BZ

Leave it to novelists to stimulate reality — or does reality sometimes follow novelists? It was Dan Brown and Tom Clancy who first wrote of using large commercial aircraft as “flying bombs” applied to American targets. And now another novelist, Nelson DeMille, has revealed a “novel” idea which, in my opinion, should be reality.

And that idea is “Wild Fire.”

This post isn’t about the book; you can read it or not. It’s about the idea and the fact that something like this should exist. If it does not, this nation needs to draw up and enable the implementation of this plan immediately, ready to activate, should appropriate conditions come to term.

But first, a review of one bit of Cold War history. When tensions existed between the United States and the USSR there was a seldom-mentioned but, militarily, well known theory acknowledged by both sides called MAD or “Mutually Assured Destruction.” In this concept, MAD ensured the phrase “whoever shoots first dies second.” That is, the theory was based upon the assumption that it would be illogical for one nation to launch a nuclear first strike if it was known that such a launch would result in an automatic and even larger “fail deadly” strike towards the aggressor, which would effectively obliterate both sides.

Plan Wild Fire is MAD taken to a 21st century Islamic degree, and that is: should a nuke ever detonate on US soil, it would be assured that US nuclear-tipped missiles would rain down upon every Islamic stronghold across the globe and not simply one country.

Nelson DeMille writes:

Wild Fire is a pro-active response. It is a gun to the heads of Islamic countries – a gun that will go off if they fail to keep their terrorist friends from going nuclear,” DeMille writes.

“This is a great deterrent because nobody wants to end the world as we know it,” he told me. “In ‘Wild Fire,’ I pose that we have something very similar to MAD. Meaning, that if a nuclear bomb went off in America, the presumption of guilt against Islamic terrorists would be very strong; we wouldn’t need the proof, we’d never have the proof.

“We would automatically launch against the nation of Islam, specifically against the cities of Mecca and Medina, and other places like Damascus where we don’t care for the government, and this would be a deterrent against a nuclear bomb going off in America.”

Mr. DeMille makes much sense. Further, he writes:

As a citizen of this country and the world, we are trying to keep it from happening, and the only way is to say, ‘If it happens, we will retaliate in a nuclear way.’ What else can we do, say we will launch an investigation and find out who blew up midtown Manhattan?

“That is a game we have played for too long. We never played that with the Russians, why play the same silly game with Islamic terrorists? Some say they don’t have a country, but that is not true, they know where their homeland is and so do we.”

For many, perhaps over 50% of my fellow Americans, this concept would go “over the top.” But for me, it is the perfect Sword of Damocles and may actually engender some fear in Militant Islam for the following reasons:

• It is simple and it is clear; if Action A occurs, then Reaction B shall occur;
• It does not target one nation or one spot of earth; it would target many nations and:
• More importantly, it would specifically target Islamic religious locations around the planet

Islamists do not quake in fear at the thought of an FBI investigation with harsh language, warrants and possible arrests; they know we are the quintessential Paper Tiger nation. For Wild Fire to work we would first have to approve and create the program and then, via special envoys or messengers let it be known, sub strata and unofficially, that Wild Fire would be enabled under certain nuclear conditions.

With a plan such as this in place we could perhaps begin to relax our presence in the Middle East and more lives could be saved. Absent this I fear, I know, that it is only a matter of time before we do witness a mushroom cloud, ala “24,” over a city or feature on American soil.

BZ

I woke up yesterday morning and I took a walk. I put on glasses so I could see.

There were flowers growing, though it was cold. I could reach out and touch them, they were physical, I rubbed my thumb and forefinger on their fragile petals. They were a living manifestation of beauty.

Along my path was a small brook cutting its jagged way down the hill, winding under the road and then emptying further down and disappearing into the pines beyond. I could hear its speech and watched blades of grass mix with the water and drift with the flow.

I walked further and could hear the lonesome horns of an approaching train, then heard the massive strength of its four locomotives struggling up the hill, the engines giving vibration to my lungs. I looked at a few leaves left on nearby trees and marveled at their greater, quiet, incredible strength this time of year.

I finished my walk in solitude, examined the crackling-sharp cerulean sky, awed with the majesty of the young and old pines and firs and having noticed what I should notice each day: the smallest bit of moss to the blue above and the ebon beyond. It is a miracle that I should have awakened today and a blessing if I do so tomorrow. Where have I been? How has my life passed so quickly to this point? What have I done? What is the point? What is my purpose? How were all these beautiful things possible? How did they get here? Big questions. My mind ached. I needed more than glasses to See.

