Counterculture Con HQ

August 12, 2010

Oreilly on Aniston

Radical feminism meets 21st century technology where it’s perfectly acceptable to father children through artificial insemination and without the benefit of a father.  Marriage an instrument of patriarchal oppression and sexual intercourse a form of rape, now they are redefining childbirth itself.  This is what it looks like when the cultural avant garde in Academia and the culture-media establishment has captured the culture.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Naturally the one-note simplistas of the Left are whining about Bill O’reilly’s “judgmentalism”.  lol

August 6, 2010

Carrier-killing missiles, space bombers to alter balance of power

USS George Washington

Chinese Developing Carrier-Killing Missile

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China’s role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington’s ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China’s 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.  It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.  U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.  “We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world,” Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy.  “China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back,” said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.  That would usher in a “new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States.”

Read the rest.

The Chinese missile is an “anti-access” weapon.  It’s mere existence restricts the movement of U.S. aircraft carriers in waters within range.  This missile, and subsequent generations that are to come could spell the end for the aircraft carrier as a weapons system if this missile technology proliferates across the globe, making it harder to justify the astronomical financial costs of building and maintaining a carrier fleet that is subject to ever diminishing access to the world’s oceans.  The carrier fleet would eventually join in obsolescence the mighty battleships and dreadnoughts that preceded it as the U.S. Navy’s ability to project military power inevitably contracts, and its role shrinks to resemble that of other navies across the world; protecting the littoral waters of the homeland only, something Navy planners must no doubt be worried sick about.

Yet as China arms itself for the last war and develops missile systems for dealing with naval threats whose expiration date is on the visible horizon, the U.S. prepares for future conflicts with the development of space-based weapons systems like DARPA’s hypersonic troop transport and the X-37 space bomber, the latter which may in effect put the U.S. carrier fleets out of business before the Chinese do.  Who needs aircraft carriers when you’ve got a fleet of these hanging in stationary orbit above their target:

X-37B

DARPA’s Mach 20 Hypersonic Glider and Air Force’s X-37B Space Plane Make Their Debuts

Future space marines might commemorate yesterday as a historic moment, based on the coinciding launches of DARPA’s hypersonic glider and an Air Force space plane. Both test vehicles could pave the way for new warfighter transports or weapons systems, the Ares Defense Blog reports.

DARPA’s HTV-2 was first into the air, around 7 pm EDT. The hypersonic vehicle is designed to glide through the Earth’s atmosphere at speeds 20 times greater than the speed of sound. The Santa Maria Times notes that several maneuvers were scheduled to test how HTV-2 handles during the hypersonic glide stage, before hurtling into the Pacific Ocean at more than 13,000 mph for a planned demise.

A future hypersonic platform could theoretically deliver precision strikes to targets around the world with “little or no advanced warning,” as DARPA puts it. A second test is planned for 2011, based on the success of yesterday’s sortie.

Barely an hour after the HTV-2 debut, the U.S. Air Force launched its X-37B space plane. That much-anticipated mission lofted the space plane — powered by gallium arsenide solar cells with lithium-ion batteries — into orbit for possibly as long as 270 days, according to the Ares Defense Blog.Like DARPA, the Air Force has remained relatively tight-lipped about the exact purpose of such a space plane. But it’s not hard to imagine what hypersonic weapons or a space plane might do for the future of U.S. military operations, as far as speed of deployment is concerned.

Source

July 13, 2010

White House denies NASA remark on Muslim outreach

Either Charles Bolden is a liar, or Obama just threw him under the proverbial bus.

WASHINGTON – The White House is contradicting the NASA administrator’s claim that President Barack Obama assigned him to reach out to Muslims on science matters.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden recently told Al-Jazeera network that one of the charges Obama gave him was “to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering.”

Some conservative activists criticized the remarks.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that such activities are not among Bolden’s assigned tasks. He said administration officials have spoken with NASA about the matter.

Source

July 5, 2010

Obama Doctrine: NASA’s Mission to Muslims

Why are modern Liberals so anti Science?  JFK inspired us to step out into the New Frontier and reach for the stars.  President Obama has set his sights for NASA considerably lower as he tells NASA chief, Charles Bolden, his foremost priority should be to reach out to the Muslim world.

Bolden: I am here in the region – its sort of the first anniversary of President Barack Obama’s visit to Cairo – and his speech there when he gave what has now become known as Obama’s “Cairo Initiative” where he announced that he wanted this to become a new beginning of the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. When I became the NASA Administrator – before I became the NASA Administrator – he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

The Onion?  Remember, this is about making Muslims feel good about Islam’s non-existent contributions to human civilization, but it’s not “diplomatic”, it’s science! lol

April 16, 2010

Politicized Science for a Politicized Age

Good news from The Lancet about the drop in maternal mortality rates around the world.  But not everybody is as thilled about it as you’d think.

(New York Times) For the first time in decades, researchers are reporting a significant drop worldwide in the number of women dying each year from pregnancy and childbirth, to about 342,900 in 2008 from 526,300 in 1980.  The findings, published in the medical journal The Lancet, challenge the prevailing view of maternal mortality as an intractable problem that has defied every effort to solve it.

“The overall message, for the first time in a generation, is one of persistent and welcome progress,” the journal’s editor, Dr. Richard Horton, wrote in a comment accompanying the article, published online on Monday.  The study cited a number of reasons for the improvement: lower pregnancy rates in some countries; higher income, which improves nutrition and access to health care; more education for women; and the increasing availability of “skilled attendants” — people with some medical training — to help women give birth. Improvements in large countries like India and China helped to drive down the overall death rates.

But some advocates for women’s health tried to pressure The Lancet into delaying publication of the new findings, fearing that good news would detract from the urgency of their cause, Dr. Horton said in a telephone interview.

“I think this is one of those instances when science and advocacy can conflict,” he said.

Dr. Horton said the advocates, whom he declined to name, wanted the new information held and released only after certain meetings about maternal and child health had already taken place.

“People who have spent many years committed to the issue of maternal health were understandably worried that these figures could divert attention from an issue that they care passionately about,” Dr. Horton said. “But my feeling is that they are misguided in their view that this would be damaging. My view is that actually these numbers help their cause, not hinder it.”

[…]

Sound familiar?  If it does, that’s because this kind of agenda-driven science is precisely how climate science is treated– as a public relations campaign, instead of a quest for knowledge.

Activistas ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS receive good news as if it were bad news, whether it be maternal mortality, climate science, race relations, etc., you name it, good news is bad news.  That’s because bad news keeps them in the riches, while good news puts them out of business.  And nobody wants to go out of business (CCHQ, on the other hand, cannot wait to go out of business).

Kudos to The Lancet for refusing to bow to the advocates, and shame on the state of climate science which has.

Via Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog