black community for the Supreme Court gun case

On his radio show yesterday, Al Sharpton surprisingly reveals an overwhelming support for Supreme Court Second Amendment decision in the black community.

Sharpton: I would say 90% of the calls I received yesterday were in support of the Supreme Court and people say they want to bear guns. They’re tired of the violence and it’s very very interesting. I have had a few on both sides today, but yesterday was overwhelming, it was stunning to me.

Political correctness has masked the true intent of big city Democrat mayors for their support of gun control. Quite frankly it is and has been an effort to disarm blacks. And Justice Clarence Thomas’s remarkable revelation that after the Civil War, freed blacks only achieved freedom by protecting themselves with their own arms.

This apparently has resonated in the black community. In Detroit in the early 1980s, a group of black ministers organized a bus tour to Windsor, Canada, just across the river from Detroit. The bus driver warned the group of the very strict laws in Canada, especially for side arms, and told them to leave any behind. None did. When they reached Customs and Immigration, Canadian officials inspected them and found many were carrying weapons. The bus was forced to return to the US and the incident made headlines in Detroit. It made headlines because it revealed decent law abiding blacks felt it necessary to arm themselves for self protection.

Whites by that time had largely fled Detroit. But blacks either for economic necessity, the desire for affinity or in the case of the ministers, worked in the community. And were afraid. At some point we can hope the black community will see the duplicity of the big city Democrat politicians. That they are being used, not valued.

Obama under water in RCP’s Presidential approval ratings

The latest Real Clear Politics Presidential Job Approval data shows President Obama with greater disapproval numbers than approval. The numbers are 47.7% approve of his performance, 48.0 % disapprove, for a net minus of 0.3%.

Only media affiliated polling groups (with the exception of Fox) continue to show Obama with significant positives: CNN/Opinion Research 50 – 48; Ipsos/McClatchy 50 – 45; AP/GFK 50 – 49; and ABC/Wash Post 52 – 45.

With the exception of a single day on April 11, this is the first time Obama has been under water in the polling.

What’s behind the secrecy of the X-37B? Probably cover for another satellite launched with it

On April 22 the Air Force launched the X-37B, an unmanned miniature space shuttle look-alike that was cloaked in secrecy and described in official gobbledygook that still defies the best decryption efforts of NSA. Here’s a sample: Gary E. Payton, under secretary of the Air Force for space programs [said], “The program supports technology risk reduction, experimentation and operational concept development.”

Nothing about this mission makes sense. What aroused my curiosity was an article in the NY Times that Harvard astronomer Jonathan Mc Dowell had reported the upper stage was sent into an unknown orbit around the sun. Now the upper stage of any launch vehicle shoves the main payload into its final orbit and stays there having expended its fuel, in this case 255 miles high.

Why did the upper stage continue into a sun orbit after positioning the X-37B in low earth orbit? The second oddity is the launch vehicle is an Atlas V with a Centaur upper stage. The version used (501) is designed and optimized for launching geosynchronous satellites to an altitude of about 22,000 miles high, not low earth orbit. The similar 502 version can lift 22,700 pounds into low earth orbit, more than double the 11,000 pounds of the space plane. Normally a smaller, less expensive launch vehicle would be used in such circumstances.

With half of the Atlas V’s capacity unused, one wonders what else went into orbit. Likely it was some sort of covert satellite, either to inspect what other nations might have put up there, but our own as well. Geosynchronous satellites are all in a very narrow band in both altitude and inclination. They are very hard to detect from earth if they are designed with stealth characteristics. But positioning an imaging satellite in an orbit slightly higher, it can detect their silhouettes against the bright earth. Also, we can inspect our own satellites to make sure nothing potentially destructive has been placed on or near them.

Our assets in space, both civilian and military, are essential. Aircraft and shipping are dependent on GPS. Our worldwide communications systems are heavily reliant on satellites and our intelligence collection efforts rely on them. While we have treaties on weaponizing space, satellites remain vulnerable, as we found out when the Chinese used lasers against one of our satellites in an apparent effort to blind it.

My best guess is the X-37B is simply a cover for another satellite (covert) launched with it.