Sunday, September 20, 2015

The Amazing Hypocrisy of a House Divided

I’ve written before about the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist.  I called it, “Radical Fundamentalism and the Evolution of the Rattlesnake”.  And earlier still, "Whale Wars Must Go".  However recently, I’ve been compelled to think more about the fundamentalist and why, despite many of their excuses, they remain,  the largest group of hypocrites in our society.  For this essay I will not examine the fundamentalist as terrorist as I did so before.  Rather, I will examine our homegrown fundamentalists on the left and on the right and ask why they do not realize they are hypocrites.  It is this blind spot that causes the divided house problem...or the inability to live together in civil society...which is something, thankfully, that is not a majority view. Andre Gide's quote above captures that blind spot succinctly enough. Nevertheless since I’ve heard this house divided problem come up again and again along with rumors of a coming civil war it must be addressed.  To the coming civil war I say hog wash. But not without placing the blame on the fundamentalist hypocrite with the blind spot. Thankfully our country is eons away from such a fate because most of us are not of this ilk.

The fundamentalist doesn’t acknowledge their hypocrisy for two reasons.  First, in their world view, they are correct.  Regardless of how they may fall, or fail, even if they recognize their hypocrisy,  their world view is still correct.  This is the hypocrisy when we see certain fundamentalist groups rally against gay marriage, animal research labs, and abortion clinics.  In their minds the affront to their principals is so grave, whereas what they know they are doing is wrong, bombing clinics, starting fires, or spreading a message of hate, they believe their transgressions will ultimately be judged as a lessor sin or they are protecting something sacred and will ultimately be proven right, and thus forgiven for their trespasses. They are in fact, lying with sincerity. So, they believe, they are not being hypocrites if they choose to commit the lesser of the two wrongs and do so with a clear conscious (this is not the case of the sociopath).  In the immortal words of George Costanza, "Remember Jerry, it's not a lie... if YOU believe it".  In the book, the Logic of Political Violence, a leftist manifesto by a confirmed eco-terrorist, the author seems to compel his followers to believe that change ultimately justifies the means used to achieve such change.  So they know they are hypocrites, they just don’t care about the double standard (this is dangerous because the author is a sociopath trying to influence others who actually have a conscious).

Not much we can do to attack the willful hypocrite other than to appeal to that side of them that has the ability to empathize provided they too are not sociopaths.  Beyond that, if we cannot evoke empathy, it is a lost cause and no matter how much we scream and yell about the double standard it will have no effect. This is why, in many churches, no matter how many times the church leader will admonish a congregation, that they without sin, may cast the first stone, anticipating no further stones, they are aggrieved to witness, stones, too numerous to count, still come sailing in from the pews.

As an aside, there has never been another public venue devised than the venue Facebook has become for public stone throwing. With the introduction of the “Dislike” button on FaceBook public stone throwing may have just taken a turn for the worse. Zuckerberg will have created an even more polarizing option. It seems to me, the better approach would have been to just change the “Like” button to an “Acknowledge” button. After all, that’s really what we want to do anyway...tell our friend we acknowledge we have seen what they have posted. If we agree, disagree, or just want to show sympathy, “I acknowledge you” is the right message to send. Feedback, positive or negative can always be provided in the commentary. We all just want to be’s the number of “Likes” that matter. We don’t really believe, everyone who clicked on “Like” actually “Liked” what we have posted, the fact that someone has passed away in the family, for instance, in most cases, is not a “Likable” event.

But I digress, let’s get back to the fundamentalist hypocrite and why, of all the hypocrites, they are the most dangerous.  Since everyone of us may have hypocritical tendencies why are those who are more radical in their stance, worse than those of us who believe in a cause, but don’t necessarily speak out as vehemently?

Why is it the fundamentalist hypocrisy that causes the divided house problem and not our own?  Independent of any political or religious leanings I give you the narcissist.  Simply put, a narcissist is someone in love with their own reflection.  It is too simple to say a narcissist is a selfish person as many a seemingly unselfish person can still be in love with their own reflection (someone willing to martyr themselves is a good example of this behavior - it is my opinion that Kim Davis meets this definition).  Nonetheless, narcissists exist.  Thankfully they are only about 10% of our population.  They are selfish, and evolutionarily and ironically speaking, are those most likely to preserve our species because they are bent on their own survival and would either kill, or be killed, rather than give up their way of life.  As they preserve themselves, so too, they will preserve the species.  This is the principal of the selfish gene, manifest in human behavior.  And if we ascribe to Richard Hawkins's world view, we all would be narcissistic.  It’s wonderful to know that we are not...and speaks volumes to that numbskull’s major mistake.  Other evolutionary forces are at play that permit cooperation and compromise as survival tactics.  We can argue the sources of altruism, but, we can’t argue the fact that altruism exists.  Biblically speaking, “Greater love hath no man than this, then a man lay down his life for a friend” and in Trekkie speak, “The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few, or the one”.  Altruism lives on the left and the right.  Altruism exists in nature and thus could be considered a natural law.  That said, let’s not make a mistake and infer, communism or socialism for example would be in the best interest of the many.  Society has proven, at least heretofore, that capitalism is a superior economic system.  And capitalism combined with the some type of political system that approaches a democracy is a superior way to live freely. Although capitalism is the best economic system ever devised it is still not perfect. Capitalism still exploits everyone and everything and the winner can, and will, take all if left unchecked. Same with a democracy. In a pure capitalist society monopolies will be the norm. It has always been recognized that monopolies require some level of control because what emerges at the top is far more nefarious, and many times more so, than any evil, such as laziness, that will emerge at the bottom in a welfare state, for example.  Is, for instance, the weed dealer or prostitute on the corner, who happens to currently be incarcerated, more evil than the Bernie Madoff’s of the world?  (Notwithstanding the most likely scenario that the actual Madoff is a sociopath)

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Those at the bottom of the ladder have no power whatsoever. Most on the conservative side of the aisle believe that liberals are simply trying to liberate them from whatever they have scratched together, in their own lives, from hard work and have not benefited, in their own lives, from the same hard work. Of course they have…of course they have homes, and savings, and retirement accounts… But they try to do so with more of a balance toward those who have been less fortunate.  For everyone but the narcissist, there is a strong desire not to exploit the weak, those who have no voice, the natural environment, or other things, that if left in the open would be exploited for the narcissist to survive. To exploit anything or anyone at anytime is anathema to my sensibilities. Ironically, that means, I myself, am subject to erring on the side of being exploited. And, of course, that has happened many times. To be clear, I would rather be exploited than to be the exploiter. This isn’t a balancing act. It can’t be. If I live a life striving to be balanced on that front it means I must exploit a little, to keep or hedge back on that being exploited from myself, and that doesn’t work. There is no hedge, there can’t be…it’s all in. You can’t exploit, ever. But inevitably, it happens.  Shopping at Walmart, for instance, cannot be easily avoided,  thus we exploit indirectly.

