OBOF TYMHM & MORE PART 39

Home

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

&

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR THREE

 

Name	Published
OVERVIEW
OBOF & TYMHM PART 14	Dec  18, 2012
OBOF & TYMHM PART 15	Jan.  02, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16	Jan.  08, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16 EXTRA	Jan.  11, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 17	Jan.  15, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 18	Jan.  22, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 19	Jan.  29, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 20	Feb.  05, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 21	Feb.  14, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 22	Feb.  20, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23	Feb.  27, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23 SPECIAL	Mar.  06, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 24	Mar.  07, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25	Mar.  12, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25-EXTRA	Mar.  14, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 26	Mar.  19, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 27	Mar.  26, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 28	Apr.   02, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 29	Apr.   08, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 30	Apr.   17, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 31	Apr.   23, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 32	Apr.   30, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 33	May   07, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 34	May   18, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 35	May   21, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 36	May   30, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 37	June  05, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 38	June  11, 2013
OBOF & TYMHM PART 39	June  18, 2013

 

 

IN THIS ISSUE

1.  Opening thoujghts.

2.  GOOD NEWS.  F-35A flight.

3.  Secret Trade Agreement.

4.  Two Centers of uncontrollable power.

5.  Remember the Norm.  Here we go again in war.

 

 

 

 

 

OPENING THOUGHTS

By Floyd Bowman

Publisher "Opinions Based On Facts

June 18, 2013

First, just a short personal note:  My broken leg is doing fine.  Walking a little with a walker and can even drive again.

There is plenty of bad news to bring to you, but I have been trying to find some good news to start with.  That is kind of hard to find.  However, the first item is, to some degree, good news. 

On March 19, 2013 OBOF PART 26, I gave you very negative information regarding the F-35 Joint Fighter Plane.  At the time, I was able to negate much of the bad news.  NOW, the following report is of real positive news.

~

F-35A Completes First In-Flight Missile Launch

Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

  June 07, 2013

An F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 C5 AAVI (AMRAAM Air Vehicle Instrumented) earlier this week. The flight was conducted by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. George "Boxer" Schwartz.  The aircraft, known as AF-1, launched the missile over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range from the internal weapons bay.

This is the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch - paving the way for targeted launches later this year in support of Block 2B fleet release capability.

Recently, the Air Force F-35A variant has seen significant development in training and operations, to include: the beginning of pilot training at Eglin Air Force Base, the delivery of the first operational test aircraft to Edwards and Nellis Air Force Bases, the first operational pilot aerial refueling and the completion of high angle of attack testing.

"It's a testament to the entire military-industry test team.  They've worked thousands and thousands of hours to get to this point- to where we are today," said Schwartz, who in addition to his role as a test pilot serves as the F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) Director at Edwards.  "It's fantastic to see that it's all paid off. We're rolling into a lot of additional weapons work in the coming months to put that expanded capability on the aircraft."

The F-35A 5th Generation fighter is designed to carry a payload of up to 18,000 pounds using 10 weapon stations.  The F-35A features four internal weapon stations located in two weapon bays to maximize stealth capability. The CTOL aircraft can also utilize an additional three external weapon stations per wing if required.

The U.S. Air Force has established an F-35A initial operating capability (IOC) target date of December 2016.  By this date, the Air Force will have fielded an operational squadron with 12 or more aircraft with airmen trained and equipped to conduct basic close air support, interdiction and limited suppression and destruction of enemy air defense operations in a contested environment.

Moving into the active phase of weapons test is another large step toward delivering Block 2B software capability that will enable initial combat deployment. "We've spent years working on the design of the aircraft, and many months ensuring that weapons could be contained within the aircraft and dropped as designed.  This event is the result of tremendous effort and collaboration in the F-35 enterprise, and marks a turning point in F-35 capabilities; the AIM-120 launch is one small, but critical increment toward proving combat capability,"  said Charlie Wagner, F-35 Weapons Director.

