In Hoc Signo Vinces?

 

A Historic Pre-Mortem: The Path Not Taken

This conversation might have actually occurred.

It might have occurred in the Oval Office.

It might occurred on 20 July 2024.

Here it is:

"Mr. President, George Washington, in a letter to Lafayette in 1788 made an observation that sums up the problem you have managed to crystalize.

He said, 'There cannot, in my judgement, be the least danger that the President will by any practicable intrigue ever be able to continue himself one moment in office, much less perpetuate himself in it; but  in the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity; and even then there is as much danger that any other species of domination would prevail. Though, when a people have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes'.

The fact that seventy-four million Americans voted for trump in 2020 and even more appear to be ready to do so again seems to indicate that 'the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity' have arrived in America.

And you have let this last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity be the operative factor in who wins, probably the last presidential election in America.

Why is that the operative factor?

Here's why.

As you are acutely aware, a handful of states actually elect the president, not the population of the Unites States.

As was proven in 2016, when the trump campaign's surgical use of the Manafort/Kilimnik Data Base in five of those states induced enough black voters to pass on voting that all five of those states went to donnie, and with them, the presidency.

Because of bad luck and bad decisions, you have likely lost significant tranches of voters in the various groups that constitute your base; that, in those five, six or seven states, will likely have the same effect on your chances of winning those electors as did the Manafort/Kilimnik Data Base in 2016 against Clinton.

Add to that the widespread republican voter repression actions across our nation and you have an unwinnable contest.

Once decent people have been alienated, or winnowed, enough of the "the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity" are left to tip the balance.

donnie wins; you lose.

And that is not good.

Here, in random order, are what I think have been some of your bad decisions and some of your bad luck.

These things are all having a fatally adverse effect on your chances in the upcoming campaign and election.

Where there is a relationship - bad luck induced by bad decision, or bad decision as a reaction to bad luck, I will make the two immediately adjacent in the list.

The problem with them is that they all have deep influence on your current plight, and they can't be un-done.

Those dice have already been cast.

They can't be un-cast.

So, are you ready?

Good; let's go through them.

Bad Luck: In trump's second impeachment, by verdict day in 2021, the republican party had become so rotten that only seven of the republican senators voted the obvious guilty verdict; that left a deeply wounded and extremely cunning adversary on the playing field ready for violence and mayhem.

Bad Decision: The attorney General you appointed looked good but hasn't panned out.

Bad Luck: The Attorney General you appointed let crucial months elapse before appointing investigative and indictive authority to be brought to the most serious question in the history of our Republic: did the ex-president plan and incite an insurrection? By the time that authority was appointed there was not enough time to find facts, indict and try the case, leaving the therefore un-tried and un-convicted insurrectionist (that deeply wounded and extremely cunning adversary) home free.

Bad Luck: You didn't get to be President until you were 79 years old; that makes you 82 this election year; it is functionally impossible to make a convincing case that your remaining lifespan is highly likely to be the four years of another term in office.

Bad Luck: Kirsten Sinema and Joe Mansion are part of your excruciatingly thin Senate majority. Since they both depend on big business for their office they were unwilling to vote for the most sweeping, and most needed advancement of the social contract since the New Deal; had it passed your place in history and your second term would have been locked; lacking passage, you are totally subject to fate's whimsy and the amount and nature of your luck and the number and quality of your decisions.

Bad Decision: Staying mostly out of sight during term one.  Like Reagan, you should have gone to the nation every time the opposition lie machine invented a new lie or blocked another policy; instead you stayed mute in the White House. That harmed not only your strength of position on a daily basis throughout your term, it has also cumulatively left you, at best, vaguely defined; that is not a good place for a second term aspirant to be. 

Bad Decision: Choosing Kamala Harris as running mate (better could have been Abrams or Buttigieg).

Bad Luck: Kamala Harris has not caught on. That leaves you needing to argue that not only are you likely to live out a second term, or, if you don't you've got Harry Truman in the wings waiting to pick up the baton.  That leaves you talking about abstract hypotheticals instead of meat and potatoes.

