Political Lomcevak (Tumbling the Liberal Mindset)
Saturday, March 08, 2003
I guess it is high time that I explain what a Lomcevak is. First, a touch of history. Since I can remember I have always loved aircraft. At the age of seventeen, I received a Private Pilot Certificate. By the time I was 23, I had a Flight Instructor Certificate. Then one day, I took a ride in an aerobatic aircraft. I discovered something incredible. Unfortunately, I also discovered that flying airliners, and pushing buttons was boring. It was in my heart, but until I flew upside down I had no idea. So I became an aerobatic instructor. I have had the pleasure of watching many different people experience the joy of discovering aerobatics, and I still try to fly as often as I can. I also became fairly experienced as an aerobatic flight instructor.
A Lomcevak is possibly the the pre-emminent aerobatic manuever that all aerobatic pilots aspire too. It is known by a few other names, most notably gyroscopics, or tumbles. The manuever is actually fairly simple to do, but can result in spin which can be very disorienting, and coupled with the disorienting nature of the Lomcevak itself suggests that only advanced aerobatic pilots attempt the maneuver. Additionally, the event places significant stress on the propellor, and the engine mounts, and quite a few pilots have lost motors, or propellors, which, naturally is a bad thing.
The first known usage of the term Lomcevak occurred when the Czechoslovakian national aerobatic team introduce it in the 1950's to the astonishment of the aerobatic community. The term is a colloquialism meaning "headache," or an event that causes a headache, or an incredible event that cause a person to feel like the are upside down, depending on the Czech you talk too.
While not getting into the details of how to accomplish the manuever, I believe I can describe it. Picture yourself in an two seat aircraft, like the Red Biplane below. I take it you are sitting right now, so pretend you are flying with me. I know all pilots can do this. First I will lower the nose, and build up speed. In the Pitts, about 190MPH. Now a 4G pull to a 60 degree angle going straight up. As the Aircraft starts to slow, I will slowly roll the aircraft to the left, and begin to push the nose forward. As you sit there, close your eyes, and imagine the computer screen falling down, and to your right, as you are lifted from your seat by the G's. Okay, back with me? As the aircraft s nose wing dips through 45 degrees and the nose falls through 25 degrees, I will begin to feel the airflow seperate from the wing. At that moment, I will smoothly feed in full controls. For you the sensation will be a sudden acceleration as the front of the aircraft falls away, and the tail of the aircraft goes over your head. Earth, sky, earth, sky, earth, sky, and the sound of the propellor as it is subjected to the gyroscopic load. YehaaaaaaaaAAAAAA, AGAIN, AGAIN, How many of those can we get Yeeeeehhahhahahahummmmmmm.........Sorry about that. Does the fact that this seems fun to me make me nuts? Possibly, but hey.
So that is what I want to do here, except with politics. I want people to come in here, and see earth, sky, earth, sky, earth, sky, in a way they never have before. Maybe that will shake some of them out of thier lethargic acceptance of the common wisdom. I mean after all, aircraft can't tumble right?
Friday, March 07, 2003
1) Mark Steyn is always on the money. There is an awfully adroit ad hominum on Mike Farrell
"But apparently Mike Farrell didn’t get to hear about it. You remember Mike Farrell. He’s the guy who played the guy who wasn’t Alan Alda in M*A*S*H. No, no, not the guy who played Trapper John. Trapper John left after the second season and some other fellow took over, and people spent the next 20 years saying he wasn’t as good as Trapper John. Mike Farrell played that guy. Not the guy you remember, but the guy you remember for not being as good as the guy you remember."
Then there is the point that I try to make to my liberal friends. Shouldn't the complete lack (I won't include the LAX attack, since the FBI did not) of terrorist attacks on American soil point to the fact that we are doing extremely well. Steyn makes the point this way.
"Al-Qa’eda: If the war on terror is, as the has-been senators contend, ‘almost forgotten’, it’s because al-Qa’eda have been unable to pull off any attacks on Western soil in a year and a half. That’s a longer period of calm than Britain managed in its three-decade struggle against the IRA. As we know from the ricin plotters, that low body-count is not for lack of effort on the Islamonutters’ part. But they’ve been able to hit Westerners only in less rigorously policed jurisdictions like Tunisia and Bali, and now the Philippines. So, in any objective sense, America’s war on terror is not being ‘seriously neglected’ but rather impressively prosecuted.
The only rational rejoinder that I know of can be found here. (Thanks to SDB for the info) In a nutshell, the assertion by Mr. Harris makes the point that Al Queda is only interested in making a knock out blow, and therefore does not think tactically. The good news is that knock out blows are very hard to land. The bad news is that if we get nailed, it is ugly time.
