Prehistoric Stealth

 

You've seen it a thousand times in a movie or a television show.  It is such a standard gambit that some days it seems mandatory.  An object is thrown to make noise in a spot where the pursued is not in an effort to make the pursuer look in a different direction than the pursued's hiding spot.

There are variations on that theme.  A predatory animal is described as hunting motion.  If you stand very still the animal will ignore you as a stationary object which are not made of meat.

Either way, the foundational intent is the same.  If you can make the entity looking for you have no reason to look in your direction, you will not be found (or noticed or whatever). 

The corollary is that you are more likely to be found or seen or attacked if you call attention to yourself.  Hold on to this for a bit.  You're going to need it later.

One of the joys of modern existence is the ability to record and playback sights and/or sounds.  Still photography, video photography and audio recording affect everyone living a reasonably modern life.  Creating movies, television shows and music is the primary employment for an awful lot of folks.  The rest of us consume what they create in one way or another.  But our ability to record and playback does not stop there.

RADAR, SONAR and other sensing technologies can also have their outputs recorded and played back. For most of us, it would be difficult to find something we were less likely to watch or listen to.  However, since long-term storage memory is (relatively) inexpensive, entities like the NSA, or their foreign analogues, tend to hang on to such recordings just in case some later development makes them useful.  Therein (potentially) lies the problem.

In an example of what might be possible, an intelligence organization could acquire a cryptographic key in some method and apply it to recorded transmissions to read the contents.

Now instead of communications intercepts, let's cycle back to the sensing technologies.  If we "knew" for a fact the exact time and date an adversary's submarine was within range of our acoustic sensors, we might be able to play back the recording and use advances in computerized analysis to see if it could pick out a sound signature that a human or older computer tech might have missed.  If we can, voila!  We can now identify that sub whenever it gets within range of a sensor whether it is fixed or mobile.

In their rush to get publicity Felon47 and his DUI hire, Hegseth, have ensured friend and foe alike who might have appropriately positioned land-based or space-based or mobile radars have reason to replay those recordings to look for an anomaly that could be the signature of a B2 Stealth bomber.  They violated the precepts of prehistoric stealth in that they are calling attention to those planes.  Various entities have reason to look exactly in our direction.  

I cannot recall ever having seen reporting on the exact route a modern American submarine took.  Why? Because this ain't the Stone Age. Technological analysis can be applied post event - possibly months or years after the event or whenever a technological advancement makes revisiting such recordings potentially fruitful.  But we just did it with Stealth aircraft.

I personally consider this criminal malfeasance.  (Not that that will impress anyone)  I will likely never know if the stealth was compromised.  That is the sort of thing national entities like to keep in their metaphorical backpockets. However, I consider it very likely the misadministration was advised about it and decided publicity was more important than national secrets.

Those people are not patriots.

Linguistic Contortions

 

I swear there are days when I am convinced that language is absolutely wasted on humanity.

Perhaps if we could actually remember a time of pointing and grunting we might value actual specific words more highly.  We don't.  Now, I have written multiple essays on the meanings of words and sometimes on their misuse.  I have taken considerable ribbing over my attitude about word usage and/or linguistic evolution. (I'm agin' it)  I seem to be fighting an uphill battle.

The epiphany that has my knickers in a bunch today occurred because I do not consider myself aligned with either of the two predominant political parties in the USA.  I fully and willingly admit that the last 30-40 years have convinced me that I will never vote for a Republican for anything in the future.  A more complete version of that would note that while I will not be voting GOP I will likely stay largely pissed off at the Democratic Party.  Not pissed off enough to vote Republican but any other apparently viable, socially progressive, fiscally sane party could easily get my attention.

Today's burr under my saddle might seem subtle to some of you but I think it is meaningful.  On social media and even in person I have seen untold analysees on what the Dems can do to win elections.  I have seen it phrased as how Dems can beat the GOP or what messaging the Dems need.   ---  Do you see the problem yet?? ---

Let me help you out.  I will be the first to acknowledge that my social media footprint is not huge.  I am no longer on Facebook.  I do not and have not participated on Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp, Snapchat, TikTok, and a bunch of lesser platforms.  I am primarily active on Bluesky (and I really miss Google+) and Reddit.  Still, I see a lot of posts.  What I do not see is anyone trying to tell the Dems or Independents how they can make the current situation less bad for us.  --- You see it now, right? ---

Look, I am no Pollyanna by any stretch of the imagination.  However, at the end of the day I don't actually give a shit who is in charge.  I care what happens to me, those that I know and love, those that I know and like, and those that I don't know from Adam's housecat.  We have contorted our language and belief structure so as to render what is actually done severely subordinate to getting elected - and even more importantly, reelected.  