The United States has always been a house divided.  Safe to say that most of our founding fathers, were not the hypocrites of which I speak and were able to live in a divided house.  That continues to be our great strength. From the very beginning we have been divided…but we unite as a Country for the common good. Our division and our diversity is our greatest strength. The liberties and the freedoms we protect are the envy of the world. To not recognize that this diversity is our strength and to believe that this diversity is something that could lead us into another civil war is a far more frightening to me than the erosion of the family, for instance. An extreme bifurcation of philosophies based on an unbending hypocritical narcissistic fundamentalist world view is the danger. It is not the speaking of one language that unites us. It is not attending one church that unites us. It is the desire to be united that unites us…period.  That desire compels us not to be offended by others customs and beliefs and at the same time to do our best not to offend others. To offend visitors in our home is something I would try not to do. They are guests. Contrary to what is believed to be the sin at Sodom and Gomorrah, the true sin was one of in-hospitality. We sin the same way, as a country, if we close our doors to the very same people that built this country…those looking for the freedoms and liberties of a united states. 

When those people come, as we and our parents did, and their parents did, they will come to unite with us. If that desire to unite disappears we cease to be The United States of America. We become something else…a nation of fundamentalists (both narcissistic and hypocritical) which with the headlines we have been receiving recently, is how most of the world sees us anyhow.  As a country,  we would do better to change that world image.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Fetal Tissue and the Taking of Cecil the Lion...No Common Ground On the Dark Side of the Moon

There has been some call out in the media, for example an OpEd piece by Charles Camosy in the LA Times linking the current outrage over the Planned Parenthood fetal tissue video and the killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe, as common ground that the left and the right could perhaps come together on.  Camosy, who teaches bioethics at Fordham University sees a link between the two which almost completely evades me. The only link is the one he attributes to Pope Francis, and even then, although a valid concern for all of us, serves as a weak link as it pertains to these two subjects, and I seriously doubt Pope Francis had intended for Camosy to make the link as such. The linkages made by Republicans, such as the dimwitted Rush Limbaugh, and the not so dimwitted Marco Rubio (although a bit naive), are not being made by Democrats. Principally, I believe, because there is no link, as most are appalled by both sets of appalling human behavior we've seen played out in both of these cases. If that's the link than so be it.  But that's not what Camosy is saying.  He is saying the rights of the defenseless animal and the rights for the defenseless unborn are the link. That's rubbish and not the salient point of either issue.

In the case of the hunting and killing of Cecil the Lion, the crime is not so much the killing (or "taking" as the game hunters like to say) but the brazen purchase of the trophy hunt ($55,000) and abject disregard of personal responsibility of the wealthy American who seemingly unwittingly (the investigation will hopefully reveal any malfeasance)  bought himself into the equivalence of a staged hunt. He was an idiot, not because his chosen sport  is morally objectionable to animal rights advocates, as other lion's are hunted in Zimbabwe, as are other big game world wide, and certainly do not raise this type of clamor beyond the PETA circles, but because his money bought him his right to "take".  And it blew up in his face.  What he should take is responsibility.  Period.  This is not an argument on the left or the right.

The other issue is much more complex.  The moral crime here does not depend on the issue of abortion, but rather when does the buying and selling of fetal organs (fetal "tissue" being the language that seemingly conceals the truth in this particular case), commence.  If abortions are occurring to harvest organs as a principle goal Planned Parenthood, is not the target.  Rather, the deep ethical questions that revolve around all organ donations .  As always the source of the organs, and the question of the haves and the have nots, must be in the discussion.  If, those responsible parties at Planned Parenthood, are somehow engaged in an illicit organ trade in this manner, this is completely independent of the morality of the abortions themselves, and of course, morally reprehensible in any circle, left or right, if some black market trade is revealed.  I'll spell it out.  We are talking about the intentional ending of a life for the purpose of organ donation.  This is different from conducting science with discarded tissue (stem cell research or different category of science using discarded tissue).  And, if we truly are talking about a late term abortion, I can't see how any fetal organs would be viable for any type of transplant, short of an almost full term pregnancy being ended for such an end.  Otherwise, the abortion would be illegal in most recognizable circumstances. Certainly this too, is not argued between the majority on the left or on  the right.

The common ground of condemnation for reprehensible acts already exist in the majority of our population, linking two disparate topics in this manor serves no purpose beyond a publicity stunt, pronounced Rush Limbaugh. 

So what's left on these two issues is the radical nut jobs on the extremities of both sides.  There will never be common ground between them...other than the libertarian day dream that occasionally occurs when the far left and far right swing back together and touch each other.  I prefer the ground between the two, in the light of day, not this ground that occasionally swings back around and touches on the dark side of the moon. Upon thinking about this, that might in fact be exactly where these two highly disparate issues have come together and thus have arisen for the Camosy piece.  That's exactly the wrong way to think about these two things.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

OPM Gives Edward Snowden a Pass...

As much as I hate the villainous traitor to our country, Edward Snowden, as described in my blog June 2013 blog, “American Hero, Idiot, or Traitor”, I hate the data breach at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) even more.  It’s easy to hate a person, such as Snowden, but difficult to hate an institution.  Can you really just say we hate the head of OPM, Katherine Archuleta, fire her and call it good? Was it the head of OPM that violated the sacred trust with the entire corps of Government employees?  Yes, she should go.  She should resign.  But, that is a far cry from making it good. There is something else to blame and something so more insidious that the aftermath of this issue will resonate for the next 40 or 50 years.  Then entire government work force will have to essentially age out before the data obtained in the SF 86 of every government employee ages out of it’s usefulness to the foreign government that now unlawfully owns this information.  I can imagine the celebration that is now going on in said Country. Goodness can you imagine the hacker who brought that package home?  They are true National Heroes in their Country...Back here in the US,  perhaps, we would call that particular Dark Visitor, public enemy number one.  If we can track who did it, maybe we can pursue them directly, and individually, as we do all cyber criminals, but within their Country, they are heroes.  No doubt if I met that particular hacker or hackers I would have to shake their hand, as if just being defeated in a game of chess, and say, well done! At least they had to work for it.  The scumbag Edward Snowden, on the other hand, gave it away.

But I get ahead of my rant today…to fully understand the ramifications of this information you have to start at the beginning...for me that would be 1987, when I entered the USAF, when I was first finger printed, and when I first penned the details of my life onto a Government form, thus entering the collective of US Federal employees and surrendering any autonomy of life, perhaps confessing a life on the Lamb, if I would to later choose a life of crime, would be difficult.  I was in the system.  Big brother now had my facts...these days they also have plenty of mugshots and of course scans of my retina.  DNA is soon to follow.  Little did I know, back in 1987, I would also be surrendering these details to another Country.  I’ve lived a relatively tame life, so I’m not really saying my SF-86 is full of lurid details of a secretive life worthy of any blackmail, unless the addresses of places I’ve lived and the people I’ve known are sufficiently worthy of a Hollywood Blockbuster, but, there are things, like my mother’s maiden name, dates of birth, etc, that could be used by an industrious hacker, such as those of “We Are Anonymous” fame, to hack most of my web accounts.  This data, used in social engineering, is also how websites secure our logins with “Challenge Questions”.  The city of your first elementary school for example.  I can change all that though, as well as to begin using technology, such as 2-Step Verification, on all my email and other accounts.  Most financial institutions have already instituted some version of 2-Step verification already, so don’t get too wrapped around the axle.  But definitely change your passwords and your challenge questions if you are in doubt.  But this blog is not about enhancing your security moving’s about trust.  The trust we must have to put our data in the hands of a third party.  As we do every time we swipe a credit card at Target, every time we punch in the pin for our cash card at 7/11, and as it turns out, every time we give the Federal government our Personally Identifiable Information, or PII.  For years, as Federal employees we are trained on the correct handling of PII.  A social security number (SSN) being the most readily identifiable piece of PII.  Seems like only yesterday I had my SSN printed on the tops of my checks, for convenience, because when you wrote a check at the store, if it wasn’t already on the top of the check, you would hand them your drivers licence and they would hard scribe it on top of the check anyway.  The vast numbers of people writing their SSN’s on the top of their checks is what gave us safety.  We hid in the mass of numbers out there in the public.  Yes the bad guy, could pull a check from a drawer, and try to write a couple of bad checks with your info, but the probability of that happening to you personally, was one in many millions.

For several years now, it’s been clear to me, that Google, was perhaps a better place to hide.  Hide plain sight.  Hide among the trillions of bits of information surging through cyber space.  The USAF, of which I’m most familiar, instituted a different technique.  Consolidate all the information and secure it behind layers of security. Just like OPM, except without the layers of security. The key word here is consolidate.  Whenever you consolidate, you create a more valuable target.  If you want to hide, disperse.  It’s the opposite of trying to defend everywhere.  The immortal words of Frederick the Great, “He who defends everywhere defends nothing”,  is turned on it’s head.  An attacker is only interested in what’s behind the defense...if you defend nothing, nothing, perhaps is of interest. But as we learned in Pearl Harbor, if you pack everything in, it’s easy to wipe out.  Nobody is calling this data breach at OPM the cyber Pearl Harbor we’ve been long awaiting, but isn’t it?  Didn’t they just wipe out the usefulness of preserving the privacy of 18 million government employees.  We never believed, that a cyber Pearl Harbor, amounted to large dramatic explosions.  But we did think that a cyber Pearl Harbor would wipe out Wall Street for instance, in which “markets will crash crash, financial empires will crumble crumble”, stealing the best lines from the movie Hudson Hawk...that hasn’t happened exactly in one dramatic event, but hasn’t as Pearl Harbor of sorts just occurred?

To me it’s time for a change….but first we must return to Edward Snowden.  Snowden, as are all government employee who have security clearances, give up their privacy so they are trusted with national secrets.  We give up our privacy and are granted trust and a paycheck to have access to the Nation's secrets.  The Nation, thus is presented with our personal secrets which they should also protect.  And they do try...right?  We sit through PII training on an annual basis. But after OPM,  should we be protecting PII any longer?  It doesn’t make much sense for me to protect my PII much anymore...just like I was unafraid to put my SSN on the top of my check, maybe I should now put it on a billboard, as the folks at LifeLock would have me do.  Well, we've all been on the hook to protect PII, and we pussy foot around, not emailing SSN or making lists, with various people at different levels of comfort, and having to endure the annual refresher training...meanwhile, the entire organization responsible betrays the fundamental trust with us...they pull us through the keyhole while the basic rules don't apply to them...are there folks out there, government employees who have gotten in trouble, gotten fired perhaps, been made scapegoats for compromising PII? And all the while it's been a sham?  Government employees have been held to a higher standard with regard to protecting PII than our counterparts in the citizenry...they also take an oath upon employment...and feel...beyond doubt (or as I have) that if we are trusted to protect the government's secrets, the government is compelled to protect our beyond the breach of contract for which we could rightly end our employment, moving forward,  anyone who compromises anything, including security at this point, has a case that there is no longer a contract, the contract has been breached, and thus we are no longer bound to keep our Nation’s secrets, secret...since they don’t protect ours.  And with felons like Edward Snowden out long before he makes a similar argument.  No doubt Edward Snowden's SF-86 was in the stack that was breached...does he now have a legal case against the US?  As class action lawsuit, to which we are now all party, at least 18 million of us, including Edward Snowden.  Perhaps the remaining 300 million have a suite as well, because, isn’t the entirety of  the US now less secure if the security of every employee of the United States Government has been compromised.   What Edward Snowden did to us pales in comparison to the breach of contract with our Government and certainly, in my mind, gives him some breathing room.

As much as I think Edward Snowden is a traitor to our country, I no longer think we can  hunt him down, prosecute him, and if found guilty, execute him for his war crimes.  OPM may have just  handed him his pardon...his ticket to a long life...and he will be smugly rejoicing from his hovel deep inside Russia. Nevertheless, if  I were in the room with him, I would still beat the smug off his face with an American made baseball bat, carved out of northern White Ash, and leave him lying half dead and bleeding on his cheap linoleum tiled floor.  Then I would throw his SF-86, stapled in the corner, dog eared, and with his updated contact information, his address in Russia,  and signed in pen, on top of him, and tell him he's excused...