The 5th generation F-35 Lightning II combines advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for other countries.

~~~
Secret Trade Agreements

Threaten to Undo Our Last Shreds of

Food Safety

 

Katherine Paul and

 Ronnie Cummins

AlterNet / News

Investigation

 Saturday 15 June 2013

 

Thoughts from FLOYD:

Last week I posted an article Corporations are Colonizing Us with Trade Deals, and Wall Street Wants In

 

The following is more opinion based on facts, as near as I can determine.  These trade negotiations are so secret that it is hard to tell, for sure, what is fact.  It is pointed out that most people don't even know that such trade agreements are being developed.  "The Powers That Be," have done a superb job of cover up.  Congress knows nothing as to what is included in these negotiations and, apparently, can't find out either.

 

As all of you, who have followed me, even for a short time, know, I am an Obama man, BUT I am very disappointed in some of his actions, so far, in his second term.  It's like he has just washed his hands from these trade agreements and just let the Corporate boys take over.  If he let's these agreements continue to the end and then signs these agreements without any public debate and without Congress having some say in the final drafts, then he has really dropped the ball big time. 

 

I strongly suggest that you go back and read last week's article and then see how this one all ties together.  Folks, I don't know anymore about all this than you do when you have read these two articles, but it sounds to me as though they could be bad news for everyone, except big corporations and Wall Street.  I urge you to keep this in mind and watch for more information in this regard.  I will watch for more and give it to you as I see any.  There is a lot more involved here than just food, which is bad enough.

~

 

If you think the U.S. government is doing a sub-par job of keeping your food safe, brace yourself.  You could soon be eating imported seafood, beef, or chicken products that don’t meet even basic U.S. food safety standards.  Under two new trade agreements, currently in negotiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be powerless to shut down imports of unsafe food or food ingredients.  And if it tries, multinational corporations will be able to sue the U.S. government for the loss of anticipated future profits.

More frightening?  Negotiations for both agreements are taking place behind closed doors, with input allowed almost exclusively from the corporations and industry trade groups that stand to benefit the most.  And the Obama Administration intends to push the agreements through Congress without so much as giving lawmakers access to draft texts, much less the opportunity for debate.

Designed to grease the wheels of world commerce, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would force the U.S. and other participating countries to “harmonize” food safety standards. That means all countries that sign on to the agreement would be required to abide by the lowest common denominator standards of all participating governments.

So for instance, say Vietnam allows higher residues of veterinary antibiotics in seafood than the U.S. allows, and Vietnam and the U.S. both sign on to the TPP. As a trade partner, the U.S. could be forced to lower its standards to allow for imports of seafood from Vietnam – or face a lawsuit by the seafood exporter for depriving the company of future sales of its products in the U.S.

The U.S. has already had a taste of this type of policy under the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA).  In 2005, the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade sued the U.S. government for banning imports of beef and live Canadian cattle after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Canada.  In the end, the U.S. prevailed, but not until it had spent millions to defend itself in court.  Mexico wasn’t so fortunate when three companies (Corn Products International, ADM/Tate & Lyle and Cargill) sued the Mexican government for preventing imports of high fructose corn syrup.  Mexico lost all three cases, and was forced to pay out a total of $169.18 million to the three firms.

 

Among the many gifts to Big Ag contained in the TTIP and TPP? Back-door entry for their genetically modified seeds and crops. Countries, including those in the European Union, could find it increasingly difficult to ban, or even require the labeling of, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), if biotech companies determine that those countries’ strict policies restrict fair trade and infringe on the companies’ “rights” to profit.

 

The TTIP and the TPP are, individually and combined, two of the largest free trade agreements in world history.  According to the Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) the TPP alone covers 40 percent of the global economy.  That percentage will likely grow, because the agreement allows for other countries, besides the 12 currently involved, to “dock on” after the agreement is in place.