As a general rule, I would agree that Dems are more socially progressive and that is important.  OTOH, I also follow politics closely enough to know that some of your favorite Dem politicians had to be forcibly pulled to the left and for some of them, I wonder if their beliefs actually changed or if they were just saying what they thought would get them elected. Off the top of my head I could point out that minimum wage hasn't gone up, healthcare has not gotten less expensive, predatory lending has continued under multiple administrations of both parties.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that one of the reasons General George Washington was opposed to political parties is the same thing that is annoying me.  The party's priority becomes the elected party official's priority and the constituent's priority has to take a back seat IF allowed on the bus at all.  I don't have a comprehensive plan to fix this idiocy but the general outline is we should all focus on making life hell on any elected official that is not actively making our lives better.  I acknowledge that electing someone from a different party might be an element of that but that should be a part of the journey NOT the destination.  If your party happens to be the one in power, that changes nothing.  You still need to pay attention and make life hell for any elected official that is not making your life better.

I'm not sure this could be any more simple.

Behavioral Modification

 See, here is the problem.  At its core, a tariff is tool to modify specific aspects of a specific human or group of humans.  In theory, the tariff adds enough to the cost of a product that either the middlemen or the final customer has to actively decide if it is worth it.

If you want fewer EU citizens to purchase Fords, you increase the cost with a tariff and suddenly the Ford costs the same as a BMW.  In one fell swoop, you have removed whatever monetary advantage Ford had while not addressing or affecting any issues of quality or fun or utility etc etc.  Basically you have raised the cost without increasing the value.  If Ford has had a good year or ten and they have plenty of cash on hand, they could choose to keep the MSRP the same and just pay the cost of the tariff themselves.  In that way the EU citizens are not financially incentivized to purchase a vehicle of alternate manufacture. 

Your modification target can be either the manufacturer, the middlemen - importer, jobber, retailer, or the end user.  Any or all of them MAY be affected by additional costs but choices can be made that places the greater burden on one entity or the other.  Generally as a long-term reaction to the tariffs, the choice is to pass the costs on to the next entity in the line.  As the phrase indicates, the "end user" is the last entity.  With no one else to pass the costs on to, they must choose to either pay the cost or change their behavior and choose a different product.

If Walmart were to "eat the tariffs" as demanded by Felon47, neither the foreign manufacturers nor the end user are financially incentivized to alter their behavior.  So was the goal all along to decrease Walmart's profits?  To what end?  That has certainly not been articulated within range of my awareness.  

According to the day or the rant, the tariffs are either to punish the foreigners that stole our jobs OR they are to convince Americans to buy American and convince companies to move manufacturing back to our shores.  I fail to see how Walmart "eating the tariffs" accomplishes any of that.  Sam Walton's heirs are incredibly wealthy.  They enjoy a near unimaginable income from Walmart.  But regardless of how true that is, my behavior will not be changed by my socks costing Walmart $4.58 instead of $3.80 as long as I still see $5.00 at the register.  China, Vietnam, India, or Indonesia cashed the check and put the product on a ship.  They could not possibly give less of a shit what happens to it after that so their behavior is not likely to be modified.

So what are the goals?  How would you know?  Whether you listen to the misadministration's words or observe their actions, there are internal and external conflicts with both.  The only honest effort seems to be in the attempt to make it look like the misadministration is doing something and, more importantly, to make Felon47 feel like a big man because actual successful people are jumping when he says "jump".  Past that, he has no more of a clue than do his supporters.

FREE STUFF

 I spent several years in a job that required me to frequently be on a lake and frequently involved the use of a boat. As a part of that job, I went to trade shows for boats and boating tools and accessories. A frequently stated factoid was that one could expect to spend between 10% - 20% of the retail cost of the boat every year for fuel, maintenance, storage, repair and incidentals. Funny thing, since that cost was estimated based on the retail cost of the boat, the yearly cost did not go down if you got a really good deal on the boat. Even if the boat was free, you could expect to spend 10% - 20% of the retail cost of the boat every year for the non-fun stuff that had to get done.