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Salinger, Caulfield, and Depression in Teenagers

Long before JD Salinger stormed the beaches of Normandy during WWII, engaged in the interrogation of prisoners, and subsequently checked himself into a mental health clinic in Nuremberg, one thing is clear, he had been kicked out of boarding school many years prior to the PTSD he is believed to have been afflicted with during his wartime experiences.  I would say it is certain that he had PTSD after the war. Most of us would too if we had been in the landing crafts at Normandy.   But most of us, perhaps, were not kicked out of boarding school.   It’s clear that Holden Caulfield was kicked out of school, several times.  I get it, if JD Salinger had PTSD, then Holden Caulfield must have PTSD...he’s attributing his symptoms to Holden, after the fact.  All true, except Salinger truly was kicked out of boarding school long before the war.  I believe Salinger was not attributing his post WWII symptoms to Holden, he was, in fact, attributing his prewar symptoms, the symptoms of depression and possibly bipolar disorder, which would, quicken the effects of anxiety and PTSD upon him when exposed to the trauma of war.

I just picked up the NY Times best selling biography on Salinger.  It’s a long book and it will take me awhile to get through it...if I decide I want to finish it...I probably will not.  As with everything Salinger, it’s an unauthorized biography.  It’s  based on the public record of interviews with the man, and interviews with friends of the man.  How reliable can it be?  The book is close to 600 pages long and there isn’t  a single mention of the word “depression” in the whole of JD Salinger’s life.  In fact, depression is a hard word to find in any detailed decomposition of either Salinger or writings about his works. 

After I read “The Catcher in the Rye” for the very first time, in the summer of 2013, I wrote the a book review and posted in on Amazon. I just finished reading the book cover to cover for a second time and I stand by my original assessment.  Holden Caulfield isn't crazy...he’s depressed.  Do you know how I know?  He says he’s depressed, sad, blue, or feels alone no less than 70 times in the scant 200 pages that comprise the novel.  Are we, as a society, over the last 60 years in complete denial about the existence of clinical depression?  This is a bitter pill that is difficult for me to swallow.  So I keep searching.    

Last year I uncovered a book within the Social Issues in Literature series.  This book called, “Depression in JD Salinger's, The Catcher in the Rye” was a beacon of hope for me that, whereas society didn't notice Holden’s condition, the mental health professionals in our society have.  Wrong again.  Of the many essays contained within this compilation of professional writings, the contributors seemed more preoccupied with things such as;  he (Holden) is searching for love, he is searching for a father, he is depressed by his own failings, he suffers from unresolved sexual conflict, he is unable to cope with an adult world, he is dealing with angst of adolescence, and his problems are because he is a communist.  No wonder JD Salinger dropped out of society.  Society was not ready to handle what he brilliantly captured within the psyche of his beloved character. Holden is a kid who, quite like Salinger himself, must be clinically depressed.  65 million readers  have missed this over the past 60 years. Now, in 2015, this is an unforgivable oversight.  We are talking about teenage depression and the subsequent risk of teenage suicide.

OK, back the the 600 page tome on Salinger's life.  There’s a chapter in his biography where Salinger visits a publisher and then went storming out of the office because, in his words, “They think Holden is crazy”.  Well, mental illness means many things to many people, but I can tell you for sure, depression, is not viewed by the depressed as crazy. They know they are viewed as crazy at times, but they don’t think they are.   For them depression is real, it is all encompassing, it is terrifying, but it is not crazy.  To call them crazy is to deepen their depression.  Holden Caulfield was not crazy.  He was depressed.  His depression scared him and contributed to his high level of anxiety and his further descent into despair.  And the entire situation leads to his suicidal ideations during the story, including his desire to disappear, and more importantly, to catch children as they unwittingly flirt with death alongside a cliff as they play in the rye grass.  Just in case there is continued doubt in what I am saying, the words reflecting anxiety appear no less than 40 times in Catcher. Further, terms like die and disappear, terms that should not be mistaken for suicidal references these days, appear over 20 times.

Society has missed the forest for the trees. And, as I mentioned in my book review, we have missed an opportunity to fully understand adolescent depression in order to have more meaningful conversations with our kids.  Not only is it our job to catch the symptoms of depression and the potential for suicide, so clearly delivered by Salinger, we must also acknowledge that there is even a darker side to individuals suffering from these mental illnesses.

The three most high profile acts of violence with a direct link to “The Catcher in the Rye” were, Mark David Chapman, who killed John Lennon.  John Hinckley, who shot President Reagan, and Robert Bardo, who shot and killed the actress, Samantha Smith.  It’s documented that they all struggled with depression.  Hmmm... that’s no surprise.  But do we honestly believe they fell under the charismatic spell of Holden Caulfied’s rebellious side?  Or is in more believable that they saw in Holden, their own tortured mind’s as they themselves struggled with same demons of depression?

The stigma of mental illness and depression continue to make this conversation difficult.  WIth regard to teenagers, without a doubt, students who suffer more with these illnesses are more likely to slip through the cracks.  Some may just disappear from the campus, some may tragically disappear from life. Some could reappear more violently.

Near the end of “The Catcher in the Rye” Salinger gives us a quote by Wilhelm Stekel a Freudian Psychoanalyst. The quote, which is given to Holden by one of his teachers, Mr. Antolini says “The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one…” Most of society believes that the first part of that quote is the one that applies to Holden. In reality, in the context of where Holden and Salinger both cross paths in their psychology, Salinger is the one who want’s to live humbly for a cause, through Holden. Salinger is compelling all of us to become catchers in the rye and to save kids, like him, from the scourge of depression as he personally experienced it. In 1951, society wasn't ready for his message. I hope, in 2015, we finally can open our eyes to what he is saying.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Slim Jimmy

I got to work this morning and promptly proceeded to lock my keys in the car. What kills me is that I couldn’t find my car keys yesterday so I grabbed my spare set  knowing the other ones would turn up. Well this morning they did turn up. As I was locking the house on the way to work I threw my keys into my computer bag and immediately noticed the other set of keys was inside. I immediately thought, “Oh crap, Rule Number 1, never keep your primary and spare keys in the same place”. Well, lazy me, I reasoned no way today’s the day I do something stupid.

