So much for writing

Failed at even continuing to write in the novel. My mind is off -just grey crap fog.

Worthless crap. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Just one more empty day -just waiting for my body to die.

Smiling Scallop, Sighing Scallop

Last night I walked the beach a day after a nor'easter had churned up the usually serene bay. Among the quahog shells, I discovered two occupied Scallops, too high up on the beach and tangled in messes of seaweed to get back to the water line. I held each of them for several moments watching them watch me with their lovely brilliant blue eyes (which can regenerate as needed) and looking through the lush lashes of their fringed gills. They both slowly opened their shells so that I could peek inside their lovely studios, and then they clapped their shells shut with a sigh. After placing them back in the water and spending time listening to the tympani of the hectic surf, this story came to mind:

Smiling Scallop, Sighing Scallop

Two scallops were enjoying the swaying fan corals and greenery in their communal scallop bed. The rays, their fiercest enemies, weren't much of a bother because this particular community was guarded by a school of sentry sharks.



Sea, smooth, surrounding, saline-infused.

Two

Stopped

I can't see to type. I am so exhausted sitting here in a library that only a couple of fingertips are moving. I'm too tired to sleep and far past caring. Why won't my stinking body stop? This death is so beyond being able to tolerate it. If I had the energy to get up I'd drop in traffic. this is so beyond what I can tolerate. This is torture of the worst kind. I welcome death but it evades me.

Meanwhile all heads are averted or simply stare getting entertainment from my disintigration. Executioners enjoying the slow cut of the dull blade and watching the pyre flame every higher.

I don't believe it's that bad.

Just tell me that you're still alive.

Damn people who could care less that I'm trapped in a burning car. They just want me to wave and assure them that I'm alive. Then they can happily walk away self satisfied. Thanks for your voyeurism.

Again, stupid me. I actually thought I had a place to stay, but no. After wasting time today with my hopes up, and I should know better than to ever trust that anything will EVER have any outcome other than nothing. Back on the street. Better off dead. How hypocritical this mandate not to commit suicide while simultaneously pouring gas on the already burning car.

Walking slow death. Piece of crap. Worthless. Absolutely 100% worthless. That's reality.

Bush Fly Me Policy: Aid Air Terror

John Carr, the former president of NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association), writes a thriller of a blog called The Main Bang. You can only read it when you are next to an immediate fire suppression rescue device as your hair will spontaneously combust from all of the FAA transgressions against the controllers and the safety of the flying public.

Yesterday, John and his faithful commenters took on this a new Bushco War OF Terror TM threat:

Now it seems you can have real time flight tracking on virtual radar in your office, home, workplace, or, God forbid, a pickup truck full of Osama's buddies toting shoulder fired missiles---for the low, low price of only $899.

I once famously crashed the party at a Congressional field hearing at Chicago Center to make sure Congress knew that, "Our Nation has entered the on-ramp to the information superhighway. The FAA cannot even get their Pinto out of the driveway." (See this Congressional record, page 97, from over 12 years ago.)

Well, it's ditto modernization, folks. While Bush, Blakester and Bobert have been busy caning their employees like they spit gum on the sidewalks of Singapore, their facilities have fallen apart like a Korean Swiss Army Knife. Meanwhile...the modernization tools of airspace mischief and destruction are being hawked right underneath their noses, on the Internet.

You can buy real time flight tracking here and here. I have been thinking about buying one of these babies and a handheld VHF radio and working a little final to fourteen-right at O'Hare some night. "Three from the marker, right to one two zero to join, three til established, cleared for the approach. If you need more room behind the guy in front of you, push your seat back you sissy." Yeeee-HAW!!!

Did you get that?

John is saying that anyone can hack into air traffic control and direct pilots to anywhere. As in into another plane, into the ground, into buildings, etc.

Have you ever listened to controllers working a regular, everyday shift traffic? Choose your favorite location and settle in where the performance is always at 100%, zero tolerance for a major error (two or more entities occupying the same space at the same time).

