10 Forward, the Holodeck, and a New Coin

Yesterday, I was hanging out in the bustling metropolis of Tullahoma, TN. In one of the buildings, the break room was labeled 10 Forward and the conference room (probably with video teleconferencing equipment) was labeled the Holodeck. I geeked out a little. And by a little, I mean a lot.

I also got a coin. It's a military thing. I think this particular coin is a Squadron coin, which is pretty cool, but well down the list of importance. I'm still waiting for my three-star coin. I've been due one for almost a year. I think they forgot about us.

Speaking of forgetting about you: yes, I have forgotten all about you, my loyal minions.

Did Anyone Get the Plate Number of that Bus?

Are Those Tire Tracks on My Back?

There are moments. You can feel them coming. You're watching the bus speeding toward you, but there's nothing you can do. Then, you feel a hand on your shoulder - someone is going to pull you back - but, no, they just shove you to the ground, so as to not damage the bus.

Friday afternoon, I'm in a meeting. We're working out details of a great technical plan that will meet all the goals we've been given. The big problem is the politics. It won't play well at the higher levels. But it's a great technical solution. We also develop some other solutions that aren't as good technically, but the politics are better.

I get back to my desk to find that there's going to be a big meeting this morning with lots of important people to dsicuss all sorts of details. I walk over and talk to one of the guys pulling it together and tell me what we've been talking about (the great technical solution). He asked if we had any PowerPoint sldies, and I told him we didn't. It was all discussion.

This morning, I have an email waiting for me asking if we're going to have slides on that topic. Different guy than who I talked to, but they work together. I replied, no, we don't have anything. However, knowing how the Agency works, I start pulling something together. About 10 minutes later, I get the sign-off from my supervisor and send a single slide to my boss(es) and the guy who asked if we had anything.

Off we go into the meeting. Started at nine, scheduled to end at noon. A little before one, we get to the topic. It had come up briefly a couple times, but they always said "we'll talk about that later." They bring the slide up on the screen, and someone asks if my chief engineer would like to brief it. He, in turn, asks my boss if he'd like to brief it. My boss suggests that the person who made the slide should brief it.

SON OF A -

So I leave my relative safety of the crowd and go sit at the table. (I have to be at a microphone.) For the record, I saw this coming about the time they opened the file. Not soon enough to run, but like the metaphor I started with, I saw the bus coming.

Let me back up a second, here's who was at the meeting:

My supervisor (who approved the slide)My boss (saw the slide for 30 seconds at the start of the meeting)
My program chief engineer (my boss' boss)My deputy program director (chief engineer's boss)
The Agency System Engineer (my boss' boss through a different chain of command)
The Agency Chief Engineer (chief engineer's boss through a different chain of command)
The Agency Deputy for Engineering (the highest engineer, he reports directly to a 3-star general)
The Agency Deputy for Program Management (a one-star general, who was out of the room at the time)
The Agency Deputy for Test (a two-star general)
At least 2 other Senior Executives (civilian equavalent of one-star general)
A full colonel, a lieutenant colonel, and several senior managers

That's about as senior a meeting as we have, at least that I can get in the door of. And, with 30 seconds notice, I'm about to brief them a slide I created in 10 mnutes.

I rocked.

The technical solution I like was going to be a hard sell, and it was. But the Deputy for Engineering said that his direction was to bring options, and this was an option. Not one he expected to be possible, but a technical option that meets the requirements for the test.

After the meeting (finally) ended, my supervisor told me "not bad for a 10-minute slide," my boss came over and shook my hand and told me I did a good job, and the meeting organizer guy (the one from Friday) told me I did a very good job. Like I said,

I rocked.

Guns on Campus Rant

With the recent rash in campus shootings, it’s an understandable time to question to think about firearms in general, and concealed carry in particular, on an academic campus. My motivation for writing is a Facebook group I ran across: [College Name] Against Guns on Campus. They make several points which I will respond to in this post, but I will also generalize beyond one college campus to discuss the issue as I see it for the larger population, expanding to discuss other concealed carry or gun control laws as I see fit. I won’t cite a lot of statistics (or any if I can help it), but will try to focus on the whys behind the issue.