Well, guess what? Sure as Sunday I locked my computer bag in my car. It’s so hard to lock your keys in the car these days. Cars are a lot smarter than they used to be. You really have to work at it. And work at it I did. OK...what do you do when you’ve locked both sets of keys, your wallet, and your cell phone all in your car? I stood around for 30 minutes waiting for the security police to drive by and help me out. No such luck...they must be busy on a Monday morning. Well, as it turns out, I thought I locked my badges in the car as well, but I had them in my pocket. OK, at least I can go into work and sit at my computer and try to figure this all out. 

So in I go. I called the security police immediately. I asked them if they carry “Slim Jims” in their vehicles. Nope, came their reply, too much liability for us. I think he was lying. I’m pretty sure “Slim Jims” are standard issue, in case a cop finds a child or a dog locked in a hot car. But maybe not. Anyhow, the officer on the other end of the phone gave me the number for Al’s Towing. They would be able to open my car, but it would cost me $80 bucks. least I knew what the minimum damage would be. I wonder if those guys research how much it would cost to replace a driver’s side window? Aside from the time and the mess that the broken glass would make, at least the window on my car goes for about $84 bucks. That’s way too close to be a coincidence. I wasn’t ready to drop the coin yet. I figured, surely, someone at the office, one of the car enthusiasts I knew, must carry a “Slim Jim” in their tool kit. I called around. No such luck. One guy was like, yeah, I’ve been meaning to get one but I just haven’t. Then I did a search on Slim Jims, just to see what one actually costs. So starts my lesson for the day. 

If you haven’t seen the movie “Gone in 60 Seconds” starring Nicholas Cage and Angelina Jolie, I have to point out that a Slim Jim is not the beef jerky that comes as a snack meat stick wrapped in plastic...well, yes, those are Slim Jim’s too, but those are not the ones favored by car thieves. The ones car thieves used are long slender pieces of metal that they use to slide into a car door to pop the lock...that’s not called Jimmying a lock, but I’m not sure why. Jimmying a lock requires the use of a crow bar. I’m not sure why everything surrounding B&E or grand theft auto is referred to with my name...but that’s another story altogether. Any way, I’m not sure it’s even legal to own a Slim Jim in Virginia. Doesn’t matter, I couldn’t find one on short notice. So I started to search the web. (I just looked it up and it turns out that possession of a Slim Jim in Virginia could be used as evidence of criminal intent) A couple of the websites I visited were blocked by the office. Was that because the Slim Jim appeared on a “shady website”? I don’t know, but at least a number of tools came up for sale. A basic model sells for about $19.99. But then you can buy an entire kit, at least six different shapes and sizes for around $100 bucks. No thank you, I just need one working Slim Jim. Then I got a hit on a website that intrigued me. It was a do it yourself video on how to fabricate a Slim Jim. Really, are they that easy to make?  I pulled up the page and looked at some of the pictures describing what they were talking about. 

A Slim Jim is really just a long thin piece of spring steel with a notch cut at one end and a handle at the other. If I could find a long thin piece of steel or plastic at the office, I thought, I might be in business. But how would I cut the notch? I figure if I found the steel first, I could figure out how to cut the notch. The DIY website said it was possible to open a car, between the door and the window, with a coat hanger, but generally speaking it was too hard to control. The spring steel is the right way to do it. So I dismissed the coat hanger idea and went in search of office spring steel. Anybody know where to find spring steel in the office? Well, here is the secret, and I bet you have a Slim Jim sitting in your desk right beside you. Everyone of the green Pendaflex hanging folders in your desk drawer have two pieces of spring steel in the top of them. They are what makes the hanging folder able to hang. I immediately ripped one out of the standard 8 ½ by 11 hanging folder and judged the 12 inch length to be too short. But what about a legal sized hanging folder? It took another 60 seconds before I located a stash of the longer folders. 14 inches still looked short, but with my small car, maybe it was sufficient. When I had the longer piece separated from the folder I stared at the notch that has already been cut into the spring steel. It’s already there. No need to do more. Maybe some tape around the opposite end to use as a handle. I was in business. 

First I called the security police and told them I’d be out trying to break into my car. They didn’t seem too concerned. Then I grabbed a friend (not Angelina) and immediately went out to my car to give it a try. I wanted a witness there in case the cops decided I was trying to break into a car. Of course that’s exactly what I was trying to do. But the witness, could at least back up my story. So I inserted the slender device between the glass and the rubber seal on the door side and slide it into the interior of the door. I could move it easily and felt around for what might be the linkages for the door lock. I couldn’t feel anything. I immediately I determined that even 14 inches was too short in this case. 

But also knowing there is just about an unlimited supply of hanging folders back in the office I went back to see if I could lengthen my common office supply Slim Jim by connecting two of them together. This turned out to be very easy. I overlaid them about three inches and taped them together with masking tape. I didn’t even seek out the high durability and multi-purpose duct tape. Then I wrapped masking tape around the handle until it made a nice size ball that was easy to hold on to. I grabbed my friend who was doing a few web searches on my car door to find a schematic and we headed back to the parking lot. He said the schematic shows the rod we are looking for is pretty much right below the door lock so he located the point on the car door we were looking for and I placed the longer Slim Jim between the glass and the door and pushed in down. Oh, yeah, based on the schematic I bent the spring steel a little toward the inside of the car and kept the hook towards the back of the car. I poked around for about five seconds and my friend said right there, he could see the door lock jiggling. So I moved the Slim Jim back to that area and moved it back and forth until he saw the lock jiggle again. When he said it was jiggling I pulled up on the Slim Jim. I pulled up with very little force… The lock popped right light as a feather. And I was in. 

The whole break-in took less than a minute. I’m fairly certain that with a little knowledge and a good Slim Jim, entering the car is the easy part. So let’s say 10 seconds. To be gone in 60 seconds, you would also have to hot wire it. Maybe that’s for another time. But for now, here is a picture of my homemade Slim Jim...which is no longer in my possession....if you just happen to be in Virginia law enforcement and are reading this blog.  But just remember, who doesn't have about 100 Pendaflex folders and a roll of masking tape at their desk?

