Ahem ... How's that November 30th Deadline Working Out? Or, Jay Carney's Answer to the Inevitable Question: "I Shave."

One of the worst actions that an Administration can take is to repeatedly mislead the American public.  Such an action is compounded when the misleading actions are not separated by years but, in this case, by a mere month.

Yet, such is what we are now facing.

Press Spokesman Carney:  "I shave"

As the Obamacare website healthcare.gov was cratering in late October, the President himself assured us that the website would be fully operational by November 30.  This was an important deadline because citizens are required to sign up on the exchange by December 31st this year, and one month was considered the minimum amount of time necessary to sign up those millions of Americans needing individual policies -- nay, required by law to have individual policies. And the term "fully operational" is a strong expectation. 

This blog, as well as many others, predicted that the website would not be fixed by November 30th.  Some of the predictions were based on inside knowledge, and some (including my prediction) were based on years of experience in the federal IT industry and an understanding of how IT programs are developed, tested, implemented, and fixed over time.

The Administration is already lowering expectations.  Today, Thanksgiving Day, can we really be thankful that the prevarications are continuing?   That deputy White House pressmen and junior CMS staff (not Jay Carney, Kathleen Sebelius, or the President himself) are finessing the message while not owning up to the facts, and the truth?  Today's message is that healthcare.gov will work "better" than last month. By whose definition?  The payment system is months from completion and the security flaws are still pervasive and threatening.

Back when I was a young pup, I remember the Nixon Administration during 1973 when the Watergate scandal was unfolding.  The President's press spokesman, Ron Ziegler, was constantly having to stand before the media, with a straight face, and pretend that all was, well, hunky-dory.  One of the commentators of the time, Gary Trudeau, published a fictitious comic at the time showing a fictitious question from the press gallery, along with the fictitious answer from Ziegler:

Question:  "Ron, sometimes I imagine you must get up in the morning, look in the mirror before you've shaven, and think to yourself, 'Ron, you're about to begin another day of evasion and deceit.' Here's my question, Ron: What do you do after you've come to such a realization?"

Answer:  "I shave." 

My message to Carney, Obama, Sebelius and the others.  Keep shaving, even while you realize that we're on to you.

"If It Sounds Too Good To be True, It Probably Is." -- US Postal Service, Circa 1970

I had an epiphany earlier today, while reading the Wall Street Journal about more Obamacare woes.

A not unexpected outcome

I have written previously about what the Administration did with the software programming for the healthcare.gov website.  And I will predict here again that the problems will not be solved by the end of November.  I predict that the website will not be ready until March 2014 or later, because serious software problems are not fixable in time frames less than 4-6 months;  this comes from personal experience.  Anyone having done program management for Government IT projects will concur.  And adding bodies to the problem will not hasten success.  

But today's lesson is not about fixing large government IT programs.  It is about a common-sense lesson that more mundane parts of the Government, namely the US Postal Service, used to teach.  I remember reading this on a USPS circular back when I was a young pup:

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

The context, in the early 1970s, was mail fraud. Back then hucksters were trying to sell, in magazine advertisements, all sorts of screwy gadgets and things.  The one I loved best was a type of auto engine that turned burned water for fuel instead of gasoline -- "The Amazing Technical Secret that the Car Companies Refuse to Let Your Know."  The Post Office was giving advice that every father in those days was giving to his children.

Fast forward to 2009.  The promises of Obamacare were:

• Health coverage for more than 30 million uninsured people
• No increase in taxes
• Not one dime of increase to the federal deficit
• Reduced medical costs ("bending the cost curve down")
• Premium savings of up to $2,500 annually 
• Cheaper than your cell phone bill
• If you like your plan you can keep it ("period -- end of story")
• If you like your doctor you can keep him

Not one of these promises will be kept in the end.  Today's press release by Breitbart tallied 100,000 Obamacare signups during the first month while 5,000,000 have received cancellation notices;  a net production of misery of 4,900,000. Once the employer mandate kicks in next year, this disparity will worsen.  One estimate, by Forbes, proclaimed that the number of Americans losing their current coverage will total 93 million.  The Obamacare wonks who wrote this legislation will have been off in their estimates by, only, about 63 million.  "Close enough for government work," as my buddies in the defense industry used to joke.

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

All this  mess would have been avoided had the nation observed such simple, homespun, government-endorsed wisdom back in 2009.  If only we had listened to the humble advice of our mailman.  If only, if only.

"It's the Soldier ..."

It's my second post today, but I couldn't let Veteran's Day pass without posting the short clip below from Senator Fred Thompson:

Honoring our Veterans - November 11, 2013

I had no military service myself but have been honored to know many who served as colleagues, customers, friends, and business partners.  Many words will be published today about honoring  veterans and their service, and I fear that mine will only consume bandwidth and do a poor job and providing them with the honor they deserve.

That said, I note with pride that our nation HAS changed -- in how we honor these men and women who choose service rather than personal profit during their lives.  There is no better example of this than via simple acts.  The one I like best is when business executives and seasoned business travelers relinquish their first class seats on airlines for servicemen in uniform.  Articles can be found here, here, and here.   In the best example, the dialogue ran like this.  In the boarding area before a flight from Atlanta to Chicago, the following was overheard:

"What's your seat number solider?" asked a gentleman in a business suit.

"It's 23-B, sir," the soldier told the businessman.

"No, son, that's my seat.  Yours is seat 1-A." 

This exchange was overheard by other first class passengers, and eight soldiers in all were treated to the comfortable seats in first class. 

Contrast this to the viciousness of the American left, which shouted "baby killers" and similar epithets at soldiers, marines, and airmen returning from duty in the 1970s and 1980s. 

This shift is not due to sentimental notions about war.  It's due to the fact that when Americans fight a war, they fight honorably and they fight for the right reasons.  No other nation in this modern era can make that claim.  Yes, there are still naysayers in academia, the media, and the fringes of the left who hate the military and hate the fact that our nation now honors those who serve.  But they have to keep their comments to themselves, or confine them to the coffeehouses of the Left Coast, because they know the opprobrium will be immense should they utter them out loud. 

The Star-Spangled Banner: a "War Anthem"

Case in point.  Professor Kevin Blackistone teaches Sports Journalism at the University of Marlyland and is a panelist and commentator on ESPN.  During a recent edition of "Around the Horn" he called the Star-Spangled Banner a war anthem and believed that college football teams had no business "conflating a war anthem with a simple game."  Comments such as these evoke a myriad of emotions and rejoinders from yours truly, but suffice it to say that the video clip was published on the Blaze and at Hotair.com, and the replies from patriots are juicy to say the least.  I expect that Professor Blackistone will henceforth join the ranks of lefties who blandly proclaim that "we support the troops" and will keep his true sentiments to himself on the air, and confine his tirades to his classrooms filled with captive students. 

Our country has come a long way since its treatment of the military in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

I leave you with this tribute to our service branches.  Commit the lyrics to memory so you can sing them yourselves come Memorial Day and Veterans Day each year.

Obamacare Blunders -- Political Decisions Led to this Disaster

As of the day of this writing, here's what we know about the blunders -- nearly all intentional -- that have led to the Obamacare fiasco:

• The Administration did not release critical regulations, as required by the law passed in March 2010, until after the November 2012 elections.  Why?  To ensure that political fall back did not impact the election outcome.
• The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, which is the federal agency responsible for the Obamacare web portal, decided that CMS itself, and not a software contractor, would assume the responsibility for software integration.  This is the same as if the Department of Defense (DOD) decided to be the integrating contractor for building the next generation fighter.  CMS made this decision for political reasons, out of fear that Obamacare details, or delays, would be released to the public.
• The Canadian software firm, CGI, will no doubt likely receive most of the blame for the failure of the web portal.  They were chosen without the benefit of a full and open competition using a current IDIQ contract in September 2011.  CGI is extremely well-connected at the Department of Health and Human Services.  
• The White House (and I mean the White House) was making decisions about the software function in the months prior to October 1st.  One of the key decisions they made was that curious citizens couldn't browse prices without registering.  This decision was made because they were trying to hide the sticker shock from casual browsing activity.   The fact that this was made in the months prior to the release is not a small detail.  Functional changes like this can have huge impacts on software performance.

That's four political decisions made during the runup to October 1st.  None of these were made with the interest of the citizen in mind.  All were made with the interest of the Government, particularly the Obama Administration, in mind.   That's 0-4, folks.

Obamacare and the Planned Tech Surge

President Obama and his Administration have proven that they shade their words carefully when it comes to discussing the truth about Obamacare.  Secretary Kathleen Sebelius couldn't answer how many enrollees had signed up, and Press Secretary Jay Carney can't provide a decent estimate as to when the problems will be fixed.

There will be hell to pay soon, as Sebelius testifies before the House of Representatives next week.  She will have facts, explanations, and excuses galore but none of that will ameliorate the fact that in the months and weeks before October 1st she was quoted, multiple times, saying that "all was ready."  And the media was still asleep at the switch, or punch drunk with admiration for the President, because there was not one inkling that problems were endemic until the utter failure of the web portal.

The only unrealistic people related to Obamacare are the Obama Administration and the Mainstream Media

But now it appears they are suffering from tremendous naivete as well.  With damaged credibility and tremendous doubt sown, even in the mainstream media, now would be the time to be 100% truthful.  It is also the time to NOT speak like a politician but with the sincerity of someone who promised Americans "the most transparent Administration in history."

But such is not happening, as revealed by the President's claim to have the "best and the brightest on the job," with blandishments to have all problems fixed shortly. 

As someone who has managed countless software programs in his lifetime, I can say categorically that small software problems can take as long to correct as the time to code the original software;  or, put another way, a 95% working complicated computer program that required a year to code can require another year to fix.

And piling on more tech experts does not hasten the task.  Nine women cannot produce a baby in one month, and tripling-down on the tech experts will not produce working software in 1/3 the time. 

While the Administration's critics say that the Obama Administration had three years to do this right, the honest critiques note that CGI, the software provider, had less than one year to write the code.

Rushing software code, without software system engineering, incremental software test, and 100% vetting prior to release brings to mind that old adage from fathers to sons:

"Marry in haste, repent in leisure."

Or, for those poor saps in the Obama Adminstration who are tearing their hair out:

"Code in haste, suffer the outrage in leisure."

I leave this post with one of the funniest Dilbert cartoons ever about motivating software engineers, not known as the most obedient of employees:

Best Application for Small Hovercraft (Humor)

The video below is a bit dated but it's all the rage at the aerospace blogs.  I think it's a tremendous marketing idea for beach communities during vacation season;  also perhaps spring break.

War in Syria, Mission Creep, and the Law of Unintended Consequences

The drumbeats of war can be heard in Washington, and this time the beats are not emanating from that cowboy from Texas who was so roundly criticized by the world, but from President Obama himself.  From the community organizer-come-President who won a Nobel Peace Prize before he had been in office 9 months but who had been nominated before he had been in office 30 days.

It's curious that the reasons for going to war in 2013 call to mind that old quotation from Casey Stengel, "deja vu all over again."  A Muslim country has weapons of mass destruction that are a danger to all peace-loving peoples.  These weapons are immoral and in contradiction to international standards.  The dictator even used them on his own people, for heaven's sake!  The parallels with the situation in 2003 with that cowboy former President are eerie.  The contradictions are startling; Secretary John Kerry pushing for war, while this was the same fellow who so loudly decried war for the same reasons back in 2004.

But harping on the war drums is not my purpose here.  It's to note that American involvements in military escapades without clear objectives are likely to experience mission creep, and that the American public should prepare themselves for catastrophe.

Vietnam:  the Vietnam war began under very similar circumstances to Syria.  A civil war was brewing;  it was clear which side would produce a more democratic, free, and peaceful government;  and the USA began its involvement providing aid and military adivsors.  10 years and 50,000 lives later, we had a full-fledged war that angered the world, unalterably changed the USA, and, ultimately, did not thwart the bloodshed that America had tried to avert.  Vietnamese Communists, the ultimate victors after America fought the war with one hand tied behind its back, inflicted misery and murdered tens of thousands after America withdrew.

Beirut:  the role of Americans as peacekeepers had now come into vogue.  After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, 1400 American Marines joined 3000 European troops to keep the peace.  Then began a familiar pattern;  while no single country could be blamed, suicide bombings from Muslim extremists began happening with alarming frequency, sponsored behind the scenes by state agents such as Iran. No doubt they were emboldened by rules of engagement that required Marines to carry ammunition on their belts, and not in their guns, so as to assure the population they were not warlike. First they bombed the American Embassy, in April 1983, then the Marine barracks, in October.  241 Marines died along with 57 Frenchmen.  Rather than fight back, America withdrew.  Osama bin Laden was later quoted as saying he was convinced of the decline of American power because our soldiers were weak, and we fled after loss of life.

Mogadishu:  this is the well-known story of Black Hawk Down.  Another civil war, and another American President (President George H.W. Bush) who sent our bravest men out to do peacekeeping, e.g., police work.  But mission creep was inevitable and, when warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid attacked the peacekeepers the United Nations (!) authorized fighting in return.  This duty fell, of course, not on the Europeans, but on American Special Forces. America's President, now Bill Clinton, ordered an assault and 18 of America's bravest died fighting thousands of Somalians.   What made the outcome worse was politically correct decisions by the Administration -- dual chains of command (US and UN), lack of ground assault forces, inadequate numbers of troops.  American bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.  The mission had not been accomplished.  America looked weak again.  Aidid was alive and mocking the USA for another 15 years.

Kosovo:  this military operation did not end in fiasco for the USA, but it began as a humanitarian operation and experienced significant mission creep.  Among the many lessons from this operation were:

1. Low-risk, incremental air campaigns cannot win a war or achieve peace; 
2. Low-risk, high-altitude air campaigns cannot achieve humanitarian objectives;  and 
3. If the USA takes sides in a civil war, it should EXPECT that ground forces will eventually be necessary to overcome a determined adversary.

What is the caution here?  It's to be clear about our short-term and long-term objectives.  If we lob missiles into Syria, we need to expect that within 12 months we will be sending ground troops.  Initially, our political leaders will not be asking for such, and will not acknowledge such, but it will be the truth.  Because if the initial bombing is ineffective, as it will be, then the same impetus that had us bomb will ask, "if you're really committed to taking down Assad, then America will do more."  It will happen piecemeal, like in Vietnam, but it will happen.  And we will be in Syria for years, unless we repeat the mistakes of Beirut and Somalia and run with out tail between our legs after the fighting gets tough and the barefoot insurgents show more guts than our political leaders.

And a likely outcome will be a larger Middle East war because Iran has had suicidal intentions for years, and would view this as their opportunity to carry them out.

This would also be the end of Obama's Presidency as one of "unparalleled outreach to the Muslim world."  The entire Muslim world would be fighting us and the new motto might as well be, "unparalleled hostility from the Muslim world."  At such a moment Obama would become indistinguishable from George W. Bush.

Better give back that Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. President, before the Norwegians demand it back. 

Raising the Alert Levels in Europe - Defense Humor

I received the following in email from an undisclosed former colleague.  European friends, I present it in jest yet if you must express your outrage send all comments to complaints@ whitehouse.gov.

ALERTS TO THREATS IN 2013 EUROPE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be all right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! Might need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

John Cleese

British writer, actor and tall person

42 Terrorist Incidents Disrupted

Today's headlines contain a strong defense of NSA's various spy programs, most of which have already been divulged by Edward Snowden, traitor extraordinaire, and journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian.  The headline in the Wall Street Journal is White Hats vs. Black Hats. 

Gen Keith Alexander, Director NSA

General Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, spoke at the Black Hat USA 2013 hacker convention in Las Vegas on July 31.  Much of his talk centered on a vigorous defense of NSA's programs as essential to national security.

His main point, which I repeat in the title to this post, is that 42 terrorist incidents have been disrupted with the NSA's Prism program, which allows for access to servers of major firms including Google, Apple, Facebook, Skype and Twitter.  

Consider:  had Prism not been gathering the metadata which allowed the thwarting of those incidents, some if not all would have become acts of terror, presumably on American soil.  Think of the number of incidents over the past 20 years -- the 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, 9-11, the shoe bomber.  What does that total?  Perhaps 10 incidents, all of which are seared into the memory of Americans.  Had even half -- twenty -- of the thwarted incidents referred to by General Alexander, we would be a much different country today.  We would be frightened, paranoid, more heavily armed, and demanding of our political leaders to do something, anything, to stop future attacks.

No, what the NSA is doing is correct and needed.  What is of greater concern is the trend by other agencies to view NSA data (see New York Times, "Other Agencies Clamor for Data NSA Compiles"), which I will address in another post.

Why the NSA Surveills -- Possible Validation Today or this Week

A follow-up to Friday's post is in order, given the banner headlines on Drudge this morning:  "Planned Attack Big -- Strategically Significant."  Related articles cite an "awful amount of chatter" being gathered by intelligence agencies.