From [College Name] Against Guns on Campus:

This is a group to unite the students, faculty, and community of [College] who believe that guns on campus should not be allowed.

There are three clear scenarios when it comes to guns on campus:

1) School Shootings
2) Campus Crime
3) Recklessness

That seems like a limited number of “clear scenarios,” but it’s as good a place to start as any. They go through the logic for each scenario. Let’s begin:

1) In school shootings many victims said it “happened too fast” in order to defend themselves, had they been carrying a gun.

In reference to the shooting at Virginia Tech, [This College] President [. . . ] believes that if a student had been carrying a gun, in defense, he would have “gotten shot” in all the confusion; the police were simply looking for a student with a gun. How would the police or other armed students distinguish between the shooters and the victims? Armed students would not function as a tactically trained group, as the police; it could turn into fire frenzy.

“Many victims”? What kind of evidence is that? That’s the equivalent of the “some guy” argument. I can find “many” somebodies who’ll say most anything. Ron Paul just won a straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Committee. That tells you there are “many” idiots, even when you eliminate a known source of idiots (that is, liberals). And not to put too fine a point on it, but these are the victims. They were too slow to do anything about the shootings. The people with better reactions ran away when the shooting started.

No one (sane) argues that simply by allowing concealed carry on campus that there would never be another shooting. A shooting like the one at Discovery Middle School in Madison, AL (see link above) can probably never be completely avoided. The best anyone can do in that case is react when it happens, and since reaction is after everything is over, not much can be done. The shooter stopped himself. That does not necessarily mean that allowing concealed carry on campus would do absolutely nothing to prevent those shootings. For one, it creates the possibility that someone between the shooter and the target will be armed and capable of taking a shot before the attacker. It’s no guarantee, and it might happen one time in a thousand, but it’s not nothing.

In the second paragraph, the wise President of [College] asserts that his campus police and other police are too stupid to recognize an attacker from someone defending himself. This is going to be important later on, but for now, let me focus on his argument. His argument is that the police will shoot first and ask questions later. While that makes for a fun movie, that’s not how real life works. Police will stand down a suspect with a gun, trying everything in their power not to shoot the guy, even if they just saw him shoot 30 people (so long as he makes no hostile moves). The police can’t be everywhere, and neither can an armed bystander, but in the event an armed bystander is nearby when a shooting starts and the police are not, the bystander only needs to react long enough for the shooting to stop or for the police to get there. The principle of an armed bystander is that he can shoot the attacker, preventing further killing, then stand down and surrender to police when they arrive. The role of the armed citizen isn’t to form mobs or posses to track down the shooter; that is the job of the police. The job of the armed bystander is to secure the immediate area, neutralize the threat, and surrender to the police when they arrive. If the campus police (which I take to mean real police, not CBU rent-a-cops) can’t figure that out, there’s a bigger problem on your campus, Mr. President.

2) Many students take for granted how well operated our campus police is. Last year there were only 4 robberies, in 2008 there were 13, 7 in 2007, and 5 in 2006. The idea that this campus is overwhelmed by criminals is a ridiculous stereotype. As [the President] pointed out earlier, many of these students were unaware of their surroundings and were out late at night.Also, entertaining the idea that you could defend yourself with your own gun while being held at gunpoint is a plot from the movies. You’re hoping that you can draw your weapon before they can twitch their finger.

Now, the campus police are awesome, effectively preventing tons of crimes, except in 2008, when they all took a nap. I will agree that an effective police force on campus will prevent more crime than concealed carry or any other gun law. However, that’s not always possible. Police can be overwhelmed, and even at the best times, can’t be everywhere. The argument that “students were unaware of their surroundings and were out late at night” is a blame-the-victim mentality that should never be allowed in a discussion on crime. Yes, a person can affect their victimology, but crime is caused by criminals, not by a student pulling an all-nighter.