Saturday, June 28, 2014

I Believe

The World Cup means many things to many people, and by many, I do mean many, billions in fact.  But for each culture, the World Cup means something different, as different as the languages we speak or the style of soccer that we play.  Here in the United States, quite certainly the largest Country with the largest apathy per capita when it comes to soccer, we have our own meaning.  Team USA is through to the knockout stage, a spectacular achievement on it’s own, but far from overwhelming from a whole country perspective.  We didn’t get there by winning, we got there by not losing.  It’s not the American way to achieve something based on not losing.  However, all that changes in exactly three days.  Take for example the fact that in order to win the World Cup, the winning team will need to win the next four games.  Not  Arguably the four toughest games of their lives...coming off the back of three games that were also some of the toughest of their lives.  In order for the US to lose to Germany, 0-1, the US had to leave it all on the field. Do they have anything left in the tank, to win one more game?  Just one more, of the toughest game in their life, to advance, to the next toughest game of their life.  It’s simply no surprise that in order to win the World Cup the teams that prevail have to have deep reserves, it’s not enough just to Believe...or is it?  Which brings me to the point of my blog you believe?

Many USA Fan’s have posted that they “Believe”.  I don’t want to be one of the un-American jackasses who don’t believe.  Not believing in our team would be, well, un-American.  So I believe.  But what is it exactly that I believe.  I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  But I do believe in Santa Claus.  I don’t believe Landon Donovan should have been left at home, but I do believe that Jurgen Klinsmann is a gift of world class to our country in the coaching department.  I don’t believe that we have a recognizable style of US Soccer, except perhaps for throwing games away in the final seconds, but I do believe Tim Howard is one of the best in the business.  I don’t believe our Country gives a rats ass, about soccer, but I do believe if we start to win those who go to Church on Easter, will come out of the woods and start cheering the team on, even if they don’t understand the off-sides call, or how a 0-0 draw can sometimes be the most exciting game ever played.  So I believe in something...but it’s not a spiritual belief in the Cinderella story, rags to riches, particularly because it’s hard to say anything we do in US Soccer, started by scrubbing kitchen floors for our evil step mother... but I digress.

Santa Claus showed up at this World the form of Portugal.  We were given the dumb luck to find ourselves in the group stage with Germany, Ghana, and Portugal.  We were favored to go out at the bottom of the group.  However instead we were this close (image of a thumb and a forefinger holding a red hair between them) from winning the group, or at least qualifying first for the knockout round.  Now what? Klinsmann says, “Now we get to work”.  He believes in something.  But I’m not sure it’s belief in going all the he’s already gone on the record with regard to our chances of going all the way.   Let me restate, to go all the way means we have to win the next four games.  We’ve won one of the last three games...and each game we hung on by the skin of our whatever we achieved, win, tie, loss.  Yet there still is this, “I believe” button that must be pressed even though the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against us.  Why then must we believe? To understand let’s take a little flight of fancy...for those of us in the soccer minority in our Country.

On July 14th, 2014, the front page headlines in every US Newspaper in the United States reads, “USA Wins World Cup in Brazil”.  Just writing that sends a shiver down my spine and I have goose pimples rippling across my body. I must emphasize that that headline doesn't read that way for the majority of the world’s population in their entire lifetime.  There are only a few countries in the world that could ever conceivable hope for such a headline...those who have seen it before, Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Italy, and...those who have been close...very close they could taste it...Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Italy, and we can now add, France, maybe England but not really, and the bridesmaid of them all, the Netherlands. If the Netherlands win this year do you think they will declare a National Holiday?  However, the real question is what do we, as the USA, bring to the World Cup and should we believe we have a realistic place in the Parthenon (Pantheon) of Soccer Gods/Greatness.

The answer is simply, yes.  We have the resources to be the most dominant force in world soccer that any country has ever developed (athletes, money, coaching, management) There are simply too few of us who don’t believe.  And that is the attitude that must be overcome.  To say we don’t have a soccer culture in this country is to discount the millions of kids who do play soccer, and the mom’s and dad’s who take them to soccer practice every weekend.  It is also to discount the fact that US Women’s soccer has ascended to the Parthenon/Pantheon of Soccer Greatness...but that hasn't produced enough momentum  to carry men’s soccer or the entire US mentally on soccer forward.  It has helped.  Indeed we have discounted for decades that we have been the country where great soccer players come to die.  Through the 70’s with players like Pele, Cruyff, Best, and Beckenbauer and now the MLS with the stars like  Matthaus, Beckham, and Henry leading to the the several hundred internationals who now play in our league.  And MLS is’s growing strong...with patience we will get very good pro league.

When we arrive...we will be there to stay. On any given Sunday, we can stay with the best in the business.  The World Cup, however, is not any given Sunday.  In Europe, their league play is tied to the World Cup.  Their professional seasons end at a peak just before they go through a mock World Cup in the European Championship every other four years, with the real World Cup coming up in between.  Soccer in other Countries have two other great differences, the way their professional leagues compete, with relegation.  And of course their development systems, where if you play soccer, it’s year round, not seasonal.  I’m not saying we have to change these systems in the US, we don’t.  We just have to be more willing to support our younger players going overseas...and gaining the international experience among the best.  And we have to accept that MLS is simply a lesser league.  Nothing wrong with that...just like the  Eredivisie in the Netherlands has to accept that although they have the greatest school and soccer system in the world, they are not the EPL, La Liga, Serie A, or the Bundesliga...and never will be.

So let’s get ready for Belgium.  There is no doubt the next eight World Cup games will be some of the best soccer ever.  And let’s make no bones about it.  I believe.  But what I believe isn’t that we could prevail in Brazil...what I that US Soccer should be, in my lifetime, a team that could take a bite of the apple...and stay to play...very few countries could do so. This is not our year...this year the Netherlands can glimpse it...but Germany, Brazil, and Argentina, will be there to beat the sense back into them.  It’s going to take a world power to compete with these world me, it’s up to the US to break into this tiny fraternity.  I simply don’t see any other country capable.  But I do see, “THE US WINS THE WORLD CUP” in my lifetime.  Since I turn fifty this year that gives me about ten more tournaments to see it through. That's what I believe.

Monday, June 2, 2014

A USAF in 2064?

