Morning Coffee (106)

Morning Coffee; brewed only with the finest Arabica beans that can be produced. And when I say Arabica beans, I mean the things I observe. It’s metaphorical, people.

There’s so much to discuss today, but unfortunately, I can’t dive into it with the zeal I would like. I would like to really get into analyzing these things as they are all very important. However, there’s not enough time to do so. And I’m afraid that one or multiple of the topics would end up boring you to tears. So, I’ll talk about each, and provide links for those who wish to read on their own. Maybe this weekend I’ll be able to revisit some of the below. Of course, if the temperatures remain in the negatives, I might be turned into a frozen blogger by then.

Navy Shoots Down Dave Matthews’ “Satellite”:

The USS Lake Erie, a US Navy Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser, successfully destroyed that errant US satellite last night. It was a unique test of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system. No need to get into the nitty-gritty of this whole system, but basically, the USS Lake Erie and her sister ships are all part of a defense system designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. Or at least that’s the hope. The satellite posed a unique challenge to the system simply because the missile used to shoot down other missiles is guided by an infra-red seeker, which the press calls a “heat-seeking missile.” The satellite, see, doesn’t give off much heat. Nevertheless, the Navy crew destroyed the satellite with one shot. I figured that they might have to take another shot because of the uniqueness of this target. But they succeeded. One shot one kill. Go Navy.

If you’re not aware, the satellite was targeted for destruction because it failed to respond to commands immediately after it was deployed in December 2006. Because of this, it was going to reenter earth’s atmosphere in early March and the potential existed for lives to be lost somewhere in North America because the spacecraft still had roughly 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a highly toxic chemical used as a fuel. Allegedly, the fuel tank would survive reentry and the fuel contained within could contaminate an area equal to two football fields. That would not be good for Suzy and her family, as their lungs would be seared real good.

We should not assume that our government’s complete and total benevolence was the sole reason for shooting this satellite. Doing this does a number of things. One, it further tests our capabilities. The military has not engaged in anti-satellite weapons testing since 1989, when an F-15 flying at 80,000 fired a modified air-to-air missile at a target in space. So this was a test veiled as a real-world mission (although the mission was indeed valid – it was an unproven technology). Second, the Chinese in January 2007 successfully tested their own anti-satellite weapon, and received worldwide condemnation for it because it left something like 100,000 pieces of debris in orbit, which puts other space platforms at risk. This test was likely to send a message to the US that they could blind and cripple our space-based platforms if they chose to do so; basically telling the US to back off over the Taiwan issue. So the US test could easily be considered a response to that, reminding them that their space-based systems are also at risk. (The threat from debris as a result of the US test will be limited, as most of it will burn up upon reentry within two weeks – slightly different from the end result of the unannounced Chinese test.) These messages, which might seem to most people odd and overly subtle, even when placed in context, are quite significant and important when one considers the present set of circumstances. Taiwan holds elections in May. China fears an official Taiwanese declaration of independence, and has indicated that it would do what it deemed necessary to maintain the “One China” policy (which the US officially recognizes). This could mean using force to deal with the renegade province of Taiwan. However, the US is somewhat obligated to come to Taiwan’s aid. This is why nations engage in such subtle messaging.

It should be noted that the US decision to target the satellite has also been received with fairly universal condemnation, or at the very least, quiet chastisement even by allies. China and Russia have been most vocal, because they have the most to fear from an advanced US anti-satellite program. And they also have advanced ASAT programs. They hem and haw about a treaty to limit weapons in space (because it would, as they desire, limit US capabilities to assault their space-based systems) but the US refuses to discuss such a thing, and in turn they can damage US credibility by calling US policy hypocritical. Of course, the Chinese are fairly hypocritical as well. It would actually be sort of humorous if it weren’t so serious. The Chinese test a system, with no prior announcement, which greatly increased the amount of harmful space debris in orbit, and then screams bloody murder when the US does a similar thing albeit with significantly fewer side affects, and they do this screaming as if they did nothing a year ago. Using the Chinese’s logic on this issue, one could argue that the Chinese made the first move in the most recent debate on the weaponization of space, and have been trying to achieve the capability to kill US satellites for some time.

The Obamaic Religion:

I am almost sorry that I suggested that Ron Paul’s overly-zealous supporters’ behavior was cult-like. While Paul’s supporters are rabid in their support for Paul, tenacious and indiscriminate in spreading his message, and will eagerly engage in combative discussion with detractors, they can barely be considered cult-like in comparison to what the Obama Campaign. I’ve stated on more than one occasion that the media is becoming squeamish with the messianic tone that has been indulged in not only be supporters (proles and celebrities alike), but by the candidate and his official representatives as well.

