Whittle, Cruz, and Polls

Bill Whittle on Ted Cruz and media bias.

You know that may explain something. Have you noticed, as I have, that in the age of Obama, we conservatives/Republicans (whatever, whichever, and don’t forget right libertarians either) can’t seem to win a national election, but we have something like 75% of the state legislatures, most of the governorships, and everything else? Could this be the effect of the media’s completely unbecoming (and beclowning) love for Obama? I think it might be.

We’ll see, if the presidential candidates can manage to quit thinking that they can ingratiate themselves with the hostile media, and play through (around, over, and under) them, to the people, we may see both the demise of some very rotten edifices and a fresh new breeze in politics.

Frankly I have no problem with biased press outlets, they always have been. Don’t believe me? Look into the election of 1800. Our problem today is that they are all biased one way. Nor does it help that they are catastrophically wrong, unAmerican, anti-Christian, and a few other things, not to mention very, very intolerant.

I think this may very well be connected as well

For the most part, with some notable exceptions, the polls have been pretty accurate predictors of presidential and midterm elections. That was until the recent midterm elections in the United States in 2014. While they predicted the GOP would pick up some senate seats with an outside chance, if everything went right, of taking over the Senate, none of the polls predicted the tsunami wave by the GOP in not just winning the senate easily with room to spare, but also with big gains by the GOP in the House of Representatives and in pickups in the state houses and governorships.

The reliability of the polls was questioned by some, but not by many as you could say one election, as big as it was, do not the polls make. But then you had a couple of big foreign elections that were missed by the pollsters and missed in a huge way.

In March of 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party won in a landslide victory, and re-elected for an un-precedented 4th time Bibi Netanyahu as Prime Minister, that no poll showed would happen. In fact, every single poll in Israel just days before the election had Netanyahu and Likud losing and losing in a big way.

Then in May of 2015, you had polls showing that in Great Britain there was a very tight race for Prime Minister with a good chance the Conservative Party was about to be thrown out of power. What happened, a huge win for the conservative party and re-election of David Cameron as Prime Minister.

So, beginning with the 2014 Midterm elections, and continuing with major elections in Israel and Great Britain in 2015, the polls have been not just wrong, but not even close to predicting the correct results.

You might conclude that it shows you can’t rely on the polls in a major general election not just in the United States but around the world. No, that would be the wrong conclusion. That is one of the secondary conclusions you might surmise from this downward slide of accuracy by major pollsters but not the correct one.

There is one common thread that those variances of what the election results showed with the polling results before hand. In the United States midterms, and in Israel, and in Great Britain, the pollsters were wrong and wrong in a big way, all in one direction. Their polls were all off in determining the strength of the conservatives [party’s/individual candidates] in those countries and in overstating the strength of the liberals [party’s/individual candidates]. Could that possibly be just an amazing coincidence or indicative of skewed polling results that we will be seeing in future elections? Fool us with one bad polling result, shame on you. Fool us with 3 bad polling results, and we still believe in you, shame on us.

Source: Reliability of General Election Polls Continue Downward Slide In One Direction.

Do you follow my reasoning here? Again we have a business based and linked to both the national governments, and the corrupt press, who pays their bills. Yes, there are new difficulties in polling, such as so many people no longer having landline telephones (and others). But while that could well affect accuracy, one would expect it to effect it in both directions, but that’s not what we’re seeing, is it? It’s always favoring the more liberal (American sense) candidate, and never the more conservative (Classically liberal). And so as it becomes an increasingly inaccurate tool, something will have to change like, I don’t know, real reporting, maybe!

Ave atque Vale


The Last Touchdown

One of those planes, an old friend who helped keep us free, and helped Maggie remind the Argies who they were messing with, made its last flight the other day.