Award winning Futuristic Design by Georgia Tech Student
Recently two intellectuals who study military affairs put forth a suggestion that the USAF has served 70 years as a separate military department with very little gain for our country other than to fuel a bitter inter-service rivalry that has left us financially strapped and worse off than had the leadership of our nation’s air forces been left in the hands of the Department of the Army.  They argue that the time has come to “Ground the Air Force” in the case of Robert Farley who published an article in Foreign Affairs and has recently published a book entitled “Grounded, the Case for the Abolition of the Air Force”.  And in the case of Robert Carroll, who writes for the Boston Globe, an Op Ed piece entitled “Abolish the Air Force”.   Many have come to the defense of the Air Force, including the article “Why the Nation Needs an Independent Air Force” written by a multi-service collaboration of colonels led by Col Scott Campbell from the United States Marine Corps.  Many have also spoken up in comments and commentary to agree with the Carroll and Farley point of view.  For those who disagree that our country has been better served by a separate Department of the Air Force I ask you to consider not whether  our country will be better off next year but rather whether our country will be better off with an independent Air Force in 2064.

Carroll and Farley do not seem to be living in this future but rather seem to be living 70 years in the past. They are bringing up the same debates that were outlined by air power visionaries such as Billy Mitchell and Hap Arnold who were already living far into the future during their own time.  In some respect they were further advanced in their thinking 70 years ago than Carroll and Farley are today.   Ultimately, back in 1947, the vision of a separate service carried the day and with it the single largest change to our War Department.   Why the bitterness from that victory still… seven decades later…is by far a greater impediment to the efficiency of our Department of Defense then arguments over the budget.   It’s time for the losers of this debate to move on.  It’s unfathomable to think that we are currently worse off with the USAF we have today rather than had the air forces remained with the Army.  I contend that same trend will continue well into the future.  So outlining the reasons our country will be better postured by having a separate Air Force in 2064 serves a higher purpose then arguing with a couple of sour grapes.

First, air power isn’t going anywhere.  Carroll and Farley both argue that we need the air, so much so that every service has its own “air force”.  The same argument that gives us an air force within every service, and the coast guard, as well as the intelligence community essentially means that everyone already recognizes the critical role air power plays in almost every conceivable mission. Will we ever go to war without command of the air? Will we ever engage in any endeavor without support from above?

Second, the USAF as a military department does not fight our wars.   The people and equipment from the Air Force do.  The USAF as a separate service exists to organize, train, and equip our forces (the people and equipment) to fight in the air.  These forces are provided to a joint force combatant commander when it’s time to fight a war.  Any argument with regard to which service wins that war with what capability is moot.  To believe we don’t fight jointly is to simply have no understanding of joint doctrine and the way military force is employed.  The real debate then is which of the military services has a larger share of the defense budget to organize, train, and purchase the systems of war.  This debate does not occur on the battlefield.  It is wholly contained inside the walls of the Pentagon.    The early arguments about the successes of strategic bombing, for instance, are immaterial.  The issue is whether or not we need an organizational construct to see about the procurement and fielding of strategic bombing forces.  That’s a national strategy and national policy issue that is far above the USAF.   In the same vein we will maintain the readiness of a strategic nuclear deterrent until such a time when the country decides nuclear war is a thing of the past.   If Carroll and Farley had their heads screwed on straight they would argue a case for eliminating the nation’s interest in strategic bombing not the elimination of the Air Force.   Win that debate first…and then we can talk about the Air Force as an independent service vested with the requirement to develop a strategic bombing capability.  The same goes for every other mission the USAF performs that goes unmentioned in their articles.  Many of these additional missions are covered in the Campbell article, but many more missions go unnoticed to include mobility forces, space forces, C2ISR forces, air superiority forces, air defense forces, special operations forces, and of course the recent arrival of cyber forces.  Do we need these forces ready and available for our combatant commanders?  Of course we do, as well as many others.

How then should we organize to ensure the proper emphasis is placed on the fielding of these capabilities, training the men and women to operate these systems, and how do we establish the proper doctrine, CONOPS, and tactics for their use?  Is it reasonable to place an expert on ground warfare in charge of the development of the next generation air to air missile, for instance?  Is it reasonable to require an expert of surface or subsurface warfare to have the responsibly for building the C-17.  Both make as much sense as putting an American Football coach in charge of an English Premier League Soccer team (And American Football Coach in London).   They speak completely different languages.

 The argument therefore is simple.  Is there enough that is unique about the air to warrant an organizational construct to place emphasis on the acquisition and operation of these systems to the peril of not placing special emphasis on this critical domain?  Is fighting in the air different from fighting on the ground and different from fighting on or below the sea?  Of course it is.  The domain is as unique as is the earth, sea, and sky.

In recent years USAF made a mistake by trying to claim unbalanced superiority in the burgeoning cyber domain over the other services as well as the whole of industry.  Maybe the Air Force had an earlier role in the development of cyber systems a few years ago…but no longer and certainly not into the future.  Industry and the technical advances we see every day in information technology are far more advanced then we could ever hope to develop inside the DoD let alone the Air Force.  There are just too many people working in this industry.  The DoD is just one of millions of customers for this explosion in technology…yes we have to harness it…but we will not be creating it.  

In a similar fashion the USAF might make a claim that they own the space domain.  This claim is in fact a far more substantial one.  So much so that rising space advocates such as Elon Musk have set the Air Force in their cross-hairs because of the strong hold the Air Force wields over the space community at large.  This is no accident.  The Air Force owns the foundation upon which United States Space Force might one day launch, no pun intended.  The USAF has been the primary driving force in space since the very beginnings of space exploration.  The role the USAF has played in space has far and away been the capability for which the USAF has received the least credit.  Manned space exploration, being unclassified, has received far greater publicity and praise.   It was more public and had a greater sex appeal than developing a communications satellite for instance. The Air Force, however, has spent untold billions on the development of all space capabilities and the world is a much better place due to these investments.  Communications, weather, and remote earth sensing to name some of early victories in space the USAF had the most direct hand in creating.   Today, one needs look no further than the Global Positioning System (GPS).  When alien life forms are visiting the earth and observe our GPS constellation, they will not think of GPS as serving the precision delivery of munitions, but rather the service the USAF provides for all of mankind.   There is simply no other capability, in any other service, in any other country’s service, and in any other corporation that has provided so much too so many users for so little.  GPS is crowning jewel for the USAF in space.  Stepping away from space however, the USAF is replete with capability they fielded to dominate the air domain during times of war that have  also grown into ubiquitous technology from which all of humanity has benefited.  Those contributions are even less proclaimed.  Those key technologies will continue to be corner stone’s of research and development efforts spear headed by the USAF well into the future and must continue.  Undoing the Department of the Air Force’s lead in these areas would be as intelligent as changing the formula for Coca-Cola.

