The Nightmare of Boeing's "Dreamliner"

Bad fasteners, delays in production, quality control problems, all of these brought about because Boeing tried to outsource on a world wide basis the fabrication of pieces of the 787 Dreamliner. Now, even more delays.

Will this bird EVER get off the ground?

Politics as Blood Sport

People who bemoan the state of politics don't know politics. Politics is about disagreements. It's a nasty business. Always has been. Always will be. There has been a shootout on the senate floor and more than one duel over political disagreements.

Politics ain't sitting down by a stream with your opponents and singing "Kumbaya" until you all achieve common agreements. So, Democrats, next time come to a political knife fight "armed" with something better than a flower bouquet. But you probably wont because you are against violence. Losers.

WTC Mosque

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens some some sobering thoughts on the controversy here.

Joe Sestak Ad

Here's a pretty cute ad from Democrat Joe Sestak, who is running for the Senate from Pennsylvania.

As Homer Simpson would say, "It's funny cause it's true!"

Here's a link

and this

A Reader Responds

From a reader:

"Frankly, I had assumed that this whole thing would be forgotten by now. Boy was I wrong!

Like you, I wish they would build somewhere else, but there is no legitimate reason for the government to stop Park51.

Ironically, some "conservatives" have advocated that the government bury the project in red tape or try to exercise eminent domain and seize the property. That is ironic because conservatives are normally in the forefront of protecting property rights. I guess it's a classic case of "whose ox is being gored.""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's always a case of "whose ox is being gored" !!

I find it fascinating that the right wing loves to attack the First Amendment and defend the Second Amendment while the left loves to defend an expand the First Amendment (and the 14th) but it has no compunction about trying to so narrowly define the Second Amendment as to render it null and void.

Why have these two amendments become locked in a death-fight for the extremists?

Your Radical Moderate

When is a New York City Mosque not a Mosque?

When it is a commercial space. When it is a community center. And most important, when it is a political football.

I speak, of course, of the planned development located in Lower Manhattan at 51 Park Place called Cordoba House.

The facts in this case are simple. On September 11, 2001, two passenger jets were hijacked by a number of men, Muslims all, and they crashed these jets into 1 World Trade Center and 2 World Trade Center, setting the buildings ablaze. Trapped by the fires, many people jumped to their deaths. Approximately one hour after each building was struck by a jet, they collapsed onto themselves. Several buildings surrounding the trade center towers were also destroyed. Almost three thousand people were killed.

Now, almost 10 years later, significant reconstruction is taking place on the World Trade Center site. Two blocks north, on Park Place, stands a sealed and vacant building that formerly housed the Burlington Coat Factory, a discount clothing store. The building was purchased by a Muslim developer with the intention of constructing a cultural center, named Park 51, based on its address of 51 Park Place. Part of that development is to include a mosque.

This is from the Park 51.org website:

Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities:

* outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
* a 500-seat auditorium
* a restaurant and culinary school
* cultural amenities including exhibitions
* education programs
* a library, reading room and art studios
* childcare services
* a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
* a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all

The developer has followed all applicable rules and regulations. The city's Landmarks Preservation Commission has found the site to be of no architectural significance. The local community board voted overwhelmingly in support of the project. Finally, the use of this space for Muslim prayer services is not a new development, as the 51 Park web site reports,

Daily Muslim prayer services have been held at 51 Park Place since late 2009. We hope to expand services and facilities in the coming months, although a firm date has not yet been set for the opening of Park51

So why do many people object to this development. Moreover, who are these people who so vocally and vociferously object?

There are the hate mongers, the people for whom anything Islamic is anathema. For them the issue of he Park 51's proximity to the World Trade Center is convenient camouflage for their anti-Islamism. They wouldn't be happy if Park 51 were moved 5 blocks, 5 miles, or 500 miles.

There are those who believe that this is a deliberate poke in the eye from Islamists who are following an old tradition. They say that this planned development is nothing less than a Muslim victory marker, similar to the construction of the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Temple in Jerusalem or by changing the Sancta Sophia in Constantinople to Hagia Sophia. From Wikipedia:

In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Turks and Sultan Mehmed II ordered the building to be converted into a mosque.[6] The bells, altar, iconostasis, and sacrificial vessels were removed and many of the mosaics were eventually plastered over. The Islamic features — such as the mihrab, the minbar, and the four minarets outside — were added over the course of its history under the Ottomans. It remained as a mosque until 1935, when it was converted into a museum by the Republic of Turkey.