Both the TTIP and TPP could have dangerous consequences for food safety in the U.S., and around the world.  But they’re not limited to food or agriculture policy.  Both also contain sweeping policies that could affect everything from the environment and sustainability, to healthcare, Internet freedom and the financial markets.

Given the potential of these agreements to shape global policy on so many fronts, it’s reasonable to assume that negotiators would actively solicit, and take into careful consideration, input from the affected parties, including consumers, farmers and governments.  Instead they’ve taken the opposite approach.  From day one, negotiations for the TTIP and TPP have been shrouded in secrecy.  The public and participating governments, including the U.S. Congress, have been shut out of the negotiating process, denied access to everything from early proposals to final draft texts.

Why the secrecy?  The Obama Administration wants as little public debate as possible, so it can ram the agreements through Congress using something called “Fast Track.”  Fast Track, a product of the Nixon presidency, strips Congress of its authority to control the content of a trade deal and hands that authority over to the executive branch.  Congress gets a vote, but only after the negotiations have been completed, and the agreements have been signed.  No debate.  No amendments.  Just a fast, forced vote, too late for Congress to have any influence.

According to the CTC, two-thirds of Democratic freshmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have expressed serious reservations about the TPP negotiations and the prospect of giving Fast Track authority to the President.  And more than 400 organizations representing 15 million Americans have already petitioned Congress to do away with Fast Track in favor of a more democratic approach to trade agreement negotiations. So far, those pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

If the public is shut out, and Congress gets no say, who gets a seat at the table?  Corporations.  That’s right.  The Obama Administration is trusting corporations like Dow AgroSciences, Cargill and DuPont, and trade groups like the Pork Producers Council and Tobacco Associates, Inc., to write food safety policies.  In all, more than 600 corporations have been given access to drafts of various chapters of the TPP.  Requests for the same level of access, from members of Congress and from the public, have been denied.

 

No wonder then that, according to leaked drafts obtained by groups like the CTC, Public Citizen and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), the TPP contains proposals designed to give transnational corporations “special rights” that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens, says Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the CTC.  Experts who have reviewed the leaked texts say that TPP negotiators propose allowing transnational corporations to challenge countries’ laws, regulations and court decisions, including environmental and food safety laws.  Corporations will be allowed to resolve trade disputes in special international tribunals.  In other words, they get to do an end run around the countries’ domestic judicial systems, effectively wiping out hundreds, if not more, domestic and international food sovereignty laws.

 

U.S. consumers aren’t the only ones who should be up in arms about these trade agreements, the secrecy around their negotiations, and the Obama Administration’s intent to fast-track them.  Under the TTIP and TPP, consumers in countries that have stricter food safety regulations than those in the U.S. will see their standards lowered, too.  For instance, Japan prohibits the use of peracetic acid to sterilize vegetables, fruits and meat, while the U.S., Canada and Australia allow it. Japan’s health ministry, in anticipation of the TPP, has said the country will add the acid to its approved list.  In all, Japan has approved only about 800 food additives, to the more than 3,000 approved in the U.S. Japan’s consumers could soon see a sudden reversal of laws enacted to protect their health.

 

European consumers will also suffer. Europe has long used the precautionary principle to ban ractopamine in meat, chlorine rinses of poultry and the use of rBGH growth hormone in milk production.  Under the TTIP, Europe could be forced to allow all three in order to meet the lowest common denominator rule.  The precautionary principle removes the burden of proof from policymakers, allowing them to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm, given the lack of scientific proof to the contrary.  But that principle flies out the window under TTIP rules.

 