A while back a friend gave me a Groupon for a meal at a new(ish), high end restaurant. To this day, that free meal remains one of my more expensive visits to a restaurant. There was a lovely jazz band playing and everything except the entree was an extra cost. If I had needed transportation, taxi or Uber, it would probably be the most expensive meal. I lived within walking distance so that didn't happen but even without the extra expense, it hurt.

I have received other "gifts" that cost me a lot of money or a lot of time to fix or both. I could go on with a exhaustive list of seriously expensive "free stuff" but you probably understand already. As a general rule, it has been my experience that the greater the value of the gift I am given, the more it has cost me. I have no reason to believe that my experiences are unique or even rare. I have certainly observed a very similar set of circumstances for friends, family and even strangers.

So, to get to the point, Felon47 is being offered a "gift" of a Boeing 747 from the kingdom of Qatar. I suppose technically it would be a "gift" to the USA but the Felon has already expressed a desire to use it as Air Force One (whatever plane under Air Force command that the POTUS is flying in) and then transfer it to the Felon47 coloring book repository (library) once he is out of office for his continued use. A plan structured so as to hang the costs of maintaining and operating the airplane on the American taxpayer while the Felon has exclusive use of it.

We could talk about security concerns if we wanted to have a book length discussion but for some reason, that does not seem to be a concern for the Felon or his merry band of incompetents. So I will only mention the Felon's highest priority - money. Suffice to say that the current planes with the modifications for communications, medical, security, ECM, in flight refueling etc etc costs $3-$5billion a piece. (Personally, I say leave all that stuff off and let the Felon fly around in a vulnerable palace but TBF, I absolutely do not care what happens to the 1st asswipe.)

I have never owned an airplane. I have no real idea of the ownership costs of a low end Cessna much less a customized 747. However, I would bet dollars to donuts that it is not less than a recreational boat. So let's use that 20% estimate. Even though the two current AF1 planes are perfectly operational, we are talking about spending an additional $80million a year for this "gift". Of course, the Felon has business, political and personal enemies so to the regular cost, we will have to add enhanced security to a level acceptable by the Secret Service. That will mean a minimum of several 24/7 security guards. I think we can safely round up the cost of that "gift" to at least $100million a year. That is not the cost to operate the bird, those costs already exist for the current planes. The $100million a year is simply an incredibly conservative guesstimate of the extra costs specific to that airframe.

Basically, the guy who brags about not taking a salary while screwing us over for excess costs on every golf trip to a property he controls is trying to put us on the hook for a minimum cost of $100million per year for the rest of his life and potentially as much as a billion dollars a year. That is the cost to the American taxpayer for the Trump grifts. Personally, I don't want to pay my part of it. I will not think charitably of anyone willing to pay their share.

How To Keep A Secret

audio version of How To Keep A Secret

An embarrassing number of years ago I was a noob in the intelligence organization of the U.S. Navy. As such, I was subjected to the official and unofficial histories and whatever else the "Old Salts" wanted to teach me.

One of the stories I heard more than once concerned the very early days of said Intel org Legend had it that FDR was prone to saying (whispering) stuff like "My boys in the back room tell me ... " and then divulging classified and/or sensitive information. Allegedly this was done without consulting his advisors or even confirming need to know for the recipients.

There are any of several different reasons that a given bit of info may be classified. The information itself may well be mundane and seemingly of no consequence. However, the fact that we have the info can be the reason for classifying it. It could be that we don't want others to know specific areas, geographical or intellectual, we are interested in. The identity of assets - potentially to their terminal detriment - can be compromised by divulging awareness of certain information. Regardless of how long I have been out of that business, I can assure you that all of those reasons are still valid. Of course, sometimes the information itself is potentially very dangerous and that might justify and even higher classification. Whether the classifying authority wants to protect the fact that we have the information or wants to protect the information itself, either way the info gets classified and ideally, protected from being casually promulgated.