She is a beautiful lady to watch, and if you haven’t seen footage of her at the airshows, or on the Port Stanley raid, look it up. There’s three still running and able to taxi, but the flying is past. But when you’re running out of riggers and fitters, that’s what happens. From WeaponsMan:

Even the name was over the hill: Avro, the company named for dawn-of-flight founder A.V. Roe, went the way of one firm after another: merged into a soulless, nationalized conglomerate in a series of Socialist-policy forced consolidations of the British aircraft industry. In the end, they wound up sending British aero engineering talent to Canada, and Canadian bungling (with the Canadian Avro company front and center) banked them off and down to the United States, where they were critical to the success of Apollo. The Avro Vulcan was the last of the line that began with spindly triplanes of bamboo and muslin and that rained terror and death from the night skies over Germany.

“If a single bomber gets through,” boasted Hermann Göring, today dismissed as a buffoon but a leading World War I ace, “you can call me Meier!” And a single bomber didn’t get through, but hundreds, and then a thousand — Handley-Pages and Vickers and, chief among them, Avros, every night the weather enabled flying, and some nights it really didn’t, and by day the Americans gave the repair crews and fire brigades no rest.

In the late 1940s, Britain was a nuclear power, and it had one of the world’s most powerful navies and a first-class air force. The British nuclear deterrent originally comprised a fleet of bombers, and for this purpose, three new airframes were designed, the “V-bombers,” the name redolent of V-E Day and referring to the plane’s names. Three airframes were chosen because the performance demands were so high that some of the engineering teams were taking great risks. One jet was a very conservative design (the Vickers Valiant), in case of failure of the two using radical wing planforms: the sickle-shaped “crescent wing” Handley Page Victor and the delta-winged Avro Vulcan. All three planes succeeded, but the performance of the Victor and Vulcan ensured a short life for the Valiant.

Source: Ave atque Vale: Flying Avro Vulcan | WeaponsMan


Over here we have a saying, that describes her well:

The Sound of Freedom

She’ll be missed.

It’s time to shatter the myths of the Battle of Britain

Today commemorated the climax of the Battle of Britain. You know the one, the one they made films about. And those few we still remember

‘The Few’ were immensely courageous, but the image of plucky Little Britain, David against the Goliath of Nazi Germany, is completely misleading

Seventy-five years ago today, fierce aerial battles were taking place over London and southern England, and later that evening, after the fighting was over and there was still no sign of a German invasion, reporters on the news announced some 185 enemy planes had been shot down. To all who heard it, and a large proportion of the population did, it appeared a significant victory had been won. Later, it emerged Sunday September 15 had also been the target date for Operation Sealion, the planned German cross-Channel invasion. With the RAF Fighter Command still in robust health, attempting such a high-risk venture was unthinkable. Two days later, Hitler postponed Sealion and then, on October 12, put it off indefinitely. Air battles continued and the night-time blitz lasted until May the following year, but the risk of invasion had passed.

Britain won because it was ready and prepared to fight such a battle

Few moments in British history have been so mythologised, however. Woven into the story is the image of plucky Little Britain, David against the Goliath of Nazi Germany. We portray ourselves as backs-to-the-wall amateurs, with those young and gallant Few the last line of defence against the mighty Molloch – after all, the Home Guard were not going to be much good against hordes of Panzers. By a whisker, we held out – but it was a close run thing and thank God Hitler decided to switch from attacking airfields and turned on London instead. It was tough on the East End, but it gave the RAF breathing space and the fight back was on.

Source: It’s time to shatter the myths of the Battle of Britain – Telegraph

That’s pretty much true, and I think we should add that fully integrated air defence system (in the summer of 1940) is above all one of the bequests to his country of Neville Chamberlin. For this is what he bought for Britain at Munich with his ‘piece of paper’. He too is one of the few, who placed his honour and his courage at the disposal of his country. Americans will recognize that we had nothing like it in Hawaii, over a year later.

And here is a bit more of the most beautiful aircraft ever built.