I’m certainly not suggesting that a person could draw a weapon and fire it before a person with an already drawn weapon could fire it. In fact, the best thing to do when faced with a drawn weapon is to turn and run. Hitting a moving target is difficult, especially at night, and even if they do hit you, it’s less likely to be in a vital area. But that’s not the point of concealed carry as crime prevention. First, not all crime is committed with guns. If someone pulls a knife to rob me, I’m still going to give them my money if the criminal has a knife and doesn’t know whether I have a gun or not, do you think they’re going to take a chance on bringing a knife to a gun fight? No one can ever place a value on prevention, because there’s no way to know what might have happened.

I have one more point to make before moving on to the third argument. The two arguments presented so far by the [College Name] Against Guns on Campus have included very poor strawman arguments. That is, they present an argument no one is really making and effectively counter that argument. It’s a nice way to always “win” an argument – control both sides of the debate and present your opponent’s least successful arguments, which you then dismantle, leaving the appearance that your opposition has no point. I try to avoid that, though sometimes the environment is target-rich, and I pick off some low-hanging fruit, just to build some momentum. I do, however, continue arguments past a single posting if someone wishes to offer further debate. I only walk away from discussion when the disagreements become personal.

3) The last major concern is carelessness with guns on campus. I’m sure if there were a statistic on how many drunk, and sober, fights there were on campus, it would be the highest on [campus police]’s website. Introducing guns into this equation is a bad ideaAlso, in 2008, the National College Health Assessment, reported that 31% of students were too “depressed…to function’ and 6% seriously contemplated suicide and 1.3% attempted suicide.

http://www.achancha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA_Reference_Group_ExecutiveSummary_Fall2008.pdf

Now considering these statistics with the stressful reputation that [College] has, why would it be a good idea to allow guns on campus?

Carelessness with guns is a big deal, especially to people who don’t understand guns. Guns don’t just “go off” – they are fired or mishandled. Guns are dangerous, that’s why every war since the discovery of gun powder has used them in some way. Knives are dangerous, too. Free speech is dangerous, that’s why dictators try to suppress it. It’s fair to consider risk / reward with every decision we make, but let’s do so honestly.

My first problem is the mixing of the message – “carelessness” and “fights.” Carelessness is a concern, but a relatively minor one. If any weapon is treated appropriately, it poses no more danger than any other. A knife left out can cut or stab someone accidently, or be used violently. A gun locked in a drawer is safer than your kitchen knife.

Fights aren’t about carelessness. Fights are about immaturity. And bringing a gun to a fight is about stupidity. Maturity has nothing to do with age, but there are limits on who can legally purchase and carry handguns. Federal laws set the minimum age at 21 for purchasing, and most states also limit concealed carry permits to those over 21. So we aren’t talking about but a quarter or so of the undergraduate campus. No one (that I’m aware of) would allow unlimited concealed carry on campus. The same standards for off-campus concealed carry would apply. This usually also involves limits on carrying while around alcohol, though that varies significantly by state and establishment.

In addition, there are more than students on a college campus. There are professors, staff, and all manner of support personnel. Banning concealed carry also affects them. Drinking and fighting may be prevalent among students, and students who live on campus are more directly affected because they’re on campus more, but they are not the only ones in a campus community.

Suicide is a big consideration on college campuses. It’s a big consideration is many environments. If someone is truly dedicated to killing themselves, they will find a way. The reason guns are chosen for suicides (and murders) is because they’re effective, and somewhat easier to get right. Slitting your wrists will kill you, but it hurts, and it takes a while to bleed out. Jumping off a building can kill you, so long as you don’t accidently land on an awning, or choose a building that’s not tall enough, or make some other simple mistake. A gun ends life quickly and is pretty straightforward. And the fact is, people do manage to commit suicide without access to a gun. If someone is truly going to end their own life, they don’t need a gun.

