Sorry...

... but I seem to be getting political again. Wazzup with that, I wonder? To answer my own question: I'm thinking the general sense of anger abroad in the land is infectious — at least I seem to have caught it, anyway. And so has C-SPAN Washington Journal caller Leah from New Hampshire, who let go with both barrels (just hit play; it's under four minutes):



I used to be a real Washington Journal junkie over the last few years, and most especially in the run-up to the election last year. But I've been off it of late... mostly because of my upside-down sleeping habits (the program begins at 0500 hrs local). That said, I also found myself hitting the mute button on a lot of callers in the recent past. Leah, on the other hand, is unlike most Journal callers in that she's organized, succinct, and above all: passionate and truthful. We're rapidly reaching a point in this country where we're ALL fed up with the gub'mint, and MOST especially our congresscritters. (Not mine, though... all three are Texas Republicans, and not one is named "Ron Paul." Or "Sheila Jackson Lee," for that matter. Nuff said?)

"Interesting times." Yes, indeedy.

h/t: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

―:☺:―

One more item of a political bent... General Merrill McPeak (former USAF Chief of Staff, 1990 - 1994) in yesterday's WSJ:

High-end conventional war is characterized by the clash of industrial forces. It’s armored, mechanized and increasingly air-power centric. Few are equipped by training or temperament to understand the phenomenon, especially as it concerns air warfare, a relatively recent aspect of the human experience. (In this regard, Saddam Hussein had plenty of company.) But the bottom line is that in high-end conventional war, neither our Army nor Navy can be defeated unless someone first defeats our Air Force.

For high-end conventional war we’ve built an Air Force that, for now, is virtually unbeatable. Anyone looking at our air-power capabilities knows there is little hope they can concentrate conventional forces for decisive engagement of our Army or Navy. We will track them and pick them to pieces. When Saddam Hussein tried us on for size in the early-1990s, the ground war was a four-day walkover that followed the initial 39 days of aerial combat.

So today, no one in his right mind wants to fight us in a conventional war. Many are saying this another way: that we have no “peer competitor,” that there is no threat of high-end conventional war. I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that, but, if it is so, it is a desirable condition and one that didn’t happen by accident.

[...]

The future air combat capabilities we should build are based on the F-22, a stealthy, fast, maneuverable fighter that is unmatched by any known or projected combat aircraft. But the F-22’s production run may soon come to an end at just 187 planes, well short of establishing the fleet size we need. After all, it’s expensive, and getting more so as the number contemplated has been repeatedly reduced. In an argument they seem to think makes sense, critics say the aircraft has no worthy opponent—as if we want to create forces that do have peer competitors.

It’s been more than half a century since any American soldier or Marine has been killed, or even wounded, by hostile aircraft, a period roughly coincident with the existence of the Air Force as a separate service. Even during the Korean War—the Air Force’s first engagement wearing new, blue uniforms—enemy air attack was primitive and rare. The main air battle was fought along the Yalu River, just as in Vietnam it was fought over Hanoi, and in Desert Storm, over Baghdad. Our guys on the ground had hard work to do, but when they looked up, they saw only friendly skies.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why we should wish to change this.

Way t'go, Tony! Attaboy! In one fell swoop you've nearly (but not quite) erased the world's greatest, all-time and forever "Aw Shit." I'm referring, of course, to the fact General McPeak was a national co-chair of "Obama For President." Now THAT'S an "aw shit" of epic proportions, innit? But good on him for going against The Boss and advocating for the F-22. Not that it'll change anything... I think The Fat Lady done finished singin'.

―:☺:―

Apropos of nothing... SN1 will be disapproving, if not appalled, by my familiarity in the above paragraph. Yet again. I asked him in one of our discussions Friday evening if he'd happened to catch Tony Zinni's appearance on Charlie Rose this past week... specifically, Zinni's opinions on Afghanistan and more specifically, Kandahar (to summarize Zinni: "Kandahar is the most dangerous place in Afghanistan at the moment."). All I got was a quizzical look in return and a "Who's Tony Zinni?" "Only the retired CENTCOM CinC," sez I (actually I said "former Commandant of the Marine Corps," but I was wrong. First time ever.) "OH!" sez he... "GENERAL Zinni! I'm not in the habit of calling four-stars by their first names."

Heh. I guess I've been away from the military way too long. But it has been nearly 25 years now... Still and even, I guess I was being a bit cheeky. But you know damned well that if I ever should meet General Zinni in the flesh I WILL address him as "General." Yes, Sir!

―:☺:―

Finally: On this day in 1675 – The foundation stone of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, today the basis of the Prime Meridian, was laid in Greenwich, London. How 'bout that? Rule, Britannia! (from The Wiki, of course.)