You all know that I don’t subscribe to ‘The Cult of Celebrity’. but in a fairly long lifetime, there have been a few exceptions, in the field of popular music there is only one, and we’re going to talk about her today.

One of you this week linked to my all time favorite singer, and one of my favorite songs, that she sang. When it burst out of the car speaker, late in 1964, a lot of things changed, for American music, for her, and maybe more.

This is the version from The Dean Martin Show in early 1967, and yes it was still getting some airplay.

When Downtown came on the radio, it was completely different, and it spoke to something in us all, I think. her voice is very obviously British, in that exact way, that Americans adore, and as far as us kids were concerned she was was one of us, although our dads (sometimes) did tell us that she had been recording since during World War II, and was a TV star as well, in the UK.

That’s all true, but she was also the first British female to make it onto the Billboard chart since Vera Wang in 1952. Downtown was #1 starting the week of 23 January 1965. The song was also #2 in the UK, and Ireland, and number one in  Australia, New Zealand, Rhodesia and South Africa, and was also a hit in Denmark (#2), India (#3), the Netherlands (#3) and Norway (#8). She was far from the last, though, the Atlantic got very narrow there for a few years, and American top 40 radio sounded an awful lot like BBC 1. And after Downtown, she would have fourteen more consecutive hit on the Billboard chart, and there was plenty of competition those days.

When asked why he approved it for a quick release in the States since it was so very English. Joe Smith of Warner Brothers replied: “It’s perfect. It’s just an observation from outside of America and it’s just beautiful and just perfect.” And you know, it was, and it is still.

But there was a lot more to Pet, than that wonderful voice, she is perhaps one of the greatest female entertainers of the twentieth century, like Julie Andrews, Judy Garland and such. In fact I think she could have been  better than them all, by a fairly wide margin. here’s a bit more about her.

When they talk about how she became Norma Desmond in the play, it’s sort of creepy, isn’t it, but that is what the great actors do, it’s why we are able to suspend our disbelief for a while. Petula could, and did, do it too, even on the concert stage. Watch her eyes her, closely, this is more than singing, I think she is feeling it, even as she shares the emotions with us.

So let’s head on Downtown, but remember Don’t Sleep on the Subway.

Of Dark Webs and Surveillance Societies.

140820-internet-trolls-2346_00499daa06aa00b7d583df7a4fbe2fb7-412x430Sorry about the last couple of days, I’ve been feeling rather suboptimal.

In any case, a close friend sent me these, and he informed me that the first one, a new BBC documentary kept his ten-year-olds interest right through. It did mine as well.

Now, Ed Snowden, I’m not going to tell you how to feel about him, partially because I can’t decide either. This doesn’t cut down on any of the old separations, liberal-conservation, young old or anything else does it. Except maybe, we have a right to live our lives without the government knowing everything about us.

One thing these talk about a lot is the sheer power of traffic analysis, what they’d like us to call metadata.

And always remember what Theodore Roosevelt said



Peace is Our Profession


Stategic Air Command

Strategic Air Command; via Wikipedia

In still another demonstration of the consequences of decline of American leadership, as the seventieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach, we are once again forced to confront the horrific moral problems of the use of nuclear weapons.

As is, or should be, well-known, Truman and American leadership had no doubt at all about the morality of the use of atomic weapons in the case of Imperial Japan. As stated here:

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam.  Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of  ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.

And the real justification is this:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked 70 years ago. 34 years ago Paul Fussell wrote this important essay, ‘Thank God for the Atom Bomb’.

21 year old 2nd Lt. Fussell commanded infantry in WWII France. Later, he had to sit around waiting to invade Japan and die. That was the general expectation of the vets of the European theater – they didn’t think they’d survive Japan.

Then Aug 6th happened.

When the atom bombs were dropped and news began to circulate that “Operation Olympic” would not, after all, be necessary, when we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live. We were going to grow to adulthood after all.