~~~

 

The Two Centers of Unaccountable Power in America, and Their Consequences.

Robert Reich

NationofChange / Op-Ed

 Friday 14 June 2013

 

There are two great centers of unaccountable power in the American political-economic system today — places where decisions that significantly affect large numbers of Americans are made in secret, and are unchecked either by effective democratic oversight or by market competition.

One goes by the name of the “intelligence community” and its epicenter is the National Security Agency within the Defense Department. If we trusted that it reasonably balanced its snooping on Americans with our nation’s security needs, and that our elected representatives effectively oversaw that balance, there would be little cause for concern. We would not worry that the information so gathered might be misused to harass individuals, thereby chilling free speech or democratic debate, or that some future government might use it to intimidate critics and opponents. We would feel confident, in other words, that despite the scale and secrecy of the operation, our privacy, civil liberties, and democracy were nonetheless adequately protected.

 

But the NSA has so much power, and oversight of it is so thin, that we have every reason to be concerned. The fact that its technological reach is vast, its resources almost limitless, and its operations are shrouded in secrecy, make it difficult for a handful of elected representatives to effectively monitor even a tiny fraction of what it does. And every new revelation of its clandestine “requests” for companies to hand over information about our personal lives and communications further undermines our trust. To the contrary, the NSA seems to be literally out of control.

 

 

The second center of unaccountable power goes by the name of Wall Street and is centered in the largest banks there. If we trusted that market forces kept them in check and that they did not exercise inordinate influence over Congress and the executive branch, we would have no basis for concern. We wouldn’t worry that the Street’s financial power would be misused to fix markets, profit from insider information, or make irresponsible bets that imperiled the rest of us. We could be confident that despite the size and scope of the giant banks, our economy and everyone who depends on it were nonetheless adequately protected. 

But those banks are now so large (much larger than they were when they almost melted down five years ago), have such a monopolistic grip on our financial system, and exercise so much power over Washington, that we have cause for concern. The fact that not a single Wall Street executive has been held legally accountable for the excesses that almost brought the economy to its knees five years ago and continues to burden millions of Americans, that even the Attorney General confesses the biggest banks are “too big to jail,” that the big banks continue to make irresponsible bets (such as those resulting in JP Morgan Chase’s $6 billion “London Whale” loss), and that the Street has effectively eviscerated much of the Dodd-Frank legislation intended to rein in its excesses and avoid another meltdown and bailout, all offer evidence that the Street is still dangerously out of control. 

It is rare in these harshly partisan times for the political left and right to agree on much of anything. But the reason, I think, both are worried about the encroachments of the NSA on the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, as well as the depredations of “too big to fail or jail” Wall Street banks on our economy, is fundamentally the same: It is this toxic combination of inordinate power and lack of accountability that renders both of them dangerous, threatening our basic values and institutions. 

That neither Republicans nor Democrats have done much of anything to effectively rein in these two centers of unaccountable power suggests that, if there is ever to be a viable third party in America, it will may borne of the ill-fated consequences. 

~~~

Remember the Norms!

 

 

By John Dickerson

 Friday, June 14, 2013

 

 

Thoughts from FLOYD:

HERE WE GO AGAIN

Haven't we heard this song played before, about 12 years ago?  One step at a time and we are back just like Iraq, with the red line crossing being chemical weapons again.

As Chris Mathews, of the "Hard Ball" show on MSNBC said 6-17-13, "Where's the vote?"  No vote by Congress, or anyone besides the President.  The following article pretty well lays out what has happened up to now. 

MR. PRESIDENT, DON'T GET US INTO ANOTHER WAR THAT WE CAN'T WIN AND CAN'T GET OUT OF.  HOW MANY OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN WILL DIE IN THIS WAR THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT?  THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WARS OVER THERE AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE.  WE CAN'T EVEN TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN PROBLEMS LET ALONE TRYING TO SOLVE THE REST OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS.

~

 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

If Obama’s decision to arm the Syrian opposition comes under fire, he’ll need a better rallying cry to explain why America got involved in the first place.

·612

 

· 

· 

·

· 

·

·

·

·

·

For months, President Obama has been resisting the chorus of voices outside the administration (and the advisers closer at hand) asking that he back Syria’s rebels.                                                                                                                    The death toll climbed to nearly 93,000, and the president did not move. Refugees flooding in to Jordan by the thousands each day didn't change his mind.  Worries that the Syrian civil war was destabilizing the region didn't move him.  Nor did the increased involvement of Hezbollah. This week, former President Bill Clinton (in his own uniquely colorful way) said Obama should act. Now, the president is moving. In a brisk escalation of the U.S. involvement in Syria, the United States will provide military aid to rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad. The move, we are told, came after U.S. intelligence determined that the Syrian regime has deployed chemical weapons, resulting in up to 150 deaths.

The understandable question presents itself: Why are 150 deaths the tipping point when nearly 93,000 were not?  White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes explained that by using chemical weapons, Syria has violated international norms. 

Remember the norms!  That is not exactly a rallying cry, but if the United States one day finds itself bogged down in Syria, it is the one the administration has chosen.  There is always a tension in foreign policy between its inherent messiness, which keeps presidents from taking action, and the clean and clear justifications used to explain action once they decide to take it.  We're seeing that play out now in Syria.                                                                                                                        

The confusion results from the fact that foreign policy is calculus, which is about change and complexity, but presidents have to make it seem like algebra, which is about orderly operations.  The press exacerbates the tension, too. Bill Clinton’s remarks were written up as a sharp critique of Obama, but when you look at what Clinton was saying, it was actually very measured.  “Sometimes it’s just best to get caught trying,” said Clinton, “as long as you don’t overcommit—like, as long as you don’t make an improvident commitment.” Not getting caught making an “improvident commitment” was exactly what Obama was worried about.

Obama highlighted this tension between calculus and algebra in his most famous comments about Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles.  He said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would constitute crossing a "red line."  The term has a specific meaning. When a red line is crossed, something happens.  That's what administration officials are claiming has happened—Assad went too far, and Obama is taking action. 

But the president's original comments were never so black and white: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.” (You can tell a president is not trying to be clear when he starts talking backward: “a red line for us is … ”)

The algebraic formulation would be that if Assad used chemical weapons, the United States would retaliate.  That would have been too much, so instead the president invoked calculus.  There were loopholes. What constitutes a "whole bunch" of chemical weapons?  The president also never promised what would happen after the line was crossed, only that the president would change his “calculus.”

The president's remarks were probably a bluff meant to keep Assad from launching a massive chemical attack.  Now that Assad has tested Obama’s resolve, we're learning what a relatively small-scale attack triggers.  But we're not learning much.  Despite the administration saying that a red line has been crossed, there is a good deal of vagueness about what is going to happen.  Rhodes said he would not lay out the administration’s next steps in specific detail.  There may be legitimate reasons for this secrecy (more calculus), but it highlights another reason you shouldn't talk about foreign policy like arithmetic.  Even the very idea that the president is now taking military action to support the rebels is a bit of a dodge because it has been an open secret for a while that CIA and military personnel are in Syria helping train rebels and making sure weapons get to the right resistance fighters, as opposed to the radicals or those affiliated with al-Qaida.

The next move will be reported (or leaked) soon enough.  Then the public will start to determine whether the violation of norms justified whatever action the president ordered.  The president has already confronted this complexity in Libya, where he tried to justify intervention to a war-weary nation on the basis of norms.  In that instance, the president said that the international community had the responsibility to intervene when a state fails to protect its population from mass atrocities.  The president described protecting the innocent in Libya as an American value.  And allowing Qaddafi to massacre his people would have "stained the conscience of the world."  But he added a second variable to the equation—the United States was taking action in Libya because it had the unique military capability to do so.  In Syria, it doesn’t look like the president is going to add that second element; his advisers say he has ruled out boots on the ground or a no-fly zone (although that may be slipping, too).  For now, norms will have to do.

The problem with using norms as a pretext for action is that norms are inherently slippery.  They shift and move by design. The application of norms is selective and contingent on the political context.  Usually what we want is an explanation of why acting is in our national interest.  The problem is that the president appears to have shot down all the other good reasons to intervene.  When you're justifying your actions on nothing more than norms, you're already in a weak place.  When you don’t admit it and try to use those very norms to sell your policy, you’re in an even weaker place.

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again next Tuesday June 25, 2013.

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America.

Floyd