There have been, in the last few weeks, dozens of articles posted in numerous venues about this phenomenon. Another was recently posted on Politico.com (Disclaimer: Poltico has been criticized by the left-wing blogosphere as being pro-Republican, however true that is, I do not know). In this article, Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings was quoted as saying as he introduced Obama to a crowd, “This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world.” Apparently, the article contends, this sort of sentiment is not unusual.

• George Clooney to Charlie Rose: “He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere.”
• Halle Berry to the Philly Daily News: “I’ll do whatever he says to do. I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

Statements of this type are worrisome, not because they’re exceptions to the rule when it comes to Obama’s supporters, but because they seem to be the rule. Halle Berry will clear a path for him through paper cups, which one would presume to be refuse rather than simply a bunch of clean cups placed there for the purpose of making Ms. Berry prove her allegiance to Obama. And George Clooney would surely ridicule anyone who said that they feel compelled to follow George Bush anywhere, and rightfully so. A proclamation such as that is grossly inappropriate when made in reference to someone you know only through his stump speeches and interviews on Larry King. This sort of zealotry is scary.

His opposition, Hillary Clinton rival for the Democratic nomination and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, have both contended that Obama is an eloquent peddler of empty speech void of substantive ideas, and that he has ridden a wave of euphoric followers who are made so solely by his flowery grandiloquence about a brand of change that can only be described as amorphous. I would wager that Obama’s potential as the President of the United States is somewhere in between Clinton’s and McCain’s suggestion and the hopes (or is it delusions?) of his supporters. And it’s unlikely that Obama himself believes the hype, because he’s recently begun to tell supporters that a President cannot do it by himself (maybe he’s trying to preempt the issue a bit). But surely, few men who seek such power will actively play down the feel-goodery and try to mitigate such euphoria in his followers; instead he’ll use it to his advantage, which while smart, is indicative of a power-hungry man. To know that he can’t be what they think he is but allow them to continue to believe it. However, if he does believe his own hype, he’s worse; he’s as deluded as his supporters.

Throwing your weight behind someone to this degree must represent nothing short of a Faustian Bargain; a deal with the devil. You’re sacrificing reality for the hope of a change which cannot be sufficiently described. Reality abandoned for “Change you can believe in.” You’re far too emotionally invested, and your hopes and dreams will be certifiably crushed when you inevitably realize that this man cannot possibly deliver on any of the things that he lets you think that he can. What, pray tell, will happen the first time Obama fails to “bring people together”? After all, this supposed, wondrous unifying ability is frequently the sole reason articulated by people when asked why they support the man. In fact, his political commercials, as I’ve discussed recently, reinforce this perception. But what happens when he fails to bring together the incredibly diverse personalities that make up our government? What happens when he is unable to effectively extricate the US military from the “illegal and immoral” war in Iraq? What happens, dear friends, when the hopes and dreams of Obama’s supporters are trampled on because Obama is unable (or unwilling (or both)) to usher in this change he speaks of so frequently? What then? I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be optimistic when it comes to someone new and exciting, but to suggest that you would follow the man anywhere or clean up garbage from his path is silly, especially given what we know of the man (which isn’t necessarily bad, but rather limited). I suppose that it would be grand to be able to throw your trust and faith so blindly behind something, without having to think. Just succumb to the feel-good vibes. But I cannot (or I’d be religious), and I hope that the rest of you do not do so in this case either. At the very least, the man should present to us a cogent, feasible plan before we allow him to be our President. Anything less is our failure.

I lied. Apparently, I dived with zeal. I had wanted to discuss some news about McCain that has recently come up, that being the possibility that he’s had lobbyist support, which goes against everything he’s said during this campaign. But today’s Coffee is pretty long (and late) so it’s best that I do it tomorrow. Besides, I haven’t fully been able to digest this news, as the Times article is difficult to follow.

Word of the Day: Factitious (adjective): Produced artificially, in distinction from what is produced by nature. 2. Artificial; not authentic or genuine; sham.

On This Day in History: Mikhail I is elected as Tsar unanimously, beginning the Romanov Dynasty of Imperial Russia (1613). The British government led by Winston Churchill abolishes ID cards in the US, “set[ting] the people free” (1952). And 55 years later, we’re going to implement our own.

“Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against.” – W.C. Fields.