And then (wet your hair now as a precautionary measure), one of John's commenters provides enough real-life scenarios if real-time radar access goes forward:

I found this about ADS-B, the core component of the FAA's NEXGEN system;

Airsport

These five stories are set slightly in the future, but only slightly. Perhaps five years from now. The technology described is an accurate portrayal of ATC systems of today, or in the case of ADS-B, an accurate portrayal of systems that are test flying today. The individuals and situations are fictional of course.

The scenarios are all very detailed, so I have included the one that seems to have generated the most concern by air traffic controllers. They are all worth a close read and are important to consider.

Scenario Five....User Fees for General Aviation

Harvey Patton started his company for the best of reasons. His city was about to close the airport and turn the land into an industrial park. The various factions had fought over this issue for years and Harvey realized that if the airport users were seen to be paying their own way, and perhaps paying a bit extra, then the city could be convinced to keep the airport open.

In that light, local airport user fees didn't look so bad. If the fees were structured according to the weight of each aircraft, the bulk of the expense would be borne by the companies that could afford it while the pleasure pilots would only pay a token sum. It sure beat losing the airfield.

So Harvey went to the city with this proposal: He would supply and maintain the equipment at no cost to the city, all the city had to supply was a place to house a PC and antenna. The equipment would receive and log the ADS-B signals and routinely modem the data to Harvey's business where billing and collecting would be done. The city would receive 85% of the monthly billings without lifting a finger to do any work. All aircraft activity would be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week whether the tower or FBO were on duty or not.

The city accepted, and the idea worked. Every month the city received a substantial check which went into the airport fund and provided a surplus. Everyone was happy. Well, the users weren't totally happy but they realized it was better than closing the airport altogether. And many users, the smaller aircraft, were escaping user fees by not installing ADS-B. True, not having the collision avoidance equipment meant a higher risk, but many pilots were more concerned with high costs than improved margins of safety.

Harvey realized that we are losing an airport a day in the United States and some of those are important GA facilities similar to his airport. He went to those cities and sold the same deal, it was easy to do the automatic billing and collections from his location. He was getting 15% of the take from a number of fields and the revenue began to roll in. Next step was to approach the Westchesters and Addisons all over the country with the same arrangement, every airport needs additional funding and this deal was too good for them to resist. Business increased by leaps and bounds (or takeoffs and landings) and Patton Aviation Revenue was a resounding success.

Within a few years Patton equipment was working all over the country. It was installed, it was functioning, it was a proven source of aviation funding. Of course the users were unhappy, particularly at the fields where the fees were set to limit traffic or limit noise or for some other artificial reason. But the corporate users, those who were required to use ADS-B, had no alternative but to pay.

Then the new Congress instituted federal user fees for General Aviation. This hadn't happened previously because there was no billing and collecting infrastructure, but Harvey Patton had changed all that. Or more accurately, ADS-B had changed all that.
The feds contracted with Patton Aviation Revenue in the same way they contract with Jeppesen or Flight Safety or others who provide a service. Patton did the billing and kept a percentage of the take. Suddenly every takeoff, every flight mile, every landing was computer monitored. VFR or IFR, the airspace bill arrived at the end of the month.

The users screamed, they cursed Harvey Patton, but it was no use. If they were going to fly with ADS-B they were going to be billed. Yet the pilots with foresight, those who had never installed ADS-B, weren't paying a cent. Until a court action was filed, that is.

The US Federal Court for the Ninth District ruled that all airspace users must be treated equally. The court left it up to the FAA to determine what “equally” consisted of but the edict was firm, equality in user fees had to be maintained.
What happened then There are many possible endings to this story. Maybe each non-ADS-B aircraft received an “average” bill every month whether they flew or not. Or maybe every plane was forced to install ADS-B and the resulting frequency overload created the same situation we've had at Oshkosh for many years: “turn your transponder to standby when 30 miles out”. Then the planes, with their ADS-B turned off, were prohibited from flying in controlled airspace. Or maybe the aircraft owners simply gave up and sold the birds for whatever they could get and pleasure flying died, taking FBOs and manufacturers with it.

