Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Mr. Y is no Mr. X

An essay entitled A National Strategic Narrative by Mr. Y is the talk of the town.   Mr. Y of course, is a pseudonym for the person who penned the article.

The name is inspired by Mr. X, the author of a memorable 1946 State Department telegram.  Mr. X was later revealed to be George F. Kennan, and his seminal telegram, later published in Foreign Affairs,  was an early warning about the Soviet threat to the Free World.  But any comparison between X and Y is strictly alphabetical.  That's because, unlike Mr. X,  Mr. Y's intention is not to warn America of a new foreign threat.  In fact, it's unclear what Mr. Y's true motivations might be. 

Foreign Policy Magazine describes the article:
The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen.
 
The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world.

Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world.
CNN comments:
Take a look a the report and then, if you feel so moved, write your congressperson about it here.  [DoF urges you to write your congressperson to complain about Mr Y.  After all, your hard-earned tax dollars pay his salary.]
The United States Department of Fear has issued an Official Statement in response to the article:
It's one thing when the liberal media journalists or bloggers pen rants, but we expect better from people paid to serve us. We need to determine the identity of the authors of the article. They should be fired or possibly prosecuted for insubordination. In a world plagued by terrorism, drugs, and illegal migration, we simply cannot tolerate defense department employees undermining the defense establishment. 
Rumor has it that the article may be part of a sophisticated U.S. intelligence operation.  The idea is that when senior leaders give the appearance of tolerating radical thoughts, government employees who are not sufficiently committed to the agenda will speak out in favor of the message.   In other word, perhaps it's part of a strategy to smoke the liberals out.  

Others have suggested that the article may be someone's idea of a belated April Fool's joke. We think that's highly unlikely because the article concerns a topic most Americans know better than to joke about (certainly not around DoF, and DoD is not so different).  To suggest that America should cut back on defense not 10 years after the worst attack on the Homeland in our history is not funny.  To do so in view of the dangers we face and the various wars we are fighting (and at some risk of losing) abroad is not amusing.   Rather, it's profoundly disrespectful towards the national security establishment.     

Psychological perceptions basis for "Pervasive Insecurity"

The National Intelligence Council, which does the long-term thinking for our nation's 17 intelligence agencies, recently issued an important unclassified report entitled, "Mapping the Global Future."

The section entitled "Pervasive Insecurity" is well worth reading:
We foresee a more pervasive sense of insecurity, which may be as much based on psychological perceptions as physical threats, by 2020.  The psychological aspects, which we have addressed earlier in this paper, include concerns over job security as well as fears revolving around migration among both host populations and migrants.  

Terrorism and internal conflicts could interrupt the process of globalization by significantly increasing the security costs...
SecFear  Malcolm P. Stag III, interviewed by FoxNews about the report, commented: "DoF is dedicated to the proposition that psychological perceptions as much as real world events create a sense of insecurity."  Sec Fear added, "An atmosphere characterized by pervasive insecurity provides the most profitable context for any public appraisal of the security needs of the United States."

You can read the entire report here.

Monday, April 25, 2011

The case for Donald Trump

Even if Donald Trump's bid for the presidency is not successful, his contribution to political thought in America cannot be underestimated.   Trump is the first presidential candidate to explain to Americans that military spending and empire are not the problem, but the solution to our economic troubles.   

There's a lot to like about superstar capitalist Donald Trump,  an American legend who has committed his life to building a profitable business empire for himself.    Trump recently told FoxNews that he's "a good businessman" who has "done a great job and made a lot of great decisions."  Those are inspiring words.

Donald Trump also told FoxNews that he has "great values."  Trump's values include high military spending and empire building. 
 
Donald Trump understands that the democratic approach to empire-building is failing America. It's discouraging when we "free" a country from one dictator (Hussein, Mohammed Omar), only to watch them fall into misrule under new leaders who are susceptible to the influence of our enemies (Iran).      Trump's idea is that America should go in for the resources and stay there until we've got our fair share.    From the Fox interview, it sounds as if Trump would favor taking out Iraq's Iran-friendly government and putting an American in charge (from about 3:20 13:20).   Elsewhere Trump has indicated that he would take Libya's oil.