Considering the stressful environment of the military, why would it be a good idea to allow guns there? “Stress” isn’t the factor that causes problems. Stress forces people to react rather than act. When people don’t understand something, they react. The military trains people to react in a certain way to stress, with discipline and focus. College implicitly teaches the exact opposite – stress should be handled with alcohol and parties. I’m not saying people can’t have fun, but I am saying that the problem with guns on campus isn’t with the guns, but with the campus, or more accurately, the environment of the campus that teaches young adults poor ways of handling themselves.

Since my inspiration for this rant was a college movement, I didn’t talk much about high school (or, unfortunately, even lower schools). I did mention Discovery Middle School, only a few miles from my house. Also still fresh on my mind is Columbine High. In those cases, the students weren’t even legally allowed to have guns, but they did, and they used them to kill. That raises a constant observation in the gun rights debate: people who shouldn’t have guns do, and people who follow the rules don’t. Guns were already banned in schools, yet shootings happened. Guns were banned for the shooters, but shootings happened. People who are willing to murder, don’t fear laws about gun possession.

Then, there’s the Constitution. You know, that old document that protects Christian images submerged in urine. Well, it does say something about firearms:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We can debate commas all day long, but the fact is, the document says, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” You can argue about militias and the national guard, and that’s fine, but the fact is the Supreme Court has held that there is an individual right to own a gun and to carry it.

I’m not saying that every person on a college campus should be allowed to carry a gun. What I am saying is that it should not be banned just because it makes someone feel better. There should be an honest, open debate about the real pros and cons of allowing firearms and concealed carry on college campuses (or any school grounds) by those who meet a standard set of criteria. Offering half-truths and misleading statistics isn’t an honest debate.

Priorities Rant

The President has an important job. As “Leader of the Free World” his responsibilities include the military (with two wars), diplomacy (with key focuses on Iran and North Korea), the national and global economy (in the midst of a serious recession), and public policy (healthcare is a big example). During the campaign, President Obama rightly pointed out that the President must multi-task. In his recent State of the Union (SotU) address, the President mentioned dozens of his priorities for the coming year and the next three years of his administration. The trouble is, when everything is a priority, nothing is.

The President has made transforming healthcare a priority. It was absolutely critical that we pass this package before the August Congressional recess. I mean, before Thanksgiving. Well, before the New Year. Er, um, it’s absolutely critical that we pass it. It’s not that I support this version of healthcare reform, I don’t. In fact, I’d be perfectly happy if this President (and really most Presidents) accomplished next to nothing. “Accomplishments” in government almost always mean “bigger, more intrusive government.” If the trade is do nothing or do the wrong thing, I vote for doing nothing.

Back to the President’s priorities, however. The President made healthcare his number one focus, then farmed it out to House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid (among others). If something is my number one, absolutely critical, must-have priority, I’m going to be the one writing the thing. The President can’t focus all his attention on that one issue, of course, but that’s what he has staff for.

Besides, I’m sure those other issues are really keeping the President occupied full time. He’s too busy to give more interviews in his first year than any other President in history. Or fly to Copenhagen to win the Olympics for his cronies in Chicago (October 2009). Or fly to Oslo to accept a Nobel Peace Prize for all the things he might accomplish (December 2009). Or fly to Copenhagen again a week later to speak to the climate change crowd (December 2009). Or call for a Justice Department investigation of the Bowl Championship series in college football (January 2010). Or call for a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the policy excluding openly gay individuals from serving in the military (January 2010).

I want to spend a moment on the last one. For the record, I think everyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to. But the military isn’t McDonald’s. If the guy working the fry station at McDonald’s hates gay people, and the guy working the register is gay, the security of country isn’t affected. If Corporal Smith loses respect for Lt. Jones because the lieutenant is gay, the whole unit is pretty much useless. We’ve come a long way in accepting people in this country. You cannot, CANNOT force someone to end their own prejudices. In the business world, that works itself out. In the military, it does not. The only thing that really bothered me about the announcement of the intention to begin studying the possible repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the blatant political pandering of it. Despite having the same stated position on gay marriage as Senator McCain, people who viewed that as a primary issue in the campaign overwhelmingly preferred then-Senator Obama’s version of it. The only possible reason why is that they didn’t believe him. They believed he was lying about his position in order to win more votes, then he’d break his word and enact something (maybe not full same-sex marriage, but something) that would benefit their key issue. In a year, President Obama has done nothing. So, on the eve of the SotU, it seems like he (more likely an advisor) went down a checklist of supporters – we pushed for cap-and-trade and spoke at Copenhagen, the Greens are covered; we pushed for card check so the unions are good; we have healthcare bills in the works, so that lobby has been addressed; wait, we haven’t thrown a token issue to the gay community. Let’s . . . um, repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” If this had come in the first few months of the Presidency, or when the President’s approval rating wasn’t in the gutter, it would have been different. The only way this could have been more politically timed is if he did this while speaking to a gay group to Get Out the Vote. That would have been politically more dangerous, but still more political.

(What concerns me about changing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the effect on military structure. I mean that in two ways. One way is the kid I referenced before not liking gays and being reluctant to follow orders. The military already does an excellent job of training its members to follow orders, no matter how you feel about the person giving them. Personality conflicts will always exist, that’s why the principle of respecting the rank is so important. What really concerns me is the creation of another dividing factor. As it stands, no one knows if a soldier is gay (at least according to the policy). There’s no reason to think that you’re being treated differently because of it. The minute you add that distinction, every decision must come with the thought of discriminatory aspects. Race can’t be avoided. We are the color we are. But it’s not immediately obvious that a person is gay. Why include something that could be divisive when you don’t have to.)

This President doesn’t have priorities. He has a wish list. And like any kid at Christmas, he wants it all. There’s no thought of saving something for later or even that he can’t play with everything at once anyway. It’s only more, more, more, now, now, now.

Notice what I haven’t mentioned so far: the two wars and terrorism. That’s because even though everything else is a priority, those aren’t. The President responded faster to a procedural vote in the Senate on the healthcare bill than he did to the Christmas Day bombing attempt. The deadline on healthcare was always immediate, but the President took months upon months to decide to support his generals in the field and send more troops to Afghanistan. American troops and the American people are at risk, and the most important item on the agenda is a bill that doesn’t take effect until 2013.

The last point I’ll make is that the President doesn’t seem to know how to take a win. He plays politics to crush the other side, see them broken before him, and hear the lamentations of their women. That’s fine if you’re Conan the Barbarian, but politics doesn’t work that way. You need wins, little ones, to build up to something. On healthcare, he could have let the Republicans write a section on tort reform, included that in the overall bill containing probably everything but a single-payer system, and passed it with more than 70 votes. But that would have been win-win. There is no win-win in this President’s playbook, unless it’s the terrorists getting the win. Domestically, it’s I win, you lose.

Update: I forgot to mention the President's stint as a college basketball analyst on ESPN last March when he explained his bracket to the hosts. Fortunately, the President still had time today to take in a college basketball game (Georgetown) and offer some analysis with the broadcast team. I hope it was as insightful as Lee's favorite: the team that scores the most points is going to win this one.

Now to the Governing

SCOTT BROWN!!!!!

I have no illusions that Scott Brown and I will agree on every vote, but I'll also agree with him a lot more than Coakley.

A great day.

"Hate America" Rant

I didn't intend on this being my next rant. It just jumped out at me this morning. My next rant was going to be the woeful state of educators in America. Before I get angry emails about that, it's not what you think. Well, not entirely. So please hold off on burning me in effigy over a topic I haven't written yet. Today's topic is the implicit hate of Americans by American liberals. This is what set me off:

I removed the user name and picture, but it's from a Facebook friend who has jumped into the college liberalism pool with both feet.

Let me point out a few things:

1) This is from Al Jazeera. For those of you who've been living under a rock for 10 years, Al Jazeera is the "news" outlet that airs the videos of Al Qaeda killing Americans and other Westerners, often showing the actual decapitations. It's the station Usama bin Laden uses to air his own death-to-America rants. To me, it's the propaganda arm of the terrorists. [Warning, invocation of Godwin's Law] Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

2) I did not read the article. I refuse to give the website my traffic. Based on the poster's comments, we can all infer what's said.

3a) The poster's comments: "Sickening. Disturbing" - well, that's my reaction, but I have a feeling it's for a completely different reason.

3b) "Is this really our country?" - hey, some critical questioning, the type of thing we're supposed to be teaching our college students. Maybe this isn't going to be so bad.

3c) "How shameful...what can we we do about it?" - Well, ignore (3a) and (3b). This gem of our education system has completely bought into the propaganda they're selling.

Let me offer the real critical eye the poster should have. I'm not going to harp on the fact that this is Al Jazeera. That should speak for itself.

First, the title and subheading of the article "People and Power - White Power USA: Is the US heading toward a future of racial tolerance or racially motivated violence?" It's not exactly an original question, but journalism doesn't give points for creativity. (Wait, it does? Oh, well not many here, then.) It's worth looking at every once in a while at least. After all, the only people even allowed to vote in America are white people. Wait, you mean we let non-whites share power by voting? Well, at least non-whites are legally barred from public office. They're not? Well, at least we'd never elect a non-white person to a position of real power, just some mayors, maybe state representatives. What do you mean the current President of the United States is African-American? Who let that happen? America has had stolen elections before (1824, 1876), this had to be one of them, right? If you count winning by 10 million votes stolen, sure. President Barack Hussein Obama, an African-American with a Muslim name, was elected President of the United States of America less than eight years after 18 Muslim men flew three planes into symbols of America and were foiled in a fourth attempt. Man, we are a bunch of racist, white-power, violent thugs in this country.

There was a recent incident in Georgia where President Obama was hanged in effigy (that is, a model of Obama was hanged). The incident brings back memories of black Americans being lynched in the south during several eras of American history. It's a horrible chapter, and one that liberals will never let the country live down. Of course, this type of thing never happens to other political figures:

That's George W. Bush burning in effigy, Sarah Palin hanging in effigy, and the liberals' favorite meme, BusHitler. These are all in the spirit of the Golden Rule of Liberalism: OK for me, not for thee. In this case, we address the well-known corollary: only liberals can define what's offensive or racist. Hanging a Republican Presidential candidate in effigy - perfectly acceptable free speech. Burning a Republican President in effigy - perfectly acceptable free speech. Hanging a Democrat President in effigy - that's over the line. The argument is that because the act had a race-based history, that it's especially offensive. Well, I see that bet, and raise you Harry Reid vs. Trent Lott. (I chose a link for Harry Reid that was Reid-positive, by the way. That was intentional. Even so, the difference in reactions is huge.)

America isn't perfect, but let's compare American race-relations to everywhere else in the world. How about the intended audience of Al Jazeera? Let's do a quick Wikipedia search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_World#Non-Arab_people_in_the_Arab_World. "In some cases this has led to severe conflicts . . . which sometimes amounted to denying the existence of or forcibly suppressing non-Arab minorities within their borders." That'll teach us to offer voting rights to our minority populations. When was the last time you heard about forcible suppression of rights in America? Maybe, this story will remind you.

I've already spent way too much time on this rant. Let me sum up. America is far from perfect. Our history is riddled with cases of oppression, mistreatment, and violence against groups for being different. We have made progress. It's not just the election of an African-American President (though I think that's evidence of progress). We have the freest country in the world, for everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. It's perfectly justifiable to push for more freedoms and fight against the injustices that do remain. Criticism of America isn't hating America. Assuming the worst about America and agreeing with a foreign news outlet well known for their hatred of America? Well, you make the call.

Food Rant

Last night, the Food Network aired a special Iron Chef America: Super Chef Battle. The "battle" pitted the team of Iron Chef (Food Network Star) Mario Batali and Super Chef (also Food Network Star Emeril Lagasse against Iron Chef (third Food Network star) Bobby Flay and White House Executive Chef Commerford (not a Food Network Star). Each team also had a third chef who isn't important and won't be mentioned any further. DO NOT MENTION THE THIRD CHEF! Part of every Iron Chef battle, super or not, is a secret ingredient that must be incorporated in each of 5 dishes.