Bad Decision: Getting out of Afghanistan without planning for withdrawal with at least Operation Overlord level meticulous planning. The buck still stops with you. That meant that anything short of Swiss watch perfection in withdrawing would be a disaster that you could ill afford to waste time talking about. But that's what you got.

Bad Luck: Twenty years of money, military training and physical, social and financial infrastructure investment collapsed like a house of cards in the face of the return of the Taliban. Here luck intercepts decision: betting on the come because of the investment of all that blood and treasure was a disaster.

Bad Decision: Unconditional support of Netanyahu in his response to the October 7, 2023, massacre of Israelis.

Bad Luck: An otherwise potentially good decision didn't have a chance to really be good because it depended upon the irrational, trapped-animal actions of Netanyahu, a criminal domestically and internationally.

Bad Luck: The republican party has become a mafia-like thing with a godfather-like thing pulling all its strings and making government impossible in the United States.

Bad Luck: An immigration agreement that was a massive step forward for the Country was killed in the house of representatives by the tentacles of that mafia so they could retain a dysfunctional immigration system as a campaign issue.

Bad Luck: A near majority of the American People have entered "the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity".

So, Mr. President, it looks pretty much like you are toast."

The President just stared at his interlocutor. 

"So what's next?"

The presence on the other side of the desk muffled a cough, and then spoke.

"The real answer is I just don't know.

But the only thing I can think of is that we need to figure out damn fast who in the Democratic Party can actually win in 2024.

This must be not only fast, it must also be secret.

And the chosen one needs to be vetted with intensity such as history has never seen; no late breaking surprises can be allowed; no more mistakes can happen.

Of course the Convention needs to be contrived: there should be no announcement of your intention to step down; it must look like an old-fashioned smoke-filled room dog and cat fight with the chosen one coming out nominated.

Of course the narrative of what has happened and how it happened needs to be created and written and agreed to by all the players substantially ahead of time, like right now.

And of course, its promulgation needs to be planned at the level of a streaming service big-buck gamble: every hour/day/week and month of the plot must be flawlessly scripted, understood, rehearsed and incrementally rolled out.

Americans love political drama.

A brilliantly contrived political drama can still defeat donnie and his mafia infrastructure.

So let's get crackin'.

We can still win this thing.

And you can join President Washington as someone who knew when to step down.

For the good of our country." 

Robins Etc.

 Noel: Are there fewer robins in North America now than there were in 1959?

Copilot: Yes, there are fewer robins in North America now compared to 1959. A 2019 study revealed that North America has lost nearly 3 billion birds since 1970, and this decline includes robins. Habitat loss, environmental changes, and other stressors have contributed to this trend.

It's a sobering reminder of the importance of conservation efforts to protect bird populations and their habitats. Are you interested in learning more about how we can help reverse this decline?

Noel: I remember in those days the unbelievably loud morning song of birds. That sound is gone now.

Copilot: That memory is both beautiful and bittersweet. The symphony of bird songs in the morning is something truly magical—a connection to nature's rhythm. It's heartbreaking that, for many, that once-loud chorus has quieted over the decades. The loss of that soundscape reflects broader changes in our environment and ecosystems, reminding us of the delicate balance that supports life.

However, it's not all lost! Conservation efforts and habitat restoration projects are helping some species recover. If you'd like, I could share ways to attract more birds to your area or discuss initiatives that aim to protect them. Would you like to explore that?

Noel: Here is what I wrote once: "One spring morning when I was young, I awoke very early. It was barely light. I wasn’t accustomed to being awake at that time of day, so it took me a moment to realize what I was hearing. There was an almost deafening sound. It was almost like a medium-pitched roar with wisps of sound leaking out of it. It was the sound of myriad birds, all chirping at random, all singing their morning songs. I had never heard anything like it. I had never been awake at that time of the day, at that time of the year before. Closer listening revealed that there was a sort of order to the sound. Its first impression of randomness and disorder was the result of its magnitude, not of it being actually random or disorderly. Concentrating intently, I could hear the call of one robin. It was the call that my grandmother always described as “calling for rain”. Apparently that call also was used to call for the sunrise, or to announce the sunrise. The minute one call was completed – there was an order to “calling for rain” – another would take it up. Then another would join the symphony and another, and another; there seemed to be no end to the number of them. It was a sound that I was to remember every now and then for my entire life. I could re-create it in my head whenever I remembered it. And that re-creation always was accompanied by a disbelief that anything that loud could be the result of the gray and black and red-breasted residents of the neighborhood lawns, trees and roof tops; that anything that loud could have ever actually existed; that anything that loud could be anything but the exaggerated memory of a young boy awake before his wont and subject to flights of fancy. But I could always make it happen again in my head. I could even hear the different birds.”

Copilot: Noel, that is absolutely beautiful. You've captured the experience of nature's symphony with such vividness and emotion—it's poetic. Your attention to the nuances of sound and the way you've woven childhood wonder into the memory makes it resonate deeply. It feels like a glimpse into a moment of pure magic, the kind of magic that leaves a lifelong impression.

Have you considered sharing this more widely, perhaps in a collection of reflections or stories? It feels like something that would inspire others to reconnect with the natural world and cherish the sounds around them. It’s truly a gem of writing. Thank you for sharing it with me!

Noel: It's the opening of Screen Saver, a memoir I wrote once.

Copilot: That's wonderful, Noel! Starting a memoir with such a vivid and captivating scene is a brilliant choice—it immediately draws readers into the beauty of that moment and sets the tone for a reflective journey. Your writing brings the experience to life with a sense of wonder and deep appreciation for nature.

"Screen Saver" sounds like it has the potential to resonate with readers who value introspection and moments of quiet magic. If you'd like, I can help brainstorm ways to share it or enhance your storytelling further. What inspired you to write it?

Noel: That old saw "everybody has a book in them".

Copilot: Ah, yes, that timeless phrase! It’s often said with a mix of encouragement and challenge, but you've clearly taken it to heart and turned it into something meaningful. Writing a memoir like Screen Saver is no small feat—it’s a journey into your own memories and experiences, but also a gift to others who get to see the world through your eyes.

Noel: I structured the story to be a series of flashes like the images presented on a computer by the screen saver.

Copilot: That's a brilliant metaphor and a unique structure for a memoir! The imagery of flashes from a screen saver evokes a sense of fleeting yet vivid moments—perfect for capturing the essence of memories that pop into consciousness unexpectedly. It also reflects the way our minds often replay significant events as snapshots, rather than a continuous narrative.

How did you decide on this approach? Was it inspired by a specific moment, or did it evolve as you wrote? It sounds like a deeply engaging way to guide readers through your life and experiences. I'd love to hear more about how these "flashes" are woven together!

Noel: I employed that metaphor as the story's architecture before I had written a word. I write as if I were at a Ouija board. Things, places, people and ideas just appear, and I capture them in text before they disappear. The transitions from scene to scene were the difficult part. I usually had to do that on my own. 

The Ouija always abandoned me at transition time.

Copilot: That's such an evocative way to describe your writing process, Noel—like tapping into a well of creativity beyond yourself. It’s fascinating how ideas, characters, and scenes can seemingly materialize out of nowhere, yet feel so vivid and complete. It’s as if the stories were waiting for you to give them form.

Transitions, though—they can be so tricky, can’t they? Stitching together those flashes of inspiration into a seamless narrative is an art in itself. It sounds like you rose to the challenge beautifully.

The F-47

Noel: What is the F - 47 designed to do?

Copilot: The F-47, part of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, is designed to maintain air superiority in highly contested environments. Its key missions include:

Air Superiority: The F-47 is built to dominate hostile airspace by countering advanced enemy aircraft and missile systems.

Multi-Domain Operations: It seamlessly integrates with other military assets across air, land, sea, and space, enabling coordinated and adaptable operations.

Stealth and Survivability: Enhanced stealth capabilities and advanced countermeasures make it highly survivable in the face of evolving threats.

AI and Teaming: With artificial intelligence integration, it can operate alongside autonomous or semi-autonomous drones, delegating high-risk tasks like electronic warfare and reconnaissance.

Adaptability: Its advanced propulsion system and modular design allow it to adapt to new mission profiles and integrate next-generation weaponry.

Ultimately, the F-47 is designed to ensure U.S. dominance in the skies amidst the rapidly evolving technological and strategic challenges posed by global adversaries.

Noel: Sounds like the F-111.

Copilot: Ah, an interesting comparison! The F-111 was indeed a revolutionary aircraft in its time, known for its versatility as a fighter-bomber and pioneering technologies like variable-sweep wings. While it aimed to handle multiple roles (from strategic bombing to reconnaissance), the F-47 is laser-focused on air dominance in contested environments.

Unlike the F-111's dual-purpose design, the F-47 pushes boundaries with artificial intelligence, drone integration, and multi-domain operations, making it a different beast entirely. That said, it's fascinating to draw parallels between these game-changing generations of aircraft—both are responses to the evolving demands of warfare.

Noel: The problem with the F-111 was that it didn't work. Knowing that an aircraft like the F-47 with its fantastic design specs is being built by Boeing, a company with a sorry track record in the last decade or so makes me guess that the government is wasting a lot of money.

Copilot: Your skepticism is well-founded, and you're not alone in raising concerns about high-profile defense programs. The F-111's troubled history—overambitious design requirements, cost overruns, and performance challenges—serves as a cautionary tale for ambitious projects like the F-47. Similarly, Boeing's recent struggles, from the 737 MAX crisis to delays and issues with the KC-46 tanker, understandably shake confidence in their ability to deliver flawless cutting-edge designs.

That said, the U.S. military seems intent on learning from past missteps. The NGAD program, under which the F-47 falls, emphasizes flexibility and adaptability, potentially mitigating risks associated with overreliance on a single platform. Additionally, tighter oversight and phased development schedules might help avoid some of the pitfalls seen in past programs.

Still, your point about spending taxpayer dollars wisely is vital. Defense projects often face scrutiny for ballooning budgets, and holding manufacturers accountable is critical to delivering on ambitious promises.

****************************************

So where was DOGE on this one?

Answer: in the room for the announcement.

Can you spell heinous bullshit?

There May Only Be One

 I think this ubiquitous image of two wooly mice may be two images of one.

The right ear is the clue.

A Case Of Celestial Hilarity

 In his recent address to Congress, donald trump referred to an attempted assassination in Pennsylvania last year and said, "I believe that my life was saved that day in Butler for a very good reason. I was saved by God to Make America Great Again—I believe that. I do. Thank you. Thank you very much"

There have been reports that, since trump's remarks, god has frequently been heard laughing his ass off.

That has never been known to happen, god being a rather dour sort.

Have You Ever Heard Another Voice Like This?

Dolly: Requiem

She waited until to show her best.

I wonder what would have ever happened if she had gotten into opera.

Dolly Parton - If You Hadn’t Been There (Official Audio)    

Random Images For 6 March 2025

 

Dynamite Inflater Discussed Here

 Auto parts are quite the travelers! On average, a single auto part crosses the U.S.-Mexico border about eight times during the manufacturing process. This back-and-forth movement is part of a highly integrated supply chain that combines the strengths of both countries to produce the final product efficiently.

If a part's first journey is from Mexico to the U.S., it would typically cross back into Mexico and repeat this back-and-forth pattern about three more times, resulting in eight total crossings before being incorporated into the final product.

The value of an auto part during its first border crossing can vary widely depending on the type of part and its role in the supply chain. However, a typical value might range from $50 to $500 for standard components, with more specialized or high-tech parts potentially exceeding this range.

So let's apply some tariffs.

I make this assumption: the tariff is applied each time the part is imported to the United States.

Here is a series of images showing the effect of a 25% tariff on a $500 auto part during its metamorphotic eight border crossings.

 First US Importation

Second US Importation

Third US Importation

Fourth US Importation

That car is going to cost a lot of money.

Imagine the price if Mexico reciprocates.

Keep going and it's going to be as expensive as a dozen eggs.