Today it is not possible to saddle General Aviation with user fees for one simple reason - there is no infrastructure to collect those fees. The test that aviators must apply to ADS-B (or any similar technology) is simple: Are there any words that Congress could say that will hurt us If the answer to that question is yes, then pilots and aircraft owners must reject the technology.

Proponents of ADS-B tell us that there will be an “anonymous” mode that the pilot can select. But that will be true only as long as the rules permit it. Once upon a time we could turn off the transponder if we wanted to, but as the years passed that choice was eliminated. The same will inevitably be true of an anonymous setting, it can only be used until it is prohibited. First prohibited at flight levels and at major hubs, then prohibited in IFR, then prohibited, period.

Proponents of ADS-B also tell us that we can be tracked today. That is somewhat true, but recent experience in the well publicized JFK Jr. accident is instructive. His plane went down around 9 PM Friday and the search and rescue efforts began at 6 AM Saturday. Those efforts continued, under intense press scrutiny, through all of Saturday, all of Sunday, and all of Monday. Around midday Tuesday the FAA finally decoded enoughof their radar tapes to determine the location where the plane went into the water. After the spot was pointed out, the remains of the aircraft were promptly found.

It took FAA more than 72 hours to find one aircraft, an aircraft that the President of the United States and the world press corps were actively interested in finding. Given the number of flights daily, it is clear that the FAA does not begin to have the resources to track and bill every flight.

Tracking every IFR flight would be somewhat easier, but many of those will switch to VFR if there is a substantial money saving. And if it comes to that, safety will suffer. Isn't safety what ADS-B was for in the first place Don't you detect something wrong here

This is just a single example of Bushco's active undermining of regulatory agencies in providing essential public services and safety protections for Americans.

Anti-terrorism?

Bush policy is a joke - and that joke is deadly and at the expense of all Americans.

"It Takes A Network To Defeat A Network"

[UPDATE: Craptastically, I forgot to include General Abizaid's take on the Iraqi military mission. Because it just may be relevant to the rest of the post, it's this: The US military presence in Iraq is buying the country time to progress in governmental development and to buy time to build its army. Buying time.

Why is it that I have yet to hear Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice or any member of Congress utter that phrase when referring to the express use of US military combat operations in Iraq?

Care for a little air sickness bag to go with that cognitive dissonance and spin?]

Northeastern University hosted retired Central Command General John Abizaid to speak to its Middle East Center for Peace, Culture, and Development students about the U.S. and the Middle East this morning.

General Abizaid, a Colorado Rockies fan, apologized for competing with the Red Sox homecoming parade.

However, the NU Middle East Center host, Professor Denis Sullivan, let him know that his presentation would end in plenty of time to take in the festivities.

Northeastern's President Joseph Aoun, a professor of linguistics, introduced General Abizaid with this intriguing proposition: America is unique in being "hyphenated". People can be Arab-Americans, Latino-Americans, African-Americans, etc., and in America, this enrichment thrives and cultural and ethnic heritage is celebrated and valued, instead of the enforced assimilation that occurs in other countries policies toward their immigrants.

Were that it was so. President Ayoub has not perhaps lived in homogeneous communities in the South or Midwest, for example, where immigrants are not only not rewarded for cultural pride and immersion, but are discriminated for it. However, I digress, and this optimism is not a bad thing.

General Abizaid used a few maps of the Middle East to highlight the major points of his presentation.  The first was a plain geographical map of the countries and nation/states of the broader Middle East and adjoining regions.

He gave himself away when he produced this anecdote:

"A few years ago The Secretary of Defense called me to ask a question.  You can't say that he didn't consult the military.  At that time I had 25 areas under my command in the Middle East.  I didn't have Lebanon and Syria.  The Secretary asked me if I would take them on.  I replied that I would rather not.  After a period of reflection and consideration - about 5 or 6 seconds - he replied, 'you've got them.'" (The audience dutifully laughed.)  "I replied, 'why don't you give me North Korea, too?'"

Har.  Har.

But in that little funny is contained Rumsfeld's contempt, hubris and stupidity, and Abizaid's acknowledgment of it.