Do read that essay linked above, and the link here and think about that last line. One Million American soldiers and most of the population of Japan thought that in August of 1945.

The essay ends this way:

Harry Truman was not a fascist but a democrat. He was as close to a genuine egalitarian as anyone we’ve seen in high office for a long time. He is the only President in my lifetime who ever had experience in a small unit of ground troops whose mission it was to kill people. That sort of experience of actual war seems useful to presidents especially, helping to inform them about life in general and restraining them from making fools of themselves needlessly – the way Ronald Reagan did in 1985 when he visited the German military cemetery at Bitburg containing the SS graves. […]

Truman was a different piece of goods entirely. He knew war, and he knew better than some of his critics then and now what he was doing and why he was doing it. “Having found the bomb,” he said, “we have used it. . . . We have used it to shorten the agony of young Americans.” The past, which as always did not know the future, acted in ways that ask to be imagined before they are condemned. Or even simplified.

Paul David Miller writing in The Federalist did a pretty good summarization of the case for the moral use of nuclear weapons.

Because nuclear weapons are so big, they are hard to use in a discriminating way. Drop one bomb and you are almost guaranteed to kill far more people than is militarily necessary.

It would be easier to argue for the immorality of all weapons under the guise of pacifism—all weapons, all war, and all violence are always wrong—but that is neither what the president argued nor what most Christians or most citizens instinctively believe. According to the just war tradition, Biblical passages like Genesis 9 and Romans 13 permit—even obligate—states to wage war in pursuit of a just cause. As part of the covenant God established with Noah and his descendants after the flood, God mandated that we pursue violent offenders with the sword: “From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man” (Genesis 9:5). God specifically did not reserve for himself the duty to strike down violent aggressors, but chose to delegate the task to us. This is the foundation of the state’s legitimate coercive authority and the reason most Christians have not been pacifists. “Rulers do not bear the sword for no reason,” Paul wrote (Romans 13:4), “They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” The “sword” is a violent, coercive tool: states exist under God’s mandate to uphold order in this fallen world.

States can, therefore, wield weapons. Why not nuclear weapons? The best moral argument against nuclear weapons, as opposed to other kinds of weapons, is that they violate the just war principles of discrimination and proportionality. The principle of discrimination says that in fighting a war justly, we are obligated to discriminate between enemy combatants and civilians and avoid harming the latter as much as possible. This is a simple extension of our obligation to love our enemies and our neighbors: we should strive to kill as few of them as necessary. Because nuclear weapons are so big, they are hard to use in a discriminating way. Drop one bomb and you are almost guaranteed to kill far more people than is militarily necessary. Hiroshima was the headquarters of Japan’s Second General Army and Nagasaki was a major industrial center for war materiel, both legitimate wartime targets—but the nuclear bombing of those cities killed up to 250,000 people, almost all civilians.

Continue reading: In Defense Of (Some) Nuclear Weapons.

He does a good job here and I think you should read the whole thing. One place where I think he falls down a bit, is in making a clear delineation between tactical and strategic. What he says was true, in the early 60s and perhaps through part of the 70s, but with the deployment of Minuteman III, Peacekeeper, and Trident, American strategic warheads returned to around 120-800 or so kiloton range with a circular error probable (CEP) of approximately eighty to one hundred and twenty meters. They are the ultimate smart bombs, specifically designed to destroy Soviet missile silos, and thus actually fall under counterforce rules. The countervalue weapons are all gone from the American inventory.

Remember the heady days in the early 90s when history had ended, and we had a ‘peace dividend’ to waste on corrupt programs? Those days are gone, Father Time has restarted the clock, and the most horrendous part of recent American foreign policy is that now, seventy years after the first use of atomic weapons, we again must contemplate the moral way use them again.

Experience is indeed the best teacher, and we threw away ours in a dream of eternal peace, one hopes that relearning the lesson is not as expensive as it could be.

%d bloggers like this: