That Sinking Feeling

Things are slowing down for a few days, flu bug going around.

Anyone have any home remedies please pass them on. My wife, a witch doctor from Louisiana, has offered at least a dozen new ways to drink whiskey and bourbon, all of which smell and taste very badly.

Some actually work though, my throat no longer hurts after one such drink yesterday, I think I burned the skin right off my throat with the first sip and haven't felt a thing since. I'm sure that will feel great in a few days.

Show Me The "Experience" Mrs. Clinton

I began looking at some of the political reactions to the incident with Iran in the Persian Gulf, and it didn't take long for me to realize, only John McCain has actually weighed in during an interview. Not a single Democrat has discussed the incident, and during all those interviews, none of the Republicans talked about it either.

There seems to be a disconnect there, perhaps the media is being nice and giving them one day after NH, but this seems like a really good issue to leverage by asking some tough questions, this incident has all the makings of a presidential political issue that would tell us a lot about the candidates. We have Iran Policy, Persian Gulf policy, and Defense Policy all wrapped up in one event, and I think we would get some good information on the issues in the commentary. We have observed strong opinions regarding the incident and what it means, and we have conspiracy theories that even the NY Times Lede has no problems reporting on.

Considering no one has asked the questions, I'll offer up the question that each candidate should be asked, but most importantly, if the media wants to be credible when repeating Hillary Clinton's line on experience, the question she absolutely needs to be asked:

"The CO of the USS Hopper was about to open fire right before the Iranians turned away. The Pentagon was reported to use the phrase "at the last second" in terms of how close it came to a shooting incident. Would the CO of the USS Hopper been right to open fire?"

There is of coarse only one correct answer to that question, and it would be Yes. In fact, there is only one answer that the "experienced" candidate in Hillary Clinton could give, if she is indeed experienced.

I'll list the 17 reasons why her "experience" leaves her only one answer.

* Hull Maintenance Technician Second Class* Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter, 21, of Mechanicsville, Va.
* Electronics Technician Chief Petty Officer* Richard Costelow, 35, of Morrisville, Pa.
* Mess Management Specialist Seaman Lakeina Monique Francis, 19, of Woodleaf, N.C.
* Information Systems Technician Timothy Lee Gauna, 21, of Rice, Texas
* Signalman Seaman* Cherone Louis Gunn, 22, of Rex, Ga.
* Seaman James Rodrick McDaniels, 19, of Norfolk, Va.
* Engineman Second Class Marc Ian Nieto, 24, of Fond du Lac, Wis.
* Electronics Warfare Technician Second Class* Ronald Scott Owens, 24, of Vero Beach, Fla.
* Seaman* Lakiba Nicole Palmer, 22, of San Diego, Calif.
* Engineman Fireman Joshua Langdon Parlett, 19, of Churchville, Md.
* Fireman* Patrick Howard Roy, 19, of Cornwall on Hudson, N.Y.
* Electronics Warfare Technician First Class* Kevin Shawn Rux, 30, of Portland, N.D.
* Mess Management Specialist Third Class Ronchester Manangan Santiago, 22, Kingsville, Texas
* Operations Specialist Second Class Timothy Lamont Saunders, 32, of Ringgold, Va.
* Fireman Gary Graham Swenchonis Jr., 26, Rockport, Texas
* Ensign Andrew Triplett, 31, of Macon, Miss.
* Seaman* Craig Bryan Wibberley, 19, of Williamsport, Md.

Never Forget.

I don't know about the rest of undecided independent America, but for me I question how "experienced" she really is, and whether she has learned from her experiences at all. This question would at least give the media a chance to test that experience for the serious independent voters living in the real world.

For those who would choose to debate the technicals of the incident and disagree there is only one answer, it is time for the tactical discussion of the video.

There are two excellent, professional discussions on this incident taking place on the web that are must reads if you have watched the video of the incident, which given the TV time we imagine most Americans have. The comments section both at Lex and CDR Salamanders in those discussions are chalk full of professional details you won't find anywhere else on this incident. The combination of insights by the professional contributors, both active duty and retired, is a case study in how the Navy blogsphere works. For the amateurs, this is the basic explanation.

The video is about 5 minutes, for those who aren't aware, the Pentagon cut 15 minutes of it for OPSEC reasons, and that includes the section near the end when the small boats dropped boxes in front of the USS Ingraham (FFG 61) forcing her to take evasive maneuvers. If you haven't watched it with sound, you need to, because while pictures say a lot, the audio on the bridge does too.

If you follow the progression in the first minute and half of the video, you'll hear several things. The communications for the first 1:20 of the video includes a radio query to the small boats, followed by a radio statement of "transit passage" (a legal term the LOTS crowd really should bite into), followed by a radio warning with instructions, finally followed by blasting of the horn. Also heard in the background are various spotters updating information, including axis of approach, and what sounds like the helicopter doing a radio call with some specific identification details including color of the small boats. By now, if you have seen the incident reported by the TV news, or have seen the AP video, you have heard the comments from the Iranian. This appears to take place early in the encounter during the warnings that are shown in the first 1:20 of the video. That means the Navy operates for several minutes, perhaps up to 10, after hearing the Iranian threat.