Back to the presentation.  Gen. Abizaid proposed that the current conflicts are representative of what he views as the first battle of globalization, where there are elements of the population that are trying to remain local and separate from the world, while other elements are trying to engage in world trade, politics and the economy.

With that as his meta view of extant Middle East conflicts, he repeatedly asserted, "You can criticize how we got where we are, but we are where we are, and now we have to move forward."

He then produced the map but with US military perceived conflicts superimposed on the region.

The four major meta problems he perceives include:

• A rise in extremist organizations which include religious indoctrinated extremist views
• Al Qaida - stateless and centerless, a complex and dynamic network including infrastructure, economies and cyberstructure relationships - difficult to infiltrate, understand and contain/minimize
• A rise in Shi'a extremism - nationstates - Iran
• seeks to dominate the region/Persian Gulf
• Arab/Israeli conflict where he perceives a "sense of hopelessness in the region"
• Oil - the Middle East fuels the global economy

Next up is the map with US military goals and objectives superimposed:

• Containment of Iranian aggression
• Control of the Afhan/Pakistani border with an emphasis on the Pakistani side with the aim of reducing the strategic leadership presence of Al Qaida
  
  
• Notably, the Taliban was not mentioned throughout this presentation, and no questioner mentioned it, either
• Stabilize Afghanistan
• Work to stabilize Arab/Palestinian/Israeli relationships
• Monitor extremist groups flowing into North Africa to ungoverned areas
• Monitor Darfur

Interestingly, there are three operations locations generally superimposed in Iran, but Abizaid didn't refer to them specifically.  Does that mean that military operations are officially underway there?  Or does it refer to covert intelligence operations? (Hello, Valerie Plame) Or does it refer to special ops units?  Something else?  Again, no questioner asked about it.

Then Abizaid, who answered one question with the preface, "I may be a retired general, but I still uphold my oath.  I won't criticize this president, the vice president or the secretary of defense," flashed his model of Al Qaida which portrayed a complex network of relationships, information and material and human resources. This was titled simply, "The Network of Al Qaeda."  And after this was Abizaid's policy recommendations and philosophy hidden in plain sight with the US response to that titled, "It Takes A Network To Defeat A Network."

In this representation was diplomatic efforts, international aid, regional policy development and participation (sort of a neighborhood watch model), economic aid, nation building, global relationship building and the engagement of Iraq's government in driving its national security and thus providing the means of egress for US military presence and involvement.

Abizaid repeated this nugget:  "The Iraqis don't want us there, and the military doesn't want to be there." Ahem, Washington.

He also referenced every single remark about the presidential role relative to the Middle East as "what the next president will have to do...." Digby has so presciently remarked that the Repubs are disappearing George W. Bush, and this is evident as well with retired military who would like to criticize by speaking to everything which should be done (and should be happening now) by fast forwarding to January of 09. Essentially, if you want to know what Abizaid thinks about Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, just pay attention to what he recommends for the "Next" administration, and fill in the gap between that and what this administration is doing.  The criticisms will reveal themselves quite clearly.

Abizaid also spoke to concerns about Bush's remark about WW III.  His take?

"I don't think we're heading for war in Iran.  It would be terrible for Iran.  I don't think we're headed for WW III."

He emphasized the need to actively discourage Iran from becoming a nuclear state. But he also stated that the US could live with Iran as a nuclear state, saying, "We lived with Russia and Korea having nuclear states, didn't we?  Don't underestimate out power.  We tend to forget how powerful the US is."

The Northeastern students, many of whom are from areas in or near the Middle East, asked intelligent, thoughtful and informed questions which were answered, for the most part, in optimistic tones.

One NU professor of comparative religion asked about the US role and responsibility for creating the extant problems.  Abizaid skirted the issue and emphasized the need to understand that Iraqis are for the most part, not extremists, are trying to get along with the same concerns that citizens have around the world: work, live, and support their families in their communities.

Overall, there was a lack of depth of substantive specific information in the General's presentation, which was remarked upon after the presentation by a faculty member to the university president.