Trump realizes that supporting American men and women in uniform is the key to building and maintaining tomorrow's more profitable American empire. Therefore, Trump is forthright about the need to increase military spending.  In Trump's own words:  "You have the military.  Our military is great. The other thing I'd do is I wouldn't cut the military, in fact I would increase the military.  I hate when they say 'I would cut the military.'"  (18:45)

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Ominous Standard & Poors debt warning



Standard and Poors has issued a warning about the US debt.  

In a conference call with Treasury this morning, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III called the warning "ominous."

The Department of Fear's advice to Americans is not to question S&P.  As SecFear pointed out, in its entire 105 year-long history, S&P only ever made one mistake that we know about.

Trust S&P.  Call your Congressman.   Demand that he vote to cut social programs --before its too late.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

What is Expeditionary Economics?

"Expeditionary Economics" is a new term for an old and profitable idea.
On Wednesday, Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, gave an important speech to the United States Military Academy at West Point.   Donohue spoke at some length about "Expeditionary Economics"--an old idea that created a lot of buzz after an article with the title appeared in Foreign Affairs last year.  Donohue:
The idea of “expeditionary economics” involves training officers to apply economic principles with a smart and entrepreneurial spirit while also taking account of local circumstances. It recognizes that it takes more than troops and weapons to establish peaceful, stable, democratic societies. It takes hope and opportunity that only free enterprise and a strong private sector can provide.
...we’ve been involved in expeditionary economics long before the term was coined. The Chamber has an affiliate called the Center for International Private Enterprise, also known as CIPE. Through CIPE, we are working to build the capacity of local business organizations and promote the kind of reforms needed for entrepreneurs to thrive.

One of our key tools is a program that the U.S. Chamber has used for many years. It’s called the national business agenda—a set of legal and regulatory reforms needed to strengthen the business environment.

Over the last several years, CIPE has led the way with local groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries to help them push for reform and build their economies.
DoF comment:  Iraq is where this concept was most profitably applied.
Ultimately, it’s essential for both the military and the private sector to work in partnership with the people of these countries to create stability and prosperity. The Chamber and the American business community are strong supporters of expeditionary economics. We pledge to work with the military to advance this important concept.
DoF comment:  What is Expeditionary Economics?   In theory, the concept makes explicit what has always been an implicit goal of US foreign policy: exporting American-style capitalism to developing countries.  In practice, Expeditionary Economics describes how US military intervention can profit well-connected American businesspeople.  Our wars open markets, allowing private corporations to purchase formerly state-owned resources and formerly state-run infrastructure.  By networking with the US military, American firms can literally "seize" business opportunities abroad.  Ultimately, American military officers practicing Expeditionary Economics become the "eyes and ears" of the Chamber and its members throughout the war zones of the developing world.

Investors profit when corporations partner with the military.   Expeditionary Economics is just a new term to describe the fruition of this partnership.  Yet Expeditionary Economics cannot thrive in a vacuum.  Unless America continues to intervene abroad militarily, unless we continue to invest in a strong defense, one day there might be no place for America to practice Expeditionary Economics.    The United States Department of Fear lays the necessary foundation for Expeditionary Economics by keeping the American People alert to possible dangers.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is another Kinza Khaldun

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," goes the time-honored saying.  Compare the profiles of two terrorists:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 
  1. Allegedly planned the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
  2. CIA water-boarded him 183 times. He survives.
  3. Liberals wanted him brought back to New York City to face trial in a civilian court.
Kinza Khaldun
  1. Attacked the Empire State Building in 1933.
  2. US Air Force flew 183 sorties against him (video).  He survives.
  3. Some misguided liberals brought him to New York City in the 1970s but he broke lose, attacking the World Trade Center.
The profile of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is eerily similar to that of Kinza Khaldun (the Arabic birth name of the terrorist better known as "King Kong").    Documentary evidence, including video and photographs of the terrorists, makes this abundantly clear.



After SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III showed the above documentary to the Joint Chiefs and Congressional leaders, there was unanimous agreement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed must not be brought to New York to face trial in a civilian court. Our wise and prudent leaders realized the risks were not worth it.  They know another Kinza Khaldun when they see one.

After the screening, SecFear said, "We are all horrified by the resemblance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the dreaded Kinza Khaldun.  Surely the time has come for the United States to scrap the remaining vestiges of its ancient legal system."  SecFear noted that the president's vision of a new legal framework will ensure that terrorist suspects can be easily convicted--along with anyone suspected of having assisted a terrorist in any conceivable way.

Awaiting military tribunal, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed remains at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.  President Obama is holding KSM in the same large cage that President Herbert Hoover originally had built for the detainment of Kinza Khaldun.

Mayor Bloomberg estimated that holding a trial for KSM in New York City would have cost taxpayers at least $1 billion (the cost of keeping the US Air Force on standby, rental of a cargo ship big enough to transport KSM and his cage to NYC, etc.).   Needless to say, were KSM to have escaped custody while in New York City the cost of repairing the damage after a rampage would likely have exceeded the mayor's cost estimate by a factor of ten.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Kinza Khaldun (aka King Kong)

Practically indistinguishable.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Some advice on how not to get suspected of terrorism

...new rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.   
The WSJ calls the new guidelines, "one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S."

Predictably, civil rights America-hating pundits are making this routine legal adjustment sound like the end of the world when it's not.   Our president only takes away the kind of rights that most law-abiding American citizens never knew they had, rights few would miss.  The president knows that every time he takes away a freedom, it makes Americans feel that much safer.  Because the United States is the most free country on earth, we have a surplus of freedoms.  In a dangerous world, it's sensible to give up a few rights every now and again in exchange for the perception of safety.  

Unless your behavior is perceived to resemble that of a terrorist, the Obama Administration's new interpretation of Miranda won't concern you at all.  Nevertheless, a few precautions are in order.   

Our colleagues at the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) understand that the next terrorist attack will resemble the previous attack, and they are preparing for it.  By following several precautions, you help DHS narrow the list of suspects, making their job easier.   Moreover, by following our suggested guidelines, you will reduce the odds that you will be deprived of your Miranda rights, detained indefinitely, and forced to sleep naked in solitary confinement