There are those who honestly believe that the site is too close to the World Trade Center. For them the wounds are still too raw and the Islamic beliefs of the murderers are impossible to sever from the Islamic beliefs of the Park 51 developers. To them, an Islamic center at this specific location is an insult and the development should be moved.

There are those I call the "perpetual mourners". For them, September 11, 2001 happened yesterday. Their losses are still immediate and fresh. They have not been able to either finish or diminish their grieving and to "move on".

There is even a movement among some of the city's construction tradesmen to boycott the site despite the high unemployment in the construction industry. See this story in the New York Daily News:

A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.

"It's a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground," said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuild the World Trade Center site.

"I wouldn't work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11," Kaiser said.

The grass-roots movement is gaining momentum on the Internet. One construction worker created the "Hard Hat Pledge" on his blog and asked others to vow not to work on the project if it stays on Park Place.

And what of the supporters of the Park 51 development?

The developer, Sharif El-Gamal, is digging in his heels and rejecting any offers of alternative sites:

The developer of an Islamic cultural center that would include a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero appear to have rejected Gov. David Paterson's offer to help them find a different site but a meeting may still be in the works.

On Tuesday, Rep. Peter King said he learned the governor planned to speak with the imam and developers of the mosque and cultural center later this week. Both King and Paterson are scheduled to discuss the issue on Larry King Live tonight.

Lead developer Sharif El-Gamal told NY1 yesterday no meeting had been scheduled yet. Since Paterson first offered to help broker a new location for the mosque last week, however, El-Gamal has insisted the subject was not up for debate, stressing the proximity of the planned center to Ground Zero was not an issue.

"Park51 is a community center. It is two blocks north of the World Trade Center site,” El-Gamal told NY1. “In New York City, two blocks is a great distance. There are some buildings in New York that have their own zip codes. There is such a scarcity of space in New York, especially in Lower Manhattan. Keep in mind this is a small island, so we are nowhere near the World Trade Center site."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has become more and more strident in his support of Park 51. See this Daily News story:

“We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life. And it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001.

“On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that even here -- in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance -- was hard-won over many years.

So what might a radical Moderate make of this issue?

I must address those whom I called "constant mourners".

I was in the area of the World trade center on September 11, 2001. I witnessed people jumping from those buildings to their ultimate ends. I witnessed the collapse of those two towers and the destruction of the buildings that surrounded them. I breathed the acrid air of Lower Manhattan for three months as the rubble on the site continued to burn until just before Christmas. At that time, I was in discussions with two entities that operated in those buildings and had they been concluded just a bit earlier, I might have been in one of those two buildings on that unforgettable morning. Those are my bona fides. I am fortunate that I did not know anyone who died on that day. But my words should have no greater or lesser weight than the words of those who did suffer a grievous loss.

To the "perpetual mourners" I understand that your grief is deep, and fresh, and personal. I can not tell you to "get over it" and to "move on". Only you can decide that. But I resent your imposing your grief on me. And I resent your desire to prevent me from living in the present. Yes, I was there and yes, I remember. But remembering does not mean living in a frozen moment in time. I prefer to look to the future.

Truth is something that ultimately is unknowable. Whether the various charges being thrown against the Park 51 developers are true is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the developers have followed all of the rules and regulations of the City of New York regarding site location. What is relevant is that the developers, too, are covered and protected by the concepts of our Constitution and Bill of Rights which guaranty freedom of worship. I find it ironic that those on the political right who so easily attack the Park 51 development, and by doing so trammel the First Amendment at the same time stand as vigorous guardians to the Second Amendment. A consistency of philosophy is not their strong point. I think in this case it is called "hypocrisy".

I, too, am sensitive to the emotional context of this situation. I was there.

So what is the solution?

I have a cartoon posted in my office. It shows a man at a crossroads with a directional sign for each road. One sign says "Legally Right". The other sign says "Morally Right". The carton perfectly frame this issue.

The Park 51 developers legally purchased the property. They followed all rules and regulations. It is not the government's position to protect the sensitivities of those who might be offended by the construction of this facility. The laws must be upheld, even for those with whom we might harbor differences. Perhaps especially for those we have differences, when they are in full compliance with laws.