However, I think that if one understands that the message delivered was in the model of the "network to defeat a network" as Abizaid's policy stance toward containing and addressing terrorism, then the lack of the US diplomatic, economic and infrastructure/humanitarian aid and development efforts and policies to do just that are ample criticism of Bush/Cheney  and the Departments of State and Defense.

Abizaid also spoke to the need to draw down the Army presence in Iraq.  He used a five year time table, and he didn't address the 20% broken soldier rate, the 10% exodus of junior and mid-level officers, nor the 18% recruitment waiver rate as parts of the Army sustainability picture, but he did in passing, reference the Army's overstretched situation. He also expressed his opinion that presidential candidates should be asked about this.

Except for his overly optimistic stance about POTUS/Cheney and Iran, his presentation was helpful to understand the complexity of the situation, its timeframe, and the meta-military role of the US - extant and optimal.

With regard to Iran, all I will say is consider the Balad CSH which has been made enormous and permanent and which is fully staffed jointly by the USAF and the Army.  It's ideally situated to receive Iran airstrike and ground forces casualties and to fly them out of theatre.  Where air evac, triage, and treatment facilities are robust and ready, the action isn't too likely to be too far behind or too far away.

General Abizaid engaged with students immediately after the Q and A portion of his presentation. He became very animated when one student identified himself as a sergeant in the Army Reserve who had served a tour in Najaf. Abizid immediately thank him for his service to his country (he had previously exhorted all of us to do the same when we encountered military personnel regardless of personal feelings about military action). Then he encouraged this student to speak to his fellow students about what he experienced there.

Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Abizaid gets the message across. Clearly. Effectively.

Criticize Washington?

Just fill in the blanks.

Too Many Notes

A novice to jazz, I attended the NEC's tribute to George Russell with an all Russell composition performance. I plunked down in a seat on the aisle in the middle of the hall.

The students, all dressed in beat-wannabe black, clomped on stage, but the pianist was smiling a genuine toothy smile, and he didn't appear to be any student! Bradley Hatfield was "subbing" for the scheduled pianist.

And then the music started and I was blown away - literally - by the amped up volume, but also by the must-move beat and rhythms.

Just behind me, a tremulous voice was offering some syncopated running commentary. Very pointed and informed commentary.

I was busy, busy with "getting" the sound - there was some five chime steam engine horn (EXCELLENT AUDIO SAMPLES AND MUSIC REFERENCES HERE) - approaching and leaving/fading. But the tempo wasn't right for it - too frantic.

The students were featured in riffs, and all of them seemed to be in the spirit - smiling, moving, transported in the moment and the music.

The audience was moving, too, and the first half of the performance sped on by - a definite express.

By that time, I learned that the commenter seated just behind me was none other than the composer himself. Mr. Hatfield and the NEC Jazz Ensemble conductor, Ken Schaphorst, came down to have a chat and to say hello. George was asked what he thought of the performance so far.

"Too many notes," he asserted. Then he sang some busy, busy scat to illustrate the busy-ness of the students.

Bradley - seemingly always smiling and diplomatic, covered by responding, "It's the day in which we live, George." "It's a new generation."

I thought about that during the second half of the performance, which was still too loud for my taste, but enthusiastically and genuinely played.

How many of those performers rode trains cross country? How many have heard, listened and paid attention to the sound of a five chime horn, learned and felt the pacing of a train - accelerating, maintaining momentum and deccelerating into a station? How many grew up hearing trains as an everyday event?

They might do well to listen to some soundtracks of steam locomotion and also of riders on horseback, as both of those rhythms, tempos and musical sounds are rife throughout classical and jazz music.

Russell was lauded throughout the evening, but I admired his honesty throughout. Age allows for raw honesty, and George provided it if the students will only hear it.

The program was magnificent:

Cubano Be Cubano Bop
Stratusphunk
All About Rosie
Ezz-Thetic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
African Game
It's About Time, Part II

George wasn't so bad, either. What luck to have a private tutorial by the master himself.

Take the trains, kids.