DECEMBER 2014 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

1. Anyone still maintaining that the NRA is a mainstream organization devoted to gun hobbyists, gun education, and other phony claims should take a gander at the NRA magazine's special election issue and then kindly shut the hell up.  A paranoid column from NRA leader Wayne Pierre appearing in the gun group’s magazine, America’s 1^st Freedom, warns about terrorist attacks and “angry mobs” rioting “just for the hell of it” and calls on members to “vote our guns” on Election Day.

The issue cover depicted a flag and gun-toting ISIS fighter along with the headline, “Chaos at Our Door.” The Vote Your Guns issue's primary editorial seems to list every far-right militia theory, every ammo-hoarding survivalist mantra, every xenophobic conspiracy theory, and so on. Among the things LaPierre told readers to be afraid of:

• An electromagnetic pulse attack (EMP) that could kill "as much as 90 percent of the population of the U.S." by bringing about the reemergence of "Third World" diseases like "amoebic dysentery, typhoid, [and] cholera -- killing our youngest and frailest family members."

• A cyber attack that would put "our economy into a tailspin" and possibly become "deadly" if hackers took over a dam or oil processing facility.

• An attack "along the lines of the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, where terrorists launched a dozen coordinated attacks, gunning down innocent victims at hotels, a bar, a train station, a hospital and a movie theater," killing 164 people.

• An incident similar to a 2013 terrorist attack on a mall in Kenya where "[f]our armed terrorists linked to al Qaeda were able -- thanks to Kenya's strict anti-gun laws -- to spend four days torturing, mutilating and gunning down shoppers.     

NOVEMBER 2014 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

 

This month’s bonehead absurdities offer a glimpse of the wing-nuts voters elected in November. Go figure.  

1. What would you think if the writer of the book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, became head of the most important Senate committee on the environment? Well, get ready. In what may prove the most disastrous consequence of the November election, leading climate change denier, James Inhofe (R-Ok.) will be replacing Barbara Boxer as chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is like having an arsonist as the local fire chief.  

The hyper-religious Inhofe prefers to let our climate future rest with God. As he said in his book: “My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing with the climate is to me outrageous.  

His response to the IPCC Synthesis Report released two weeks ago:  

“The idea that our advanced industrialized economy would ever have zero carbon emissions is beyond extreme and further proof that the IPCC is nothing more than a front for the environmental left. It comes as no surprise that the IPCC is again advocating for the implementation of extreme climate change regulations that will cripple the global economy and send energy prices skyrocketing. The United States is in the midst of an energy renaissance that has the potential to bring about American energy independence, which would strengthen our national security and energy reliability for generations into the future. At a time of economic instability and increased threats to American interests, the IPCC’s report is little more than high hopes from the environmental left.”  

2. Jody Hice (R-GA). Another beneficiary of a hard-right conservative district, Hice is a Tea Party Republican straight out of central casting. He’s a preacher, conservative radio host, gun-toter, and the district's worthy successor to Paul Broun, who famously called "Evolution and embryology and the big bang theory ….lies from the pit of Hell."

Hice's most recent hit has been the assertion that Muslim-Americans are not protected by the First Amendment because Islam is not a true religion. He also is viciously anti-gay and is for women entering politics only if it is "within the authority of her husband."  

Jody Hice probably shouldn’t be considered a bonehead of the absurd; he’s just plain mean.
  

HEAD INJURIES IN FOOTBALL: THE NFL FUMBLES

NOTE:  This is the first of a three-part essay on head injuries in football.  This post will trace the sordid history of the NFL’s denial of the connection between concussions and later life neurological impairment.  For this history, I draw heavily on the book League of Denial: Inside the NFL’s Concussion Crisis by investigative journalists Mark Fainaru-Wada and his brother Steve.  The book earned them a prestigious 2014 George Polk Award for investigative journalism.  The brothers also made a documentary film called League of Denial, which aired on PBS.  I hope BLS followers watched the program, but if you didn’t you can stream it on pbs.org.  Part II will focus on changes the NFL made in response to growing pressure to take action to mitigate head injuries.  The possible connection between brain injuries and domestic violence will be taken up in Part III.

I recently watched a PBS Frontline program on the NFL’s concussion crisis called League of Denial, written by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru.  The program traced the decade-long effort by the NFL to discredit scientific research that pointed to a likely connection between repeated head collisions in football and permanent brain damage.  Watching the documentary made me so mad I almost threw my remote at the TV screen.  Part of my reaction was outrage at the NFL’s despicable behavior and part was personal.  One of the former players who suffered neurological damage was Ralph Wenzel, a fraternity brother and friend of mine from San Diego State in the early 1960's.  Wenzel died at age 59 after suffering from Alzheimer’s.

OCTOBER 2014 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

 

Wow, what a month for absurdities. I don’t know if there’s something about October or if I’m just finding more bonehead statements. Whatever, here are 12 worthy candidates:

1. New Hampshire GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt raised sexism and ageism to new heights when he called Democratic incumbent Ann McLane Kuster "ugly as sin" and therefore too ugly to win!! His words:

"Let's be honest. Does anyone not believe that Congressman Annie Kuster is as UGLY AS SIN? AND I HOPE I HAVEN'T OFFENDED SIN," Vaillancourt wrote on NH Insider, a New Hampshire politics blog.   His bonehead absurdity is representative of the kind of misogynistic theater of the absurd that inhabits right-wing talk radio shows.
 