Department of Fear Guidelines on how not to get suspected of terrorism
  1. Don't have a lot of foreign stamps in your passport. 
  2. Most Americans don't have a passport. What makes you so special?  Standing out only invites unwanted attention from Homeland Security.   Better not to own a passport.  
  3. Never rent a minivan or any kind of truck.  
  4. If you need items from the hardware store, get them delivered.  You don't want the police to stop you only to discover a chainsaw or a tank of kerosene in the back of the truck.   Or God forbid, boxcutters.  Always arrange to have hardware store supplies delivered to your home.   
  5. Don't leave hardware store supplies in the garage where contents may be visible from the street.  Keep all home improvement and gardening supplies locked inside the house.  
  6. Don't carry a camera.  It's widely believed that terrorists do a lot of street photography prior to launching their attacks.  Police think terrorists don't know how to use Google Earth. 
  7. Don't install Google Earth on your laptop.  Some clever terrorists are likely to have heard about it, and there's people at the FBI who are on to this.
  8. Never ever buy a one-way plane ticket. 
  9. Don't use online software, including Facebook, Twitter, Google, or Microsoft.    The US military and the NSA monitor social media, and it's always possible that some message you send will be misinterpreted.  
  10. In telephone conversations (whether cell phone or land-line), avoid speaking the names of big cities, national landmarks, foreign countries, or national political leaders.   NSA is listening and, trust us, you don't want to raise suspicions.
  11. Keep your guns and ammo locked up.
  12. Don't visit Washington D.C., New York, or any other city that has ever been targeted by terrorists unless you absolutely have to.   If you have to travel to DC or NY on business, remain in your hotel unless you have a reason to be somewhere.   For example, you don't want to be stopped strolling down Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House.  Do you expect capital police are going to believe that you were "just looking?"
  13. Under no circumstances should women wear scarves. If it's cold, wear a hat instead.
  14. If you are a Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, or practice any non-Christian religion,  try to not to dress strangely.  Men should shave their beards.  Women should not wear a sari.  Our police commonly mistake non-Christians for Muslims. 
  15. If you are a Muslim, do not carry on your person any of the paraphernalia of your faith.  Shave. Tell your wife to ditch the burka.  Mind points 1-14 scrupulously.   God help you.
  16. As soon as the notorious leaker Bradley Manning cracks, it's inevitable that WikiLeaks will be formally declared a terrorist organization.  This hardly needs saying, but DoF urges you to "unfriend" anyone you suspect may hold a positive view of WikiLeaks (even if a person is a family member or an old friend).
  17. If you found it necessary to carry out recommendation #16, we advise you to report the names of everyone you just "unfriended" to the US Dept. of Fear.   
If you follow these 17 simple precautions, it less likely that you will be suspected of terrorism, deprived of your Miranda rights, and sent to a Supermax prison where interrogators will try to get you to incriminate yourself.

Always remember, they hate us for our freedoms.   

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Hasta la vista liberal news media!

The free online print alternative to the NYT we propose would not only inform and entertain, it would scare people.

NYT:
Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic.
DoF analysts project that this questionable move by the New York Times -- it coincides with an escalating assault by patriotic lawmakers on NPR's budget -- provides an opportunity to end the hegemony of the liberal media once and for all. 

In hopes of turning one liberal newspaper's blunder into a knockout blow to the liberal media, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III has just spoken with Rupert Murdoch about organizing an emergency conference on the Future of American Journalism.

Top of the conference agenda will be a plan to get corporate America (Koch bros, News Corp, ExxonMobil, BP, Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan, WalMart, etc.) to subsidize a "free" online print news alternative to the Times.  It's conceivable that FoxNews could be expanded to fill this role.  

According to SecFear, the proposed news service might not only be subscription free, but advertising free.   "It's clear that the 'liberal bias' that inevitably creeps into most news accounts by professional journalists tends to create myriad headaches for American business leaders.  Fortunately, most news stories have interesting corporate angles.   And the quality of PR writing these days is such that professional journalists are pretty much redundant.  The notion of separating advertising from the content of articles needlessly adds to the cost of producing content," wrote SecFear in an email to DoF staff this morning. 

Of course, a free online news alternative to the NYT should not only inform and entertain, it should also scare people.  DoF recognizes that Americans are crying out for "news they can use" concerning the threats posed by environmental regulations, terrorists, drugs, and illegal immigrants.  Is there any good reason Americans should have to pay for news?

http://twitter.com/feardept

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Learning from China

UPDATED
This is one of those, "Why didn't we think of that!" developments out of China. The New York Times reports on an innovative means by which the Chinese are enhancing state security:
Beijing officials announced Wednesday that they intended to monitor the movements of millions of residents by means of information transmitted by their cellphones. One official was quoted on a government Web site as saying that the new program would provide “real-time information about a user’s activity.”

The project aims to monitor all Beijing residents who use cellphones — about 20 million people — to detect unusually large gatherings. One official said the primary use would be to detect and ease traffic and subway congestion. But Chinese media reports said government officials could use the data to detect and prevent protests.
This is something the US might deploy to track environmentalists, leftists, visa-holders, foreign students, and illegal immigrants.

But why stop there? In fact, since law-abiding American citizens have nothing to hide from their government, eventually this program of cell-phone tracking might be expanded to cover everyone.

UPDATE: We've just been informed by our friends at NSA that this program already exists, and China stole the idea from us.



Thursday, January 27, 2011

ABC News identifies world's most dangerous man

President Obama has put out a contract on this American citizen. And with good reason.  Now ABC News reports that this targeted America cleric may well be the most dangerous man in the world:
Yemen is a growing training ground for al Qaeda and is the home of Anwar al-Alawki, the man considered every bit as dangerous -- if not more -- than Osama bin Laden. He helped the failed Christmas Day bomber, inspired the Times Square bomber, and has called for more attacks on Americans. Bombs on board cargo planes also came from Yemen.
Consider this: Anwar al-Alawki is somehow linked to more failed bomb plots than any man alive.  Such a reckless man surely threatens not only the survival of the United States, but also the safety of his fellow terrorists.  The article continues:
Yemeni troops are going after al Qaeda, but that is at risk if the government is overthrown in the poverty stricken nation.

"Yemen becomes an absolute mess," Bender said. "I think the fear is that this would simply fall apart."

So while protests may be cause for cheering in some nations, in others they are making American officials very nervous.
A dangerous American citizen with ties to California is on the lose in Yemen.  President Obama is trying to kill him, but the CIA can't seem to find him.  Now ABC News says this guy could be more dangerous than Osama bin Laden.   Meanwhile, the government of Yemen could fall.  Who's to say Anwar al-Alawki won't seize power in Yemen and try to buy a nuke from North Korea? 
 
One thing's for sure: if American government officials -- the guys protecting us -- are "very nervous," then you should be too.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

What a real State of the Union Speech looks like



The president's SOTUS last night disappointed the staff of DoF. Equally disappointing was the response by the Republican side. As a nation, we've got to get back into the grove. Maybe watching this great speech from 2002 can inspire our leaders in Washington.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Miss America says security comes first



Here's the text of remarks by Teresa Scanlan of Nebraska who was crowned Miss America 2010.
QUESTION: "Everybody's talking about the Wikileaks, how do we balance people's right to know with the need for government security?"

ANSWER: "You know when it came to that situation it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation we have to focus on security first, and then people's right to know. Because it's so important that everyone in our borders is safe, and so we can't let things like that happen and they must be handled properly... and I think that was the case."
Security first.  Spoken like a true American.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Look up and be afraid

The heading for an article by Jeff Goldberg in the Atlantic Monthly reads, "Wealthy travelers routinely bypass the TSA by flying on private jets.  How long until al-Qaeda does the same?"

Here's the key passage from Jeff's alarming article about this threat:
We climbed aboard the eight-seat twin-engine plane. The pilot greeted us, took my bag from me, and placed it on a seat. I noticed that no door separated the cabin from the cockpit.

We took off a few minutes later and headed south, in the direction of the Pentagon, the White House, and the United States Capitol complex.

“So let’s just say that I’m a terrorist pilot,” I said, “and I have a bag filled with handguns and I shoot these two pilots and then I take control of the plane and steer it into the headquarters of the CIA,” near which we would soon be flying. “What’s stopping me?”

“There’s nothing stopping you,” my friend said. “All you need is money to buy a plane, or a charter.”

Luckily for America, I am not a terrorist, I did not kill the pilots, and I did not steer the plane into the headquarters of the CIA. Nor did I pack my bag with Semtex or a dirty bomb. Instead, I occupied myself by taking free candy and bottles of Evian from the plane’s endless stock of free candy and Evian, which reminded me, as if I needed reminding, that it is better to be rich than poor.
Lucky indeed.  As Jeff has illustrated, the freedoms enjoyed by the pilots of private planes are a catastrophe waiting to happen.  

After this weekend's shooting in Tucson, it is important to contemplate the likelihood that any number of small planes are piloted by mentally ill people under the influence of anti-American ideologies.