For this battle, the chefs meet on the White House lawn where they are joined by First Lady Michelle Obama. She tells the assembled chefs that their secret ingredient is anything from the White House garden and to take whatever they need. The chefs pick some vegetables and herbs and return to their fancy kitchen in New York where they have an hour to produce 5 dishes (as a team) highlighting the secret ingredient. They are given some traditional American proteins all raised within 100 miles of their current location (New York City, though they never say that).

So far we've hit upon a couple liberal hot-button buzzwords. One, I mentioned - food produced locally (explicitly called out was the proteins). The other is "organic," which all the White House produce was. As you might guess, I'm going to start taking issue now:

First, was the overwhelming propaganda for the White House. OK, maybe not health care takeovers or porkulus bills, but the whole theme of the episode could have been handled without the giant advertisement for the current administration. Most annoying to me is the White House's constant reference to its own historic value (in its own eyes, at least). The most notable use is the President's constant reference to "the failed policies of the last eight years." Look, you're from a different political party; you disagree with your predecessor; I get that. You're the first African-American President. That's pretty historic. You are not, however, the end all and be all of America. "The first garden at the White House since the Victory Gardens during World War II" isn't really a big deal. The First Lady got bored one day and decided someone else should build her and garden, maintain her garden, and let her pose for pretty pictures in the garden. While I admire the historical irony, this garden serves no real purpose other than liberal feelgoodedness (yes, I made that up).

For my next target of opportunity, I'll take on locavorism. That is, eating food grown nearby, usually defined as 50 or 100 miles. First, as an engineer, let me say that any round number like that is complete BS. "Local" food can only be defined in terms of a local ecosystem. And as such hasn't mattered to humans ever. Humans have always defined their own ecosystem. It comes with being at the top of the food chain. Second, let me take issue with the whole concept. It's mind boggling stupid. By definition, it means most of the world can't have citrus fruit, a critical part of nutrition, because citrus isn't grown everywhere. Bananas? Not unless you live in the tropics. And it's cheating if you skate the rule by creating unnatural environments (hot houses, etc.) and grow food in an area where it could never survive naturally. Why is this a liberal issue? Liberals, for some reason, feel bad that they don't really care that much about nature. Sure, they talk about the importance of wild salmon and migrating water fowl, but they've never seen one. They might get dirty. On the other hand, people who work for a living, like farmers, hunters, and fishermen, know the real value of working with the land, taking what it gives, giving back, and not overworking it this year when they need crops for the next several generations. These are the people in "flyover country" who balance out the coasts to make elections close. Liberals try to reclaim this made-up heritage by promoting locavorism. Real people know that you grow what you can locally and trade for other things. Trade routes were the lifeblood of even ancient man. It's what we do. For the record, I haven't worked a day in my life on a farm. My grandparents (both sets) did, and my parents were raised working on farms with gardens (vegetables) and cash crops (cotton).

The other big liberal buzzword is "organic," which they define as "meeting some criteria we dreamed up" (yes, I'm sure there's a real definition, but try getting the same one twice from any two liberal "experts"). Organic, in general, means not using any chemicals and by God (sorry, by Gaia) no genetically modified food. This is another one of those connections to the land the liberals dreamed up to make themselves feel better. In the past, no one used the modified products (herbicides, fertilizers, and crops themselves), so we, great and modern man, shouldn't either. You know why we didn't use them in the past? We hadn't found or made them yet. If they'd been available, you can bet every farmer who could afford them would have used them. But don't liberals have a point? It can't be good to use this stuff. It's not exactly natural. Fair point, but reference what I said before. Farmers aren't just worried about what they get this year. They worry about this year, next year, the next generation, and the next generation. Corporate farms (the evil entities that they are) are focused on profits. But if they get 110% this year and 50% the next 10 years, they're going out of business. Then there's the question of yield. There are well over 6 billion people on earth. They all need to eat. As my dad likes to say, they aren't making any more land. Which translate to: we need more food from the same (or less) space. We HAVE to fertilize, spray for weeds and bugs, and use whatever other tricks we can find to produce enough food so that people don't starve. We aren't out of land yet (mostly because so much good land is wasted in Africa as wars and fighting kill entire crops year after year), but we haven't stopped the population growth, either. We need food. Organic is fine for your little feel-good garden. When your arugula doesn't produce, you go down to the store and buy some. When the corn in Iowa doesn't grow, not only do you not get corn, you don't get beef, pork, or chicken. (Please don't get me started on ethanol, either.) Organic sounds good, and I don't have a problem with your little organic garden, but it's not something to aspire to. It's just a liberal pipe dream.