As I run through this list of technologies one should ask what would a United States Air Force look like in fifty years and will the Air Force continue to lead in these technology areas?

Stealth Technology:  With the possible exception of a few car enthusiasts who purchase absorbing aprons for the front of their sports car to evade police radar, there is no commercial market for radar absorbing material (RAM).  The USAF has led in the world in the development of radar evading structures and materials such as RAM for decades.  The gap between our knowledge and the knowledge of others regarding stealth technology is still huge and it will take billions of dollars of investment from other countries in order to match our technological advantage in this area.  In fifty years aircraft will have to evade not only radar but also optical and infra-red sensors as well.  Aircraft disrupt the atmosphere as they fly.  Sensors that can detect small changes and other disturbances in the atmosphere will no doubt exist.  To remain as undetectable as possible new materials and other technologies will have to be developed.   The USAF has cared about this technology more than any other service.

Jet Propulsion Technology:  There is a huge market for jet engine technology.  The commercial sector will continue to invest in high efficiency jet engines to transport travelers faster and with less fuel costs.  In addition, new jet engines will have to conform to new environmental protocols at the same time.  The Air Force will benefit from the industrial footprint in place from this commercial interest in jet engine technology; however, the high performance engines required to propel current and future military aircraft will always be someone different from their commercial counterparts.  Military jets will always have to fly higher, faster, and farther with less susceptibility to detection.  Scram jets for high altitude hyper-sonic flight and engines capable of sustained supersonic flight in the lower atmosphere do not tend to have a place in the commercial market. The USAF has cared about this technology more than any other service.

Rocket Propulsion Technology:  Rocket engines are necessary for both tactical and strategic missiles as well as boosting satellites and other payload into orbit as well as to bases on the moon and beyond.  Lockheed Martin gave up on the Delta Clipper, a single stage to orbit, vehicle over a decade ago.  Reason stated by the former program manager Mr. Peter Teets, “We were still three technological miracles away from achieving the vision of a reusable single stage to orbit vehicle”.  Costs will also have to come down.  Elon Musk and the team at SPACE-X have an early shot at bolstering the competition necessary to overcome some of these technical hurdles.  The USAF has cared about this technology more than any other service.

Sensor Technology:  Radar, Infra-red, Electro-optical, LIDAR, and other sensors that can detect the environment are but a few of the investments in sensing technology that the USAF has given to the world.  There will be no less demand for sensors fifty years from now.  New phenomonlogies will be invented and harness for use by the Air Force to raise a commander’s situational awareness.    Increasing speeds and altitudes have always demanded an increase in sensor performance to balance out the change. The USAF has cared about this technology more than any other service.

Electronic Warfare Technology:  Not long after the first air defense radar was put into use someone figured out that the same energy a radar system uses to detect and aircraft can be used to jam the same radar.  And the race for counter and counter-counter technology was off and running.  As the RF spectrum has gone digital so to have the techniques to counter this capability fuzzying up the difference between what is traditional warfare in the electro-magnetic spectrum and what is a cyber capability.  Whereas industry will have a advantage over the military regarding capabilities on, over, and through computers and computer networks, understanding the digital counter and counter-counter punch for military unique systems will remain within the Department of Defense and Intelligence Communities. The USAF has cared about this technology more than any other service.  The Navy takes second place.

Materials Science Technology:  The Air Force has never had a monopoly on materials science but they have developed many and have been the first using new materials in wide spread applications.  First aluminum, then titanium, and later advanced composites.  But those are just applications for building and constructing aircraft. The creation of new materials extends into every system the Air Force has produced and includes materials for high and low temperature applications, sensors, coatings, explosives, fuels, and fabrics.  In the future the Air Force many not invent products utilizing nano technology, for instance, but they will be first to adopt these new materials into innovative applications.  All services care about materials science however the materials necessary for success in land and sea combat, a lot of armor and steel, does not lend itself to Gillespie’s High Flight.  One does not slip the surly bonds of Earth and dance the skies on laughter-silvered wing with armor and steel.  It requires high strength and light weight materials.  The USAF has cared about this technology more than any other service.

Autonomous Vehicle Technology:  The USAF has never been given sufficient credit for the development of autonomous flight technology.  Instead they are soundly criticized by those that simply cannot give the USAF credit for their technological achievements in this area, not the least of which was Robert Gates.  The USAF has been criticized for dragging its feet in this area when it was the USAF that developed this technology.  The USAF has been flying autonomous vehicles for decades.  Every satellite on orbit is an autonomous vehicle; the USAF does not have a manned space flight program.  Satellites achieve their orbital placement either autonomously or by remote control.  Ever heard of cruise missiles?  The USAF has been launching cruise missiles since the 1950’s.  Many of our ISR aircraft, although manned, have extremely precise autopilots.  All of this technology ushered in the age of the “drones” or the Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA).  Except the word drone actually refers to something akin to a “Target Drone” that USAF has also used for decades creating retired F-4 Phantom jets, into autonomous target vehicles that could be shot down over the Gulf of Mexico.  Every rocket, every missile (both tactical and strategic) is an autonomous vehicle.  It seems the USAF not only uses unmanned technology, the USAF invented the technology yet is still criticized for wanting to keep a man in the cockpit. The USAF has cared about this technology more than any other service. 

Fifty years from now technology will have continued to advance into areas we have yet to imagine.  Will there be a need for this technology to be acquired by a unique set of airmen who understand flying and fighting in the air and in space?  The expertise to recognize when new technology must be created or how it can be applied has long been the domain of the USAF.  In the future the need for long endurance, survivable, fast, and all weather capable aircraft that can deliver a military effect will persist.   Most systems, if not all, will be remotely piloted.  Just because the pilots will now sit on the ground doesn’t mean the air ceases to be a unique domain without unique requirements for those whose systems operate in and through it.  This is no different from the airman who flies a satellite (who has always remained on the ground), the missile crews of our ICBM force who sit below ground, and of course the airman who currently fly  our expanding fleet of RPA’s.  The Air Force in 2064 is one I would like to see just as proudly I am sure Mitchell and Arnold would be to see our current Air Force…the envy of every Air Force in the world and apparently our very own sister services…or at least the envy of Farley and Carroll.