The video shows the 3 ship group in a tactical formation, of which they stay throughout the video shown. Leading the formation is the USS Hopper (DDG 70), followed directly behind by the USS Ingraham (FFG 61). The USS Port Royal (CG 73) appears to be in a position back and between both ships, putting it in a position between the USS Ingraham (FFG 61) and Iranian coast. This is because the USS Port Royal (CG 73) is the strongest vessel, and in that position the ship has the clearest firing axis for inbound threats from the threat axis, which the US Navy obviously believes is Iran.

The Iranian boats appear to approach from the front of the formation, and move to form a line on the weak side, the side away from the USS Port Royal (CG 73), and do some maneuvering. It appears that some of the boats then break off and begin to surround the USS Ingraham (FFG 61), and as the video shows the range appears to be in the range of the 200-400 yards reported by the media, which is where the video ends.

We know there is 15 more minutes somewhere on film of this incident, but all we can go on is the details as reported. As we understand it, the encounter ends with the boats we see flanking the USS Ingraham (FFG 61) on the Oman/UAE side crossing her bow and dropping objects in the water in her path, resulting in the USS Ingraham (FFG 61) taking evasive maneuvers. At that point, the USS Hopper (DDG 70) CO is reported to have given or was about to give the command to fire, but the small boats then speed away opposite the direction the group was heading.

How dangerous was this really? Prior to the NIE release on Iran WMD almost every anti-war group in the world had issued an editorial regarding a conspiracy by the Bush administration to attack Iran. Virtually every casual naval observer we know has seen these editorials, because those editorials usually came around every time a naval strike group would deploy. Virtually every anti-war person I know has seen these editorials as well, because they follow the talking points.

In almost every one, those anti-war groups would predict a doomsday scenario where Iran would retaliate from a Bush attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. As we looked over dozens of those anti-war publications, we noted almost all, and there are probably hundreds, mentioned Iran would use suicide boats. When even the hard core anti-war left acknowledges the IRGC will deploy suicide boats, it invalidates the argument that some on the left have tried to make regarding this incident that suicide boats wouldn't be a major concern on the minds of those ships when IRGC small boats approach US Navy warships at high speed in the Strait of Hormuz.

Some on the fringe left want it both ways, they want to describe an Iranian small boat tactic including geographic location for their leftest conventional wisdom conspiracy theory, then deny when they see a video of the scenario developing almost exactly the same way they predicted, by the same people they predicted would do it, in the same geographical location they predicted it would happen.

At top speed, those fast boats can reportedly do around 50 knots on those calm morning seas. Start calculating based on range, and that is how many seconds the Navy has to react to a suicide attack. 30 knots at 400 yards gives the ships 30 seconds to react. 50 knots at 400 yards gives those ships about 15 seconds to react. The reported estimated range at some points during the encounter, which video appears to confirm, was around 200 yards. Depending upon speed, between 30 - 50 knots at 200 yards, the ships would have between 7-15 seconds respectively for the E6 to call the order to fire, and the gunner to aim true before another Cole incident takes place.

When you look at the relatively benign pictures close to the end of the video, you are actually watching what amounts to 7 to 15 seconds from a life or death situation for those sailors. Think about it, had those been suicide boats, like the ones the anti-war left has been telling us about, and they had charged the ships those sailors only had 7 to 15 seconds to stop an attack at the time taken during those pictures.

Those ships walked a very thin line in a life and death situation. Life and death decisions is what being president is all about. I want to know which presidential candidate is ready to say the USS Hopper (DDG 70) CO didn't have the right to open fire, or even responsibility for that matter, to open fire under the conditions of the question we presented above. Does the media have the guts to ask the questions? Do the candidates have the guts to answer the questions? The issue of suicide boat attacks against the Navy is directly related to actual, real world, year 2000 experience for then first lady Hillary Clinton, or so she claims records in a certain library would reveal. Show me the "Experience" Mrs. Clinton. As co-president during the USS Cole attack, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, one would expect that you would be pushing the media towards this topic, if all that implied experience is real.

The Global Warming Love Boat Hit an Iceberg

Environmental political science is now entrenched in the US media to the point that it has become blasphemy to question the credibility of Global Warming. Imagine a world where we must believe the end of the world is near because of our energy consumption and environmental practices of driving to work, and if you don't believe in the end of the world environmental disaster scenario then it is you who is the crazy fool.

Did you hear the tale of the cruise ship that went to Antarctica in search of global warming but instead hit an iceberg and sank? You probably did, you just didn't know you did. The New York Times covered the incident.