I mentioned waste before. That's another big deal on any Food Network show. They use things like truffles and saffron, which I'm sure are delicious, but they could buy enough food for half the homeless in America with what they throw away. Consider re-takes, hot lights, and staged food (food half prepared to be swapped with what the chef is preparing on screen). All that gets tossed. On a different Food Network show, I saw a chef comment (in fairness, a trainee who didn't know better) that they just trashed $40 worth of saffron. $40 will buy a basket full of canned veggies (and a semi-truck of Ramen). It's TV; there are costs. I'm not saying they shouldn't be on the air. Keith Olbermann wastes more money on hair products for a single segment. But don't lecture me about my food buying habits, which fit within a much smaller budget. Food Network, all through December, was urging people to support their charity, Save Our Strength, which helps families afford food, especially around the holidays. I'm glad to see Food Network doing that, and I don't even mind asking others to help (you've got a soapbox, let your voice be heard for a good cause), but to air a show where they spent more on food in an hour than I'll spend this month, then lecture me about people not having enough food just leaves a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended).

Local, organic food is a fine concept when you're the leader of the free world with 20 personal chefs, but let's remember, organic means preservative-free, too (which is why it has to be local). I would rather see every American (and every human for that matter) eating imported fruits grown with some safe chemicals added than starve half the planet than letting food waste because it spoils before people eat it, or it can't be produced close enough to people.

You want to know the value of something, ask the people who do the work. Not the people who sit back and take the credit and cast the blame.

Update I: From Fox News

Ironic Chef America

And finally, for months the Food Network promoted an episode of "Iron Chef America" that took place at the White House. The First Lady made a cameo, and the famous "secret ingredient" used in the competition was produce supposedly picked from the White House garden.

But it turns out, the fruits and vegetables used on the show were stunt produce, not actually harvested from the garden. Politics Daily reports the Food Network cited a production delay as the reason for the use of the ringers. One reader comment on the story from someone who believed the veggies were the real deal, and from the White House garden: "I feel like such a fool. Oh the humanity."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583073,00.html

And the lovely and intelligent Michelle Malkin:

Hold on to your hoe. It turns out that the fruits and veggies used in a
special edition of the popular Food Network TV show “Iron Chef America”
featuring first lady Michelle Obama did not, in fact, come from the White House
garden. Could there be a more deliciously fitting symbol of Obama White House
fakery than Garden-Gate?

Some may shrug at this tempest in a colander. But as we approach the
one-year anniversary of the Hope and Change inauguration, the first lady’s
little horticultural hoax serves as a handy metaphor for a cornucopia of Obama
fraud. They’ve stocked health care town halls with partisan goons and
benefactors. They’ve provided lab coats to doctor donors to make their health
care lobbying look more authentic. And they’ve treated soldiers, in President
Obama’s own words, as “pretty good photo ops.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/01/15/phony_fruits_in_the_obama_white_house_garden

I don't really have much to add to what the wonderful Ms. Malkin says. Not only do we get the preachy-ness, but it's not even true. And on the show, everyone was in on it. All the chefs lied. They all talked about the wonderful food they cooked from the White House garden when none of the food they cooked came from the White House garden.