So what do you do when your boss is the one who cannot be trusted with classified information? According to the Old Salts, "we" quit telling FDR everything. I was told that he was told enough to make responsible decisions but whenever possible, the information was "sanitized" as much as possible. There could be no official acknowledgement this was being done. There could be no sanctioned group or committee that determined what was safe to tell the POTUS or others in the chain of command. It had to be an ad hoc decision by someone who had never been specifically told to do what they were doing.

Information was different in the 1940's. It was well prior to the internet and even the 24 hour news stations. Today's information is a mighty river where the 1940s was an active creek. I don't know that the true patriots in the U.S. Intel Orgs can effectively, but quietly, control the information the boss(es) get. However, I can assure you that organizations outside of our chain of command are taking steps to limit their exposure to harm from the flippant approach to security that our current misadministration has demonstrated.

The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone. That which is not known cannot be divulged. To be fair though, once this nation started acting as if Russia was our only ally (even though the Russians continue to act as though we are their primary enemy) intel sharing with us was already being reduced. On top of that, the "boss(es)" appears to trust Fox News and other reich-wing outlets over the alphabet agencies.

At the end of the day, I suppose the 2nd best way to keep something secret is to hide it in the middle of the Epstein files. Those without access to the files are reduced to using the best way. Eventually that reality is going to bite us in the ass.

Forced Financial Foolishness

 So, let's say one night you are out and about and you notice that your car could use some gas (or electricity or hydrogen, whatever) so you pull into a convenience store/gas station.  Imagine you encounter a criminal with real mental problems.  

The criminal puts a gun to your head and forces you to purchase a lottery scratchoff ticket - not for him - he forces you to buy it for yourself.  Once you have the ticket, he puts the gun away and disappears into the night.

You scrape the appropriate areas of the ticket and lo and behold, the ticket is a winner to the tune of $50k.

Do you force the store to take the ticket back?  I'm serious, answer the damn question.  Do you force the store to take back their $50k ticket because you did not want it to begin with?

That is what happened last night.  Extremely effective leaders and administrators have been forced out because their initial hirings, years or decades prior, MIGHT have been positively influenced by their gender and/or ethnicity.

If you would not give back the $50k, and let's be honest, who the fuck would?, you already know why last nights idiocy was wrong and you know how it is wrong.  Now you need to do something about it.

DEI was put into place to stop the USA from harming itself by adhering to fallacious biases.  Ironically, though he had no part in hiring or training these incredibly valuable folks, rather than availing himself of the value they bring, he is sending them away after they have proven their value.  

I probably should not have to explain this to grown-ass adults.

Weakness In Numbers

 

Kash Patel was confirmed today as FBI director. You are right to be curious as to the why. Weak and feckless Dems played a large part.

See, what the Dems did, or rather didn't, do was that they failed to vigorously oppose nominations that were, in theory, less impactful. The Dems conveyed a variety of stupid reasons for shirking their duties. They did not want to seem non-collegial so they did not oppose sitting Congressfolk. They acted as though there was an umpire setting limits on how many "pitches" they could reasonable swing at when they should have been swinging at all of them. They had other equally stupid reasons but the salient fact is that with few exceptions, the lack of competence and patriotism were no impedance to the confirmation of the criminals Felon47 has chosen to surround himself with.

The problem that elected Dems refused to see or acknowledge is that with every confirmation, the First Felon gained more power. You may not be personally afraid of the FBI taking a look at you but, Homeland, NSA, IRS, Interior, AG, Defense etc etc? No, pretty much no one wants all of those folks digging into them. So with every confirmation, the next nominee was less likely to be opposed so as to not inspire a close look from those already confirmed. The Dems needed to vigorously oppose every name that he spoke.

They didn't. So the Senate got weaker and weaker as Felon47's success rate went up. They experienced weakness in numbers and we are all going to suffer for it. The fact that his supporters will suffer as well is small comfort at best. My position would be unreasonable if there was any indication that PINO was acting in good faith. I have seen no such evidence. I have not even heard a Dem attempt to claim he was acting in good faith.

No politician should ever feel safe doing the wrong thing. The Dems could have done the right thing but it would have been a lot more work for them. The work they are paid quite handsomely to do. None of their reasons for not fighting harder have gained any purchase with me.

Bullies and dictators will never give up power voluntarily. They will always attempt to grab more power than they have. If they are to not have that power, it must be taken from them. The Dems are supposed to be the bulwark. If any of them are unwilling to do the job, they need to turn their position over to someone who will.