27 February 2006

Envy

Davis-Monthan is hosting F-22s for a few days, along with a bunch of other planes.

This is the Air Force's newest plane. It is nearly invisible to radar (stealthier even than the F-117 Nighthawk), much more agile than previous fighters (it utilizes thrust vectoring, which allows it to direct its thrust ±20° in the pitch axis), it can supercruise (fly faster than the speed of sound without the use of afterburners), it looks sexy as hell, and it is named 'Raptor.'

And it is named 'Raptor.'

People are complaining that it might be too noisy. If you are in Tucson, and F-22s are coming over, and you are worried about noise, you are wrong.

posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 00:02 6 comments

22 February 2006

Quote of the Week

"…ninjas cant hold their liquor worth a damn."

From Kyle Wade's weblog.

posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 22:27 0 comments

16 February 2006

Laughter

What we've all been waiting for:

Cheney vs. Rumsfeld

Advantage: My Boss


posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 22:55 1 comments

14 February 2006

Michelle

She seals her correspondence with wax:




















She has exquisite penwomanship:


She paints Kansas (and other things) well:


She is gorgeous:




Need I say more? Honestly.

posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 22:43 4 comments

13 February 2006

UPDATED: American Politics as they Ought to Be

When my roommate told me that Dick Cheney had shot a man, my initial reaction was something along the lines of:
Alright! Somebody was giving him lip about torture or surveillance or some other boring 'offense,' so instead of standing there and taking it like some Western European politician, Cheney capped him right there!


Image hosting by Photobucket

Needless to say, I was more than a little disappointed when I learned that it was nothing more than a run-of-the-mill shooting accident.

UPDATE: Three best reactions to this news, gathered from comments at Scott Adams' blog:

"We need to look more closely at this....Were drugs or alcohol involved? Was Cheney carrying a valid hunter safety card....What did George Bush know and when did he know it...How long did it take FEMA to arrive on location..Where was Scooter Libbey [sic]?"

"Hunting with Dick Cheney is still safer than driving with Ted Kennedy."

And number 1:

"If shooting lawyers is wrong, I don't want to be right."

posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 22:33 1 comments

By the Numbers

Why Management 200 is the greatest class at USAFA:

•Number of credits earned in a normal class:
3

•Number of credits earned in Mgt 200:
2

•Number of lessons taught in a normal class:
42

•Number of lessons taught in Mgt 200:
32

•Number of days I get to skip fifth period:
10

•Number of GRs (Graded Reviews) (exams that occur at 6:30 am) in a normal class:
At least 2

•Number of GRs (Graded Reviews) (exams that occur at 6:30 am) in Mgt 200:
1

•Amount of writing for recent case study analysis in Mgt 200:
2.5 pages of pure, unadulterated BS

•Amount of reading of case study done in preparation for recent case study analysis in Mgt 200:
0

•First sentence of recent case study analysis in Mgt 200:
"Considering I forgot to print out and read the case study regarding TD Waterhouse, my analysis of its current situation is rather limited."

•Estimated grade for recent case study analysis in Mgt 200:
16/50

•Actual grade for recent case study analysis in Mgt 200:
41/50

•Disbelief and joy upon receiving actual grade for recent case study analysis in Mgt 200:
72

posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 14:20 1 comments

07 February 2006

Wartime Presidential Power

Can The President Order A Killing On U.S. Soil?

According to Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, he can. This came out in a closed-door Senate Intelligence Committee meeting about the controversial NSA wiretaps.
Bradbury's remarks were made during an "academic discussion" of theoretical contingencies. In real life, the official said, the highest priority of those hunting a terrorist on U.S. soil would be to capture that person alive and interrogate him.

These remarks were prompted by a question from California senator Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

At first, this seems completely beyond the pale, but "one former official noted that before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, top administration officials weighed shooting down the aircraft if it got too close to Washington, D.C." I think this would have been a justified course of action. This situation presents an image of many advisors involved in "weighing" the decision, rather than some individual knee-jerk offing, conceived by the president alone.

The fact that there is no precedent or established process (we assume) to an executive killing confounds the issue. On one hand, a lack of formal process means that such a strike would be difficult to carry out. Who would complete it, and how would they get the order? Would a few FBI agents deal the blow, via the Department of Justice? Would it be Delta Force, through the DoD? Some type of Homeland Defense team? Maybe the president would pass the order directly through the secret service, and avoid his cabinet altogether. Getting this together would take time, which I assume would be precious in any situation in which some terrorist had to be killed rather than captured, and it would probably be rather hard to conceal from watchdogs as it was being cobbled together.

On the other side, this lack of procedure gives this kind of operation the potential for abuse. If the killing was pulled off secretly, but erroneously, where would be the oversight and accountability? Members of the military know not to follow illegal orders, and, with few exceptions, don't. However, they also know to follow legal orders efficiently and, when such orders are classified, to keep them secret.
Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told NEWSWEEK: "Mr. Bradbury's meeting was an informal, off-the-record briefing about the legal analysis behind the president's terrorist-surveillance program. He was not presenting the legal views of the Justice Department on hypothetical scenarios outside of the terrorist-surveillance program."
In the case that Bradbury's legal views are correct, some form of formal process would need to be established to facilitate and document that action. If the USA PATRIOT Act does indeed give the president the power to kill terrorists when the nation's security depends on it, then it also gives him the power to conceal that action. In such an extreme instance of homeland defense, though, who has the power to make sure it is done correctly, honorably, and only when necessary?

posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 00:38 2 comments

05 February 2006

If You See Only One Movie This Year:

"Brokeback to the Future"

posted by Patrick Sauncy @ 15:05 1 comments