I couldn’t manage the problems I laid on myself

And it just made it worse when I laid them on somebody else

So I finally surrendered it all brought down in dispair

I cried out for help and I felt a warm comforter there.

And I came to believe in a power much higher than I

I came to believe that I needed help to get by

In childlike faith I gave in and gave him a try

And I came to believe in a power much higher than I

Nothing worked out when I handled it all on my own

And each time I failed it made me feel twice as alone

Then I cried, “Lord there must be a sure and easier way

For it just cannot be that a man should lose hope every day.

Yes, I came to believe in a power much higher than I.

— Johnny Cash, I Came To Believe, American V, 2006

I don’t think I happened to believe in God; I think I’ve come to believe in God.

BZ

A page ripped from the “Touting Global Warming Is Now Profitable Business And So Shut Up And Let Us Make Our Money” workbook:

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

Like we didn’t already know this?

BZ

P.S.

By the way, read the complete link. Quite interesting.

Those who read my blog know how certain factions operate:

Kids know: if Dad will say no, ask Mom.

Democrats know: if we can’t pass our social agendas via the lawful vote, then we’ll stack the courts with liberal judges and have the judicial branch invert the law.

Democrats know: now that the Right and Conservatives have found their voices by way of the new media, to include television news (Fox), blogs (too numerous to count), internet sites (too numerous to count), magazines, the occasional newspaper and, moreover, radio, now it’s time to re-take absolute control of radio once again via the “Fairness Doctrine,” and it’s time to be punitive and take their pound of flesh because they can.

The Fairness Doctrine:

From 1949 until 1987 (when it was discontinued by the Federal Communications Commission) broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, were required to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering “balancing views.”

Following a 1974 US Supreme Court ruling (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241) where the Court wrote that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate,” a second ruling, the 1984 SCOTUS case FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was “flawed” and that the doctrine was “limiting the breadth of public debate” once again.

The FCC then, in 1987, discontinued the Fairness Doctrine and wrote:

We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.”

In 1987 President Ronald Reagan vetoed another FD bill and, in 1991, President GHW Bush vetoed as well.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine have included New York Governor Mario Cuomo, and broadcaster Rush Limbaugh. Cuomo argued that, “Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.” Limbaugh argued that there should be no government fairness standards on broadcasters, since there are none on the print press.

But now that the Democrats are in majority, the sterling Dennis Kucinich has reintroduced a bill to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because, you see, it’s all about control and what you can’t have via the fair marketplace or by the fair vote, one must acquire by the unfair ruling or unfair bill.

It’s a means of turning commentary into news. The Left cannot stand free market ideas. I doubt the idea would be surfacing now if, for example, Air America were making millions and millions of dollars.

This has absolutely nothing, particularly being sponsored by Kucinich (an out-and-out Ohio nutjob), to do with “fairness” or “equinimity.” It has to do with power, control, and an attempt to smash a voice of the Conservatives now that, only after a few years, we have found our voice.

From the Radio Equalizer:

At the “Conference for Media Reform” in MEMPHIS FRIDAY, Rep. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), making a surprise appearance, said that in his new capacity as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he would hold hearings on media ownership and the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

“We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda,” KUCINICH said, adding that “the entire domestic agenda has been ignored while the focus has been on the acceleration of wealth upwards.” “We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible,” the OHIO Congressman and Presidential candidate said.

Very narrow corporate agenda? How many massive conglomerates own newspapers? How many massive conglomerates own TV broadcast stations? How many conglomerates own strings of magazines — to include off-shore interests (Hachette-Fillipacci)?

If this goes down again, moreover, how will this affect blogs? We’ve already had the issue with the potential licensing of blogs which tend to express one view over another.

This is another shadowed Left/Democratic idea that attempts to make everyone and everything equal. Life isn’t equal. Life isn’t fair. The market determines to a great degree what will succeed. And of course, an equal application of the FD — will it apply equally to Air America and to individual Left/Liberal broadcasters? What about blogs? Absent that, if the FD comes back to life broadcaster Michael Savage has already publically stated he has acquired a First Amendment attorney who will sue to ensure that he will have equal time on ABC, CBS or NBC.

What about e-mails?

Another stupid Democratic, whining idea — an idea applied to one area and not another. Huh. Maybe like Starkist and the federal minimum wage not being applied EQUALLY in American Samoa because — imagine this — Pelosi’s husband owns a ton of stock in Starkist?

BZ