How do you think that the intel agencies collect, gather, and sift through this information?  It is by using the vacuum cleaner approaches to surveillance that are front and center to the current NSA controversy.  If an attack is avoided, or thwarted, because of these programs it will have been worth it.  This is exactly why we want NSA one step of ahead of international terrorists.

The terrorists are not necessarily using cellphones or email anymore.  They are using Twitter, Facebook, Skype, and more and are now communicating in code.  The number of emails, worldwide, amount over 500 billion per day.  The other means add another 100 billion.  Perhaps now the magnitude of the threat looks clearer.

What we Americans need to be certain is that we have safeguards about our own privacy chiseled in stone.   Also, no one wishes that a terrorist incident occur today to validate the headlines.  
But I've no  problem with giving intelligence agencies the authority to examine all worldwide communications to ensure that it doesn't happen.

More Revelations from Snowden, via The Guardian -- XKeyscore

Today's headlines included another revelation from The Guardian, by journalist Glenn Greenwald, with the information source being of course Edward Snowden.  It's about another NSA program called XKeyscore.  It is called the "widest-reaching system for developing intelligence from the internet."  It allegedly allows users to access "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet" including emails, web browsing, and social media activity.

Readers of my previous columns know my overall sentiments on this matter.  We live during a time when our enemy, radical Islam, would set off a nuclear device in the middle of downtown Los Angeles, without hesitation, if they had a chance.  Our intelligence agencies must stay ahead of the game and thwart the activities of these terrorists before they get their chance.  They also need to frighten them into hiding in their holes, which means that the revelations from Snowdon and the Guardian are not necessarily a bad idea. 

The XKeyscore briefing referenced in the source article discloses that over 300 terrorists have been captured using intelligence generated from XKeyscore.  If so, that make the program one of the most successful anti-terrorism programs to date.  

The Guardian article does do some scare-mongering.  While the article reads as if NSA employees are spying on Americans without due process, the briefing makes it clear that the searching being done using XKeyscore is on foreigners not within the USA.  Ahem, ahem, but a foreign national does not have our constitutional protections; an NSA analyst can surveil them with impunity. 

Bravo, I say.  America remains at war in spite of politicians in Washington who think otherwise, in spite of academics in liberal ivory towers who think otherwise, in spite of U.N. bureaucrats in New York City who think otherwise.  Sure, add more safeguards to ensure that Americans aren't surveilled but keep at it. 

"The Price of Ridding Society of Bad is Always High"

I just wanted to vector readers to a recent NBC news article relaying one of the items at the CIA museum at Langley, Virginia -- a letter from future CIA Director Richard Helms to his 3-year old son Dennis, dated 1945.  What makes the letter so compelling was not its content but the stationery itself.   Helm's letter was written on a  notecard from Adolf Hitler's personal stationery supply (see photo).

The poignancy of this simple, sweet note is evident.  Helms was a member of OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the modern CIA) during the war and he presumably had no idea that his future would include roles in multiple administrations as a senior intelligence officer.  Also, he no doubt made an impulsive decision to both communicate (endearingly I might add) with his son and present a contrast all at the same time -- a father's love letter on a monster's stationery. 

Helms' letter also includes a number of other messages that characterize to his son why the world was so crazy at the time and what had to be done:

• "The man who might have written on this card once controlled Europe, three short years ago when you were born."
• "He was a force for evil."
• "His passing [and] his defeat [are] a boon for mankind, but thousands died that it might be so."

The main message, of course, rings true as mentioned many times by this author.  Freedom is not free.  There will never be an end to evil.  And America must always be prepared to defend freedom and protect its citizens.

Independence Day 2013 -- July 4, 2013

The airwaves and blogosphere will be filled with words about what America means, and how it means to be free.  I won't add to them here, except to post one of the most remarkable renditions of the Star Spangled Banner ever recorded.  The year is 1997, the musical score is original, and the second verse lyrics are powerful.  But what's most remarkable is her voice.  Only a voice as strong as Sandi's could carry the score.  If you haven't heard it before, sit back, block out other competing inputs, close your eyes and open your ears, and enjoy.

And if you decide to listen a second time, this time watch how hard the pianist in the background is working.

A happy and blessed 4th to you all!

The Surveillance Controversy and the Consequences of Technology

The controversy over the National Security Agency's surveillance programs is not a mere kerfuffle, like other "scandals" which often dominate the news.  I thought an opinion piece would provide a better perspective than the reader will hear or see on MSNBC, CNN, or "Crossfire-like" news shows.

What is central to this issue is one factor that cannot be denied or ignored.  As technology brings us more convenience, more connection, and more ways of communicating with others across the globe, we also become less safe.  That is because the bad guys use these methods as well, to plot their nefarious deeds while evading law enforcement authorities.  And, the fact that these communication applications are free (Facebook, Twitter, Skype) and available globally means that there is no cost to the bad guys for staying ahead of the game.  Because such is true in all war, whether it is waged with bullets, words, or intelligence.  The high ground, or being ahead of your opponent, is essential to victory.  That is why all of the more recent successful ventures in communication and social networking (Facebook, Twitter, Skype) are naturally included in NSA's surveillance, along with email and texting.

Case in point.   After 9-11, our intelligence authorities realized that they could snoop on bad guys using cell phones, voice prints, and text messages, and find them anywhere on the globe.  Also, we could kill them using triangulation of the cell phone signal and a missile fired from a Predator UAV.  Tracking and disposing of terrorists was so easy then.

A simple technique to defeat
surveillance program, sent
via text message with attached photos

The terrorists caught on and used the next innovation/ feature to evade detection. Bin Laden may have sent out messages by mule from his hideout in Abbottabad, but other terrorists exploited the fact that the average cell phone was capable of sending photos from phone to phone.  Computers could analyze text in real time, find voiceprints in real time, and triangulate cell signals, but they couldn't analyze pictures; they couldn't analyze pixels and distinguish between a photo of a couple on the beach or a terrorist holding an AK-47.  So terrorists began communicating by sending pictures with handwritten messages (see the silly example on the right).  It became a very efficient and elegant way to defeat massive surveillance programs. 

THAT's why we need these programs.  As our marketplace provides us with more efficient and innovative ways to stay connected, this same marketplace is providing the terrorists with newer ways to plot their deeds.  When combined with a porous border, easy access to our university system, a welcoming immigration policy, and political correctness,  it is inevitable that the very cultural characteristics which make us America also make us vulnerable.

I'm not strictly defending NSA here.   It would be prudent for Congress to authorize a "citizen advocate" who represents the public at the FISA court proceedings, and a "citizen privacy board" whose job it is to ascertain that NSA is doing nothing wrong with the metadata they collect and store.  [These are not my ideas, incidentally, but they derive from the suggestions of Greta Van Susteren.]

And, lest you think that this is unique to American history, I'll remind everyone that America suffered similar problems in the 1920s, 1950s, and even the 1800s, when our open borders posed risk to citizens.  In the 1920s, anarchists and communists flooded into America from eastern and southern Europe.  In the 1950s, war refugees who, in truth, were either enemies or Communist spies flooded into America when we opened our generous arms to a broken continent.  We have lived through such problems and we no doubt will survive again. 

The dastardly Thenardier and his wife

Victor Hugo's classic, Les Miserables, has an amusing wrap-up about one character at the end of the novel.  When the main story is over, and the hero and protagonist (Jean Valjean) has passed on, Hugo's novel describes -- surprisingly -- an immigrant who sails across the sea from France to America.  It is none other than the villain Thenardier -- the crooked innkeeper and the wicked guardian of innocent Cosette.   Hugo's story has Thenardier leaving France and becoming an American slavetrader.  [Note:  you won't find this scene in any of the recent movies or theatrical productions -- you'll have to read the original version of the novel.]

No doubt Hugo closed out the story of Thenardier to reveal just how depraved he was.  But that Hugo chose this for the last mention of the fate of Thenardier is clear.  Even back in 1862, when Les Miserables was published, our nation had already earned its reputation for open doors and being a haven for the lawless.  To Victor Hugo, it was perfectly logical for Thenardier to become an American and prosper, albeit at an illegal and immoral trade.

The USA survived in the 19th century and we will survive now.  But it is time for another delicate balancing between privacy and protection.

Remembering D-Day, June 6, 1944

Most of us probably don't know the details of D-Day, beyond what we viewed in Saving Private Ryan, which focused on the invasion at Omaha Beach; and Band of Brothers, which focused on the 101st Airborne.

GIs returning years wondered how they did it.

Yet, there were many more acts of heroism that day, 69 years ago today.  One that has always been most poignant to me was the actions of the Army Rangers climbing Pointe Du Hoc.  PDH was a very important part of D-Day because the bluff overlooked both Omaha and Utah beaches and was bristling with large guns which could wreak havoc on the invading troops.  PDH was bombed extensively in advance of the invasion but General Eisenhower knew that it must be taken out and occupied by troops.  The Rangers got the call. Their mission was to scale the sheer cliff face, up to 100 feet high, and assault the concrete bunkers which housed the German troops and the 155 mm guns.
 
Germans atop the bluff were firing straight down at the climbing GIs and dropping grenades over the edge.  But the Rangers were not deterred.  When ladders were thrown down by the enemy, the Rangers began using ropes and even their bayonets as steps.  The determination of these young men was astonishing.  They knew the criticality of their role.

Years later, some of the now middle-aged men would return to Pointe du Hoc, look up the cliff, and wonder out loud, "how did we ever do this?"

So, today's post is dedicated to the Army Rangers who fought the enemy, on D-Day, atop Pointe du Hoc.  These are the same men that President Reagan called the "Boys of Pointe du Hoc,"  memorialized in his speech at Normandy on June 6, 1984.  It's a keeper.

Memorial Day - Remembering the Fallen

Today is the day to remember the fallen.  There will be no shortage of words published today, no shortage of pundits exhorting Americans to remember our fallen soldiers while they barbecue, hit the beach, and celebrate a holiday with family and friends.

I don't want to necessarily add to those exhortations.  This posting is a private reflection of mine, focused on the immortal words from Canadian poet John McCrae:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place, and in the sky,
The larks, still bravely singing, fly,
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead; short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe!
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high!
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Perhaps the most poignant line in the poem is "if ye break faith with us who die."  We owe our fallen a debt, to preserve the freedom that they died for. 

It remains my view that this contract has already been broken in Europe, where those descended from the Vikings, Romans, and Greeks are now afraid of war.  They live lives dependent on their governments, yielding passively to aggression caused by emboldened, backward peoples from other lands.  They have disarmed themselves in the mistaken belief that, without weapons, they will ensure peace -- that their enemies' hearts will be softened and they, too, will willingly become pacifist.  How they arrive at such misguided views is beyond comprehension at times.

The truth is this.  Freedom is not free, freedom is not easy.  Many, many men have died so that we could be free.  Remembering this simple truth is my exhortation to you all on this Memorial Day.

F-35B Milestone - Vertical Takeoff and Landing

Yours truly remembers back in 2001 when Lockheed Martin won the Joint Strike Fighter contract, over Boeing.  At the time it was the DOD's largest ever contract award, $19 billion with a total potential of over $100 billion.

In my own small way I had a role in this win, and the company I worked for at the time, SM&A, had an ever larger role.  SM&A managed the proposal effort for Lockheed Martin at their Fort Worth facility.  The effort lasted for several years and was LM's largest investment in SM&A to date.  While I didn't close the deal, because I assumed the role of VP Business Development after the engagement began, I did spend time in Forth Worth over several years reviewing proposal drafts and competitive strategy.

The stakes of the outcome were enormous.  Both Boeing and Lockheed had been working for years on this competition, funded in part by the DOD.

When the contract award was announced for Lockheed Martin, it was a vindication of SM&A's support to LM, the excellence of the proposal effort, and the brilliance of the proposal strategy.  These details cannot be divulged here;  sufice it to say that the USAF Acquisition executive at the time said that LM's proposal was the most flawless, excellent effort she had seen.

I am reminded of this because the F-35 just reached what might be its most difficult milestone, passing the STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) test at Patuxent River.  The USMC will be procuring the F-35B, and it is this variant that requires STOVL, and STOVL was perhaps the most challenging part of the technical requirement for this multi-use aircraft.  The only other STOVL aircraft to have ever entered production, worldwide, was the AV-8B Harrier jump-jet, which is still in operation but is technically ancient.

So, enjoy this Youtube video of the F-35B, from May 20, 2013:

Incidentally, I still remember where I was when the announcement came that LM had won the JSF.  It was a Friday afternoon in October, and I had cut out early for a weekend on Catalina Island with the Indian Guides.  My secretary called me, just before we lost cell phone contact, informing me that "Lockheed won!" at about 1:45 PST (4:45 (EST) that day.