They were modern adventure travelers, following the doomed route of Sir Ernest Shackleton to the frozen ends of the earth. They paid $7,000 to $16,000 to cruise on a ship that had proudly plowed the Antarctic for 40 years.

But sometime early yesterday, the Explorer, fondly known in the maritime world as “the little red ship,” quietly struck ice.

There were the alarms, then the captain’s voice on the public address system calling the 100 passengers and the crew of about 50 to the lecture hall, according to passengers’ accounts on the radio and others relayed from rescuers and the tour operator.

In the lecture hall, they were told that water was creeping in through a fist-size hole punched into the ship’s starboard. As it flooded the grinding engine room, the power failed. The ship ceased responding.

How classic that those "modern adventure travelers" who "paid $7,000 to $16,000" are actually baby boomer's in search of global warming.

You’d never read this in the mainstream media: The owner of MS Explorer that sank, leaving a huge carbon footprint at the bottom of the Antarctic Ocean Friday is an acolyte of teensy-weensy carbon footprint crusader Al Gore.

G.A.P. Adventures CEO and Explorer owner, Bruce Poon Tip and Gore have similar ideals, “filling their schedules with speaking engagements on environmental change to educate global audiences.” And that’s straight off of www.gapadventures.com. In fact, as recently as last April, both Poon Tip and Gore gave presentations at the Green Living Show in Toronto.

Good thing Gore was otherwise occupied when 154 passengers and crew had to be rescued at sea when their eco-cruise ship struck ice in the Antarctic Ocean and started to sink early Friday morning.

Forgive me if I find that hilarious. These rich fools, who may or may not have realized that the ice shelf in Antarctica is actually increasing (not decreasing like the Arctic) paid thousands of dollars to be the next punchline of the latest media propaganda campaign. These myths are hard to shake though, as a kid growing up in the cold war I had to reeducate myself as an adult once I realized how brainwashed I had been.

In the cold war, everything nuclear was bad, whether it was nuclear power or nuclear bombs. OK, so I'm still not very fond of nuclear weapons, but I want more nuclear power. It amazes me the French power 88% of their nation with nuclear power, and we can't even build a new nuclear power plant today because of fear... of something.

What is it we are afraid of again? Oh that's right, nuclear radiation, because nuclear radiation killed hundreds of thousands of people right? Uhm, maybe not. For example, from Wikipedia on Chernobyl:

The Chernobyl disaster caused a few tens of immediate deaths due to radiation poisoning; thousands of related cancer cases are predicted over the coming decades. Since it is often not possible to prove the origin of the cancer which causes a person's death, it is difficult to estimate Chernobyl's long-term death toll.

That estimate was adjusted today. Why? Because science trumps political environmental science. Spiegel today tells us how many people actually died as a direct result of Chernobyl...

Officially 47 people -- members of the emergency rescue crews -- died in Chernobyl from exposure to lethal doses of radiation. This is serious enough. "But overall the amount of radiation that escaped was simply too low to claim large numbers of victims," explains Kellerer.

The iodine 131 that escaped from the reactor did end up causing severe health problems in Ukraine. It settled on meadows in the form of a fine dust, passing through the food chain, from grass to cows to milk, and eventually accumulating in the thyroid glands of children. About 4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known, however, is the fact that only nine of those 4,000 died -- thyroid cancers are often easy to operate on.

That was over 20 years ago, in other words the hippy who wrote out the Wikipedia article is calling for "thousands of related cancer cases are predicted over the coming decades." Say what? So if they were 20 when Chernobyl melted down, they are 41 now, and now we are leaning in the coming decades thousands of the several hundred thousands in the region supposedly effected will develop cancer? Thank you Wikipedia, aka Captain F'in Obvious.

So Chernobyl is a bad example? OK, lets look closer at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From Spiegel again.

The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.

Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

• 87 died of leukemia;
• 440 died of tumors;
• 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
• In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.

That Speigel article is a great read btw. Check your child's history book, my 7th graders book says over 100,000 people died due to radiation, which is clearly another political science fact of life in education. I'm sure my schoolbook probably quoted some equally incorrect number when I was in school.

But in reality, fewer people died by radiation sickness in Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki than died on 9/11, but thanks to political scientific accepted myths the US can't build nuclear reactors today.

That's ok though, instead of fixing our energy supplies, we can complain about the environment, believe the sky is literally falling and the world is about to end, and while we are celebrating our faith in propaganda, we can all take a cruise to Antarctica in search of global warming, and even hit an iceberg.

What is the lesson here? Next time someone tells you about the dangers of nuclear energy, or how the world will end due to Global Warming, send them this picture of the ecohippy who had to have the Chilean Navy save her stupid baby boomer ass because her cruise ship in search of global warming hit an iceberg.

More pictures and coverage of the M/V EXPLORER sinking at Fred Fry's.