Several years ago a group of nuns wanted to build a convent on or relatively close to the site of the infamous Auschwitz death camp. Outrage emanated from the Jewish community as this was considered an affront to the particularly Jewish connection to this horrible site. Pope John Paul II, sensitive to the needs of the Jewish community, prevailed upon the nuns to move the site of their proposed convent, reportedly telly them" What you plan to do is good, but if you were to move it, it would be better."

I believe that a position that would satisfy all is available. The Park 51 developers should say that they recognize their right to build the Cordoba House at 51 Park Place. But they also say that Cordoba House is planned to be a site of peace and harmony. It is clear that siting it on Park Place would cause it to inflame passions rather than to achieve its goals. They should say that they are willing to consider alternative sites several blocks away, such as north of Canal Street, so that all may enjoy Cordoba House it peace.

But you know that's not gonna happen.

Exquisite!

I recommend this wonderful story from Esquire magazine here.

Army Alledged Murderer ( "Alleged" because my Legal Dept. requires it!)

Do you have one bit of doubt that the army pushed alleged murderer Maj. Nidal Hasan along because of a fear of a claim of racial/religious discrimination? As the reports come it it appears that incompetence and fear on the part of his superiors and supervisors protected Hasan. See the latest report.

Rating Obama- Part 3 International Relations

The one word that could sum up the first year of the Obama administration is "naive". This administration believes that rational thinking and professorial reserve are effective traits in dealing with the entire world. They are not. Sure, Western Europe can fall in love with him, but their support, if it is present to any degree, is minimal and ineffective. When it comes to dealing with our enemies, specifically radical Islamists, rational 21st Century cool will not prevail.

Let's briefly look at some areas.

Afghanistan:

The Obama administration to add 30,000 troops over the next year is a half baked measure in light of the President's announced plan to begin withdrawing them in 2011 and 2012. First, the president has cut off at the knees his own on scene commander, Gen. McChrystal, who asked for 40,000 troops. Second, he has given the Taliban and al Queda a timetable for them to resume their operations.

Counterinsurgency operations are long term commitments. Obama has demonstrated that he is not willing to make this commitment. For his failure to define an effective strategic position , Obama earns an "F". For their failure to effectively engage the enemy in their assigned areas of operation, our allies earn an "F".

Iran:

Obama has offered a open hand of friendship to the Iranian administration. His efforts have garnered repeated slaps in the face from the Iranians. In dealing with Iran's clear efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Obama is hampered by European weakness and the outright antipathy of both Russia and China. As a result of the positions taken by the latter two countries, it will be impossible to implement effective sanctions. Absent either covert mechanisms to destroy or disrupt the Iranian effort or a massive bombing campaign to destroy nuclear facilities, for the first time nuclear weapons will be in the hands of religious radicals with a 7th century mindset. For his failure to engage the issue effectively and vigorously from the beginning of his administration, Obama earns the grade of "F".


Israel-Palestine:

"Naive". It is the word that best fits the Obama approach to this area of the middle east. Obama has failed to appreciate several realities. Israel is under real and significant threats from entities sworn to her destruction-from the North in the form of Iran back Hezbollah; from the East, with a corrupt and lawless Palestinian Authority and Iran; and from the South, from Hamas controlled Gaza. At this point, Obama might have learned that the Palestinians believe that they can gain everything that they want by continuing to say "no" to any overture from Israel. The initial American position of trying to be an honest broker can not achieve any tangible improvements when one of the parties on the other side believes that it can accomplish more by refusing to negotiate. It is the tactic of the souk. And it can be very effective for them. For its part, Israel fails to play its strongest had, by making life for the Palestinians on the West bank easier, richer and more successful at a faster rate than it has been moving in this direction. There are intractable issues. Israel will never give up Jerusalem and failure of Western powers to understand that the holiest location for Israel-the Western Wall- lies in what would otherwise be Arab Jerusalem. Another non-starter is the idea of making Jerusalem an " international city". Nowhere has this idea worked. Nor will Israel allow the Palestinian refugee families to return whence they came.

Overall, I an tempted to give the Obama administration an "F" , but with the hope that a great degree of learning has taken place this year, I'll raise the grade to "D".

Russia:

After hearing the yapping from Russia, Obama decided to scrap a defensive nuclear missile program that would have placed radars in the Czech Republic and Anti-missile weapons in Poland. In return for undermining our allies, who took undertook a great degree of risk in allowing these facilities to be placed in their respective countries, the Obama administration received nothing in return from Russia. Since these defensive weapons were designed to deter an Iranian threat, one might reasonably expect that the Obama administration would tie the removal o the weapons with Russian support for strong measure to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. However, the Obama administration failed in achieving that simple goal. It can be fairly said that the administration surrendered a bargaining chip without securing anything in return. Grade "F".

Rating Obama- Part 2- Economics/ Domestic

In late 2008, the United States economy, and by extension , the world economy, was at the brink of the abyss. The risky business practices of banks and brokerages had caused a collapse in the credit markets and bank failures were at their highest rates since the Great Depression. Home mortgages were unpaid at near record rates. Foreclosures and bankruptcies exploded. The famous Lehman Brothers brokerage house failed. AIG Insurance failed. Fear flooded Wall Street as the media broadcast news of an imminent Great Depression II and the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost almost half its value from its high point. In the last days of the Bush administration, the Republican President was forced to step in and inject money into the banks and brokerage houses to keep the nation solvent. The Great Bailout of 2008 had begun.

When Barack Obama took office, national economic failure was still an option. He quickly put together an economic stimulus package designed to get money flowing into the economy in the form of public works projects. Obama's supporters on the left felt that the almost one trillion dollar stimulus package was too little to do the job of turning the economy around. His opponents on the right felt that the stimulus would burden future generations with crippling debt. The future may prove that both sides were correct.

Along with the failures of the economic markets, the nation's automobile manufacturers were also near collapse. Decades of poor business practices and their collective failure to bring to market the products that the public wanted, and which needs were satisfied by Japanese and European manufacturers, all resulted in a downward spiral of sales and earnings. General Motors, the nation's largest car maker had run out of cash. Chrysler had nothing left in its tank. Ford was still solvent, but its products had not been selling either. These factors,combined with the lack of credit from the 2008 meltdown, meant that cars weren't moving off lots, manufacturing ceased, and the American car industry, along with its plethora of independent suppliers, was about to die, and if they did millions would be unemployed.

Against a background of Republican charges of Socialism, the Obama administration forced bankruptcy on General Motors and a subsequent sale of Chrysler to Italy's FIAT Corporation. In return for these measures, as well as product restructuring plans and union contract givebacks, the administration pumped needed cash into both companies to keep them solvent. Ford alone eschewed government intervention as the corporate leaders felt that they had enough cash on hand to weather the storm.

Today, the economy pulled back from the brink. Economists as talking about "green shoots of recovery". Following a period of severe layoffs, companies are stating to talk about hiring. A small glimmer of hope is on the horizon.

So how does one grade President Obama's performance? Within a short time after taking office, he had to have his team in place and form appropriate responses to the banking failures, the freezing of credit markets, job losses, and the potential failure of the entire automobile industry. Mr. Obama never set up false hopes of rapid recovery. He spoke calmly and honestly about the problems. Despite taking fire from both the left and the right, the President steered a course that was admirable in both its effectiveness and in its restraint, trying to do what had to be done, neither too little money nor too much government intervention.

In the category of "Economics/Domestic" President Obama earns a grade of "A".

Rating Obama- Part 1- The Line Up

Technically, it is just under one year since Barack Obama took the historic oath of office on the west steps of the Capital, but it is time to hand out grades on his performance to date.

It is important to recognize that although his party holds majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, these majorities are far slimmer than they appear. In their efforts to take control of both houses, the Democrats enacted a big-tent strategy which allowed them to include a wide range of political philosophies under the Democrat label. As a result of this strategy, the Senate Democrats include more conservative members, such as Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, along with left wing Independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont, and noted liberals Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein of California. The house includes a significant conservative democratic faction, the Blue Dog Coalition to go along with the usual liberal line up.

Neither the Senate nor the House contain a philosophically monolithic Democratic majority, willing to march in lock-step where ever the President points. As a result of these political realities, President Obama must satisfy to some degree the demands of these varied factions. Whether by his own political temperament, or as the result of political calculation, Barack Obama's Presidency has been marked by a more moderate approach than that which many of his liberal supporters hoped for and his conservative detractors feared. The result is that his most liberal supporters are currently disappointed on a number of issues and already are talking of betrayal, while his conservative opponents will never be satisfied with anything he does.

In several follow-up postings, I'll take a look at the President's record on a variety of issues, such as the economy, environment, terrorism, war, relations with other nations, and the middle east.

Turning Tide? Fighting Terrorism In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen

Two news articles today make me wonder if perhaps the Taliban have reached their high water mark and now are about to ebb back into the caves and crevices of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The New York Times reports that some Afghanis within their own country are starting to pick up arms against the religious extremists. Some "experts" claim that the formation of local militias weakens the central government. But with a central government that is not trusted by the citizenry, local action is an effective means of combating the Taliban push. Effective counter-insurgency requires the active cooperation and action from the locals in order to defeat the Taliban. Except for the British action in Malaysia against insurgent forces there, a 15 year battle which resulted in the uprooting and relocation of a major portion of the population, regular army actions against insurgents have all failed.

Taliban cruelty is becoming more well known then their supposed piety. And perhaps even in war-weary Afghanistan, there may be a limit to how much oppression people will tolerate.

Further evidence that Afghanis, may, just may, be finding a new path away from corrupt government comes in this NYTIMES story from Kabul:

KABUL, Afghanistan — In a clear signal to President Hamid Karzai that he cannot count on Parliament for support, lawmakers resoundingly rejected most of his nominees for cabinet posts and expressed discontent with the candidates’ competence.

From the eastern side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border comes this story about Pakistani reaction to the recent car-bombing that killed almost 100 innocents. Said one Pakistani elder who is part of a still forming anti-Taliban council:

"The people are in severe grief and fear — it is a demoralizing thing," said Raham Dil Khan, a rifle-toting, 70-something member of the tribal council. "We want the government to provide security, but one thing is very clear: The committee will stand against every type of terrorism and despite this great loss we will continue our work."


If sufficient forces form to squeeze the Taliban simultaneously from the Afghan side of the border and also from the Pakistan side of the border, the Taliban will be hard-pressed to wage effective warfare in either country. And that which makes life difficult for the Taliban also makes life difficult for Osama Bin Laden's Al-Kaida, which has been sheltered by the Taliban for decades.

The question arises: Can NATO forces provide sufficient backing for the local anti-Taliban Afghanis without raising their own profile to the degree that they are considered foreign invaders, and thus targets of nationalistic, or tribal, Afghanis?

A second question arises. If the military and political pressures in the Afghanistan-Pakistan make life uncomfortable for Al-Kaida. Where will that group go next? Al-Kaida is an idea, it is a stateless, amorphous entity that thrives without traditional governmental forms and structures. It moves like quicksilver. Push it in one direction and it will flow in another. It needs neither a capital city nor a standing army. Offshoots can and have developed where they did not exist previously such as Iraq and Yemen. It thrives wherever Islamic governments are corrupt or weak or both. It thrives where there is a disaffected Muslim populations, such as the Philippines.

It is clear that Al-Kaida must be attacked on all fronts simultaneously to prevent it from flowing and reforming where fertile environments exist: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, The Philippines. Can the United States, local governments, and whatever Western allies we can muster, commit the forces, the funds, and more important, the political will to fight what will be a delicate and decades long war against terrorism?

Food For Thought- How One Cup of Coffee Impacts the World and a Person

This morning I ground some Colombian coffee beans and made some fresh coffee. It was absolutely delicious and I savored every drop.

For almost all of us living in the United States, we live in a land of incomprehensible abundance when it comes to food. We have the luxury of dreaming up gourmet meals and then buying them, whether to cook them ourselves or to have someone else do the heavy work and then serving it to us for a fee.

A simple cup of coffee is not so simple. Coffee is grown in many places except in the continental United States. It must be planted, harvested, graded, shipped, roasted, ground, and then perked, dripped or French pressed. Whether you perform the last few steps at home or delegate the task to the local deli or Starbucks, there is a lot going on in that cup. It took a lot of work.

Our wealth allows us to become, "Foodies", "Gourmets", "Oenophiles". We can cook four different cuisines, serve eight course meals, and discourse intelligently on chablis and chardonnays, cabernets and syrahs.

So as we start the new year, let us take a moment to contemplate our abundance of food and the wealth which makes this all possible. We have the luxury to decide what to eat or what not to eat. We do not have to wonder which dumpster will provide our next meal or which puddle will supply our next drink.

A moment or two of thanks or appreciation is not inappropriate.