2. Louisiana Senator David Vitter is urging colleagues to hold up the $1 billion the white House has requested to combat the Ebola virus because it: “focuses on Africa and largely ignores our own borders.”

Most of the money has been held up for nearly a month, as Republicans on key committees demand more details from the administration. The $1 billion is to be used for the construction of medical facilities, supply distribution, and medical training for military and civilian personnel. Given that speed is critical to fighting the epidemic, the Vitter statement and GOP intransigence are not only absurd, they’re unconscionable.

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: THE POLITICAL DIMENSION

  By Ronald T. Fox  

"We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." 

                     Louis Brandeis

Is social inequality an inherent feature of free-market capitalism and if so is this necessarily a bad thing? Ideological liberals tend to think so. Most conservatives strongly disagree. To them inequality is a natural result of what happens in a free society where citizens possess vastly different levels of intelligence, education, talent, work ethics and personal drive. Soaring incomes at the top are seen as a just reward for initiatives taken and services rendered, like job creation. The investors of capital produce economic growth which provides economic opportunities for all. As the economy grows, all incomes will rise and an expanding middle class will enjoy a greater share of the national wealth.   

It would be great if this is how things really worked, but as is abundantly clear to most, save those living in the splendid insulation great wealth provides, the America of today presents quite a different picture. Social inequality in the United States is souring, reaching proportions not seen since the Gilded Age. The return on capital has increased much faster than economic growth and incomes have not only failed to rise, they’ve actually declined over the last couple of decades (median middle-class household income peaked at $56,080 in 1999 and it stands at roughly $50,017 now). This development finds average Americans struggling to grab a share of the American Dream. It also finds them increasingly marginalized in our political system. The wealth that has been accumulating at the top of our social strata has generated wide political inequality that is threatening the very foundation of our democratic system. It has turned America into a plutocracy.  

Extreme inequality is harming American society in many ways. I’ve written about some in previous posts (see: Does Economic Inequality Matter?  Economic Inequality and the Failure of Elites,  Economic Inequality and the Cheating Culture, and The Collapse of American Journalism and the Growth of Institutional Corruption). This essay will focus on the political dimension of economic inequality.

THE 2015 DEFENSE BUDGET: A FINAL NAIL IN THE A-10 COFFIN?

 

By Ronald Fox

 

I predicted in a previous post (Say Goodbye to the A-10 Warthog: Shame on the Air Force) that it was likely the Air Force’s A-10 “Warthog” close air support (CAS) airplane would be phased out. The Pentagon’s recently leaked preview of its 2015 budget confirmed the suspicion of many who have followed the issue: the fleet of 350 A-10 attack planes is scheduled to be permanently retired. Should the elimination be finalized, it will be a sad day for combat troops who have grown to love the highly effective CAS aircraft. It will also disappoint military reformers who have long been critical of the Air Force’s “deep strike” strategic bombing mindset, which they argue has been responsible for excessive costs, ineffective air power, and, arguably, longer wars. These reformers would like to see the Pentagon purchase weapons where mission cost effectiveness is the overriding procurement criteria. It is clear, however, that the Pentagon remains fixated on expensive high tech weapons of unproven effectiveness.

IT AIN’T OVER TIL’ IT’S OVER: THE A-10 WARTHOG IS STILL BREATHING

By Ronald T. Fox

The A-10 Attacks

Much has been written about the ability of the Pentagon to get the Congress to do its bidding. Working in tandem with the individual military services, weapons manufacturers and other contractors that desire a piece of the procurement action, and members of the Senate and House who drool over bringing big contracts home to their state or district, the Pentagon can field a formidable machine extremely adept at moving favored legislation.

It also has a formidable propaganda machine capable of shaping public opinion, as Senator J. William Fulbright wrote about decades ago. To build support for a new weapon, the Pentagon and the individual services frequently resort to embellishing the weapon’s capabilities, playing down its costs, and puffing up similar weapons possessed by our enemies. If it meets organized resistance, which is rare, it pulls no punches in fudging facts and discrediting critics. With such tools, it rarely loses a political fight, especially since it can count on pro-military members on Congress who prioritize defense spending over real defense.

The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Made

An excellent case to observe the Pentagon machine at work is its current fight to retire the Air Force’s A-10 Thunderbolt (affectionately also known as the Warthog) and replace its close air support (CAS) mission with a combination of aircraft: the speedier B-1B bomber, F-15E, and the F-16.

Until recently the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was also offered as an effective alternative, but with its cost souring (it’s reputed to be the most expensive weapon ever made) it has become too expensive to risk close to the ground where airplanes are vulnerable (see previous post: F-35 Cost Explodes: Business as Usual at the Pentagon). It seems the Air Force is operating under the assumption that future wars will be high tech affairs against heavily-armed foes sporting sophisticated air defenses, wars that don’t favor the slow-moving A-10. This seems strange given the current saber-rattling over going to war against ISIS, which would present precisely the kind of challenge that favors the A-10.

In two previous essays, I sang praise of the A-10’s virtues in supporting troops on the ground and lamented that it had lost favor with the Air Force and would likely soon be retired (see: Say Goodbye To the A-10 Warthog: Shame on the Air Force and The 2015 Defense Budget: A Final Nail in the A-10 Coffin?). It appears now that I may have been premature in my prediction.