2) Here is another law student who is suffering through law school, like myself. However, he is in Missouri, and so cannot nearly be suffering the same as I am, in Northern California, at a law school named for a Civil Rights leader. The blogger has all the fire of a 1L, while I seem to be tiring in my second year.
3) Thanks to LGF for this link. Charles Krauthammer makes an argument for temporary appeasement. The argument is cogent and rational, however, I wonder if it would lead others to make some jumps they would not before. For instance, I am very certain that the Chinese are watching events very closely. An indication from us that N. Korea is to much to handle, while we are busy with Iraq, may embolden the Chinese. They may begin to seriously threaten Taiwan while we were fighting Iraq, negotiating with N. Korea, and fighting Al 'Queda, as well as dealing with the Isreali defense action against the terrorist Palestinians. Let us not forget the Iranians, and Afghanistan. Pheeeewwwww. No wonder Bush looks tired. Just remember that I called it here.
4) Rachel Lucas . is back, and she is the person who started me reading blogs, since her blog was the first I read, outside of The Corner. When Rachel stopped I had to start.
5) Den Beste has a very disturbing article for The Telegraph. Let me make clear that I am not a UN supporter, but this is getting tough to swallow. The President is playing a very, very, high stakes game. I hope that he knows what he is doing. The problem that I see with this tactic that it seems to ignore some very real problems.
a) If we depart the UN, that leaves Russia, China, France and Germany together. They will automatically fall into each others spheres, or be drawn to each other by a natural gravity of mutual interest. Bringing China into the mix this way is extremely dangerous for us. China would be interested because it must understand that those nations would be more then willing to sail Taiwan down the river, in exchange for China's help. France et al are quite aware that if there is one nation that can threaten us militarily, it is China. We do not want these nations to act in concert That means that this course of action would limit our ability to divide and conquer.
b) Also, the smaller countries that now consider us as friends would be concerned about us becoming isolated. Even though the Eastern European nations and others are allies now, they may take a withdrawal from the UN as a sign of US isolationism, a long and storied US historical tradition. These nations may believe that we will deal with the Middle East threat, and then retreat within our borders. They will then feel that they may be left to deal with Chinese, French, German, and Russian block. If that happens they will be left out in the cold. This is risk many are going to be unwilling to take, and I don't necessarily blame them.
c) The above also suggests a clear demarcation between us v. them. The problem is the them are the rest of the serious players on the world stage. I would rather have player number 4 trying to knock off player number 2, then players 2-5 knocking off number 1. And I understand that the UK is presently on our side. However, I am not sure that Blair would survive our UN departure.
So, I am not saying that I am opposed, but I am skeptical, probably out of naked fear. And anyone who does not fear the developments discussed is out of thier minds.
6) Lastly, A Saudi columnist, as described by MEMRI, decides that having Lieberman as President would be a positive. WHY?
"Reason One: The Jews Will be Blamed for Everything
"The [first] reason is the Jewish reservation itself, the fear that 'the Jews will be blamed for everything done by the American administration' —as stated by the [Zionist] Anti-Defamation League —this fear which could lead the Jewish president to offer the Palestinians what was not offered by the sole Catholic president (John Kennedy) and the heads of all the Protestant denominations who followed him to the White House, ending with George Bush."
Hmmmmmm. Well, I guess we don't blame Jews for everything now? I mean, we know you do, but we don't.
" Reason Two: He Must Prove His Americanism over His Jewishness
"The second reason is a requirement that the first Jewish President of the United States must prove that he places his Americanism ahead of his Jewishness. The most visible proof for this would be the settlement of the Middle East conflict away from the flagrant bias of his Jewishness and in keeping with American interests in the Middle East."
I wonder if we can ever convince them that we support Israel for reasons other then the vast Jewish conspiracy. Listen buddy, the more I learn about your nations complicity in the events of 9/11, the more I think you should be target number X. (I haven't made up my mind yet, but you are high up there) This Wahhabbi crap you spread is a disease as bad as communism, except without the pleasant pretensions. No being a poet in the morning in this ideology. Instead everyone should die a glorious death against the infidels.
"Reason Three: Good for Ambitions of Non-Christian Minorities in the U.S.
"The third reason is the American openness regarding a Jew achieving the first job in Washington. If the American openness is such that it would permit giving the management of its national affairs to a Jew, it would augur well for the ambitions of non-Christian minorities."
Heres a news flash. In this country, your religion is not the be all end all of your existence. In case you hadn't noticed, we have black people running foreign policy, we are attempting to get a hispanic on the federal courts, and with any luck the next Supreme Court Nominee will be a Conservative Black Female. How do you like them apples. We agree that we may lack adequete Muslim representation. However, last I checked, how many Christians were in your government. Oh that's right, none. In fact, I believe you do not have any Christian citizens. If we treated Muslims like you treated Christians, then I would listen to you bitch. Otherwise, get knotted.
"Reason Four: Could Ignite Antisemitic Trends in the U.S.
"The fourth reason is the possibility that the American voter would refuse to surrender his affairs to a non-Christian president.Such a refusal could ignite antisemitic trends which would force the Zionist organizations in America to launch a confrontation with the Protestant, Anglo-Saxon 'establishment' in America. Any 'side' struggle involving the Zionist organizations inside the United States would, in the long run, reduce the Zionist influence in Washington."
Look buddy, we are not France or Canada. We do not have this latent anti-semitism, and the only places it surfaces are idiots like David Duke who seems to buy your conception of the events of 9/11, chapter and verse. The Saudi's are a huge problem, huge.
7) Lastly, Emperor Misha feels that torture of Khalid Shaik Mohummed is acceptable. I disagree for a number of reasons
a) While I am not one of these ninnies who thinks that torture should never be done, I do believe that it should be generally verboten. But as in any general statement, there are always exceptions. In every situation I have been able to concieve that torture may be acceptable, the exception seems to revolve around an extremely abbreviated timeframe (nuclear bomb in populated area, which is soon to explode, for example) and an extremely high cost to innocent people.
b) Torture is inefficient. It does not get the information sought. Look, we have the guy, lets take our time with him, since we all know that he will never be free again.
However, I do understand the sentiment, and think that those who "worry" about KSM's civil rights are out of their minds. His well-being is far down my scale of priorities.
Well, Good night all.
Thursday, March 06, 2003
Ahhhh, Thursday, no school tomorrow
1) I guess some student don't quite get the idea of peace.
A group of students who skipped class to participate in the lunchtime protests stole candy bars and knocked over displays at the Mobil gas station at the corner of Topanga Canyon and Victory boulevards, officials said. Five of them were detained on suspicion of vandalism and theft, said Officer Jason Lee, a police spokesman.
Sounds like a juvenile Saddam Hussein. Knocking over minor countries, and defacing thier property. Tell me again why we respect what these students are saying?
""I know they are kids and they are young, but if they really love peace, they should show that they at least believe what they say," Behroozi said. "I don't really care about the material loss. I'm just sad in my heart they would do this."
I care about your material loss. You should have gone over there and kicked some butt. What is wrong with people that they will sit around and let a bunch of kids act like assholes.
"Local district superintendent Deborah Leidner added: "A handful of youngsters took what was an honest concern of many and created a diversion from that through their actions, and that saddens me. For the most part, our kids are sincere in their concerns, peaceful, and they really believe in their cause."
Deborah. May I ask? Were you not prepared for this? I entrust my kids to you to some degree, and I don't need you cosigning their bullshit. These "kids" do not believe in their cause, because "kids" have absolutely no idea what the hell is happening. When did the world decide that what teenagers thought was worthy of rapt attention? I was a teenager. You know what teenagers know? Nothing. That's right nothing, and every teenager is better off knowing that. Oh, sure some have a social conscience, but I bet that going into that crowd to interview would have made the cretins that the fellows at Brain Terminal seem like pure genuises.
"Sylmar High Principal Linda Calvo said the students who left the campus would be considered truant"
At least one person had some sense.
""Protesting is more patriotic than going to war," said Fred Greissing, 42, who was dressed as an injured soldier in a torn, blood-stained shirt and fatigues. "I'm supporting the troops right now -- they are being used as cannon fodder for an unnecessary war."
However, before someone (usually a teenager) gets uptight and points out that adults can be total fools, I will humbly agree that the article provide an arresting example. Please see how many logical fallacies you can spot?
2) The President seems to have decided to have the vote at the UNSC no matter what. I admit that I am somewhat skeptical. However, this President has awed me now on a number of occasions, and every time that I think he has blown it, Bush will pull some amazing turn around. What was also very interesting, is that the President made a number of missteps that I clearly took as him having decided on war. Did anyone else get that impression?
3) Saddam has a new blitzkrieg tactic. Swimming. No really. I wonder if the troops are doing the breast stroke in order to practice raising thier hands. This stuff is pathetic. Den Beste had an excellent article on trenches and the fitness regime, and now swimming. Won't they be fighting in a desert?
4) Tony Blair has suggested that he will ignore a UN veto. This is kind of a duuuuh article, since he has been saying this for quite a while. However, the last line is priceless.
" Trevor Nelson, the disc jockey who presented the programme, said that Mr Blair had softened the audience’s mood. “I think the point came across that it’s about getting rid of Saddam and it’s not a war against Iraq,” he said."
You don't frikkin say, Trevor, old chap. Bush has been saying this for months now. Over and over and over and over again.
5) Hmmmmmm. Wonder what the hell that Frenchman is going?
6) Lastly, how about a gratutious arcraft picture
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Some may wonder what a Lomcevak look like. Here you go.
Sorry, only a little again tonight, since I am terribly busy with school.
1) A brilliant speech by an British MP It is almost Churchillian in nature. There are also signs that public opinion is shifting, although I will wait until I read it some where other then in The Sun
2) David Warren produces one of his fine articles. He seems to be the only Canadian who can correctly gauge the mood of the White House, and seems to be the only Canadian Libertarian that I know of.
3) Steven Den Beste has his usual compelling analysis, although I think he downplays the ability of N. Korea to get fissile material out of country, and on to terrorist nations.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Only a little tonight, busy day today.
1) The N Koreans, if this story is true, which I really doubt, have committed a grave breach of international law, and something which would be considered an outright act of war.
However, I doubt it is true.
1) The Alaska Cobra Dane radar set up would have picked up the missile, after the satellites picked up the launch bloom. They would have tracked it all the way in, and easily found wreckage.
However, I seriously doubt that we would sit back and watch in inbound ballastic vehicle that had launched off N. Korea, without committing to launches of our own. We would have seen the world go ballistic, and the alerts would have gone off everywhere in this country. That would have been impossible to disguise, because so many would have known about it.
Monday, March 03, 2003
1) A friend e-mailed me an excellent article on North Korea, and the history of our dealing there. The whole sordid story is an analog for the complete abject failure that is appeasement. How anyone can read that article and then wonder how we can not have to take out Iraq, amazes me.
Stanley Kurtz also has some not very reassuring thoughts for us, and points us to the even darker thoughts of Casper Weinberger
2) Blaster thinks that the whole Turkey thing is a rope a dope. I am not so sure. There seems to be genuine surprise and somehow, I do not see them keeping those troops on the ship to make a tactical point. I also don't think that Jordon would allow US troops to come through its territory enroute to Iraq. Thier population would never stand for it, and the King's grip on power is tenous. Kenneth Pollack in his book explains that two-thirds of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, who detest the US. The King has to walk a fine line, and allowing US troops into Jordan is way past that line
3) Jay Nordlinger, of National Review had this article, which is one of the a brilliant expose from an Arabic point of view
4) The Washington Post showing more then just a little common sense. I am actually becoming quite a fan of thiers.
5) The American Scene makes a point that occurred to me when I first heard about the capture of Khalid. It would have been far better to have captured him quietly, and not announce his capture. Let me carry the point one step further. Pakistan was the first to announce that they had captured Khalid. What if the information was leaked in order to protect Al' Qaeda? Does this not say something about Pakistan. Remember that all is not well there.
Take care out there.
Sunday, March 02, 2003
1) Might have to start a chaper at the Law School here, since we have the ANSWER chapter here, with the signs all over the school. www.studentsagainstwar.com
2)From Mark Kleiman
Bush should not mess with history
Friday February 28, 2003
When America defeats its enemies, George W Bush said in his speech on Iraq this week, it leaves not occupying armies but democracy and liberty. "There was a time," he went on, "when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong."
In fact, it is Mr Bush who is wrong. Japanese men got the vote in 1925, not in 1945, as the president implied. And German men won the vote as far back as 1849, albeit subject to a property qualification, at a time when Mr Bush's country practised legalised slavery. Bearing in mind that America only became a full democracy in 1965, and Germany in 1946, there is a case for saying that Germans have at least as strong a democratic tradition as Americans. What's more, there is no dispute about who actually won the last German election, which is more than can be said about the means by which Mr Bush came to office. A little historical humility would do the president no harm."
Does no one pay attention to history anymore? In any history book I turn to, it appears apparent that the Germans undertook a political experiment that is the archetype for modern evil.
Last I checked the USA had not attempted to completely destroy one of our constituencies.
3) Go and check this site out too The Museum of Communism.
The Museum of Communism.