As SecFear pointed out on Twitter today, in response to the tragedy in Tucson, Americans need to ask themselves what freedoms they are prepared to sacrifice.  Severely restricting private plane flights would be an obvious place to start.  Think about it.  If some freedoms enjoyed by the pilots of small planes were taken away, few of us would miss them, yet all of us would sleep a lot easier.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Our sincerest apologies to Wall Street

POTUS and SecFear discussing threats to national security after diving among sharks in Hawaii.

Dear readers,

In late December DoF staff posted an opinion piece on this blog that had been forwarded to me by SecFear.  I mistakenly assumed that the article had been written by Mr. Stag III, who was vacationing with the president in Hawaii at the time.   

In fact, the article was written by Mr. Frank Aaronson, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former intelligence man. 

Mr. Aaronson's piece has upset many of our readers, especially DoF supporters in the financial community.   In fact, DoF has received hundreds of emails complaining about the posting.  This tweet is fairly typical of the reaction:
 
Bob  Apparently @ doesn't understand the country's fiscal situation. Someone should educate them.




Please understand that the article represented only the views of Mr. Frank Aaronson.    On behalf of DoF, I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.

Rest assured that DoF remains a strong and loyal supporter not only of the defense sector, but also Wall Street and the entire US financial industry.  For example, DoF fully supports calls for non-military spending cuts. We also recognize that America's most successful citizens are in need of additional tax relief. 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Wolf, Ph.D.
Undersecretary for Community and Social Media

Fox News voted scariest organization in America

Almost three million FoxNews viewers attended Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in Aug. 2010.

This is the polling question we asked readers to respond to last week:

WHAT INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION WENT TO THE GREATEST LENGTHS TO SCARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 2010? VOTE FOR YOUR CHOICE. THE WINNER WILL BE DECLARED "FEAR HERO 2010" ON DEC 31ST AT OUR ANNUAL FUNDRAISING BALL FOR DEFENSE INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS.



Friends of the United States Department of Fear have spoken. The scariest "person or organization" of 2010 was Fox News. The scariest person? That would be Glenn Beck, the prominent Fox News announcer.  In September 2010 Glenn led the massive "Restoring Honor" rally on the Mall in Washington D.C..  DoF analysts estimate that the event was attended by 2.7 million Americans.

Sec Fear, interviewed Tuesday by Fox News about the results, said, "We're pleased with the outcome of our New Year's poll, but frankly, we aren't surprised.  DoF has always considered your network a reliable partner in fear."

We asked Dr. Rebecca Wolf, Undersecretary for Community Affairs at DoF, to analyze the continued success of Fox News.  Dr. Wolf said,  "What they (Fox) understand is wisdom of our department's moto Timendi causa est nescire (ignorance causes fear)."

Dr. Wolf noted that a recent University of Maryland study ("Misinformation and the 2010 Election") had documented the cable network's greater success at spreading misinformation relative to other American  news organizations.

According to the 2010 study, those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to be ignorant about various political issues.   For example, the study found Fox News viewers to be more likely than other American news consumers to believe that:
  • most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) 
  • most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
  • the economy is getting worse (26 points) 
  • most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
  • the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) 
  • their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) 
  • the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) 
  • when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) 
  • and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
The authors of the Maryland study observed, "These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."

DoF extends its heartfelt congratulates to Glenn, Sarah, Sean, Bill and all our friends at Fox News for making the American public more ignorant, and therefore, more afraid in 2010.   We urge our readers to join us in spreading the word about the "fear heroes" of Fox News in the New Year.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

One revolving door is not like the other

Special Comment by Mr. Frank Aaronson SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III *

"The liberal media has no business complaining about the military's revolving door
unless it is prepared to look at its own reflection in the other one." 
- Frank Aaronson 

Two industries -- I'll call them Industry A and Industry B -- have different kinds of leaders, fulfilling markedly different roles in American society.   Leaders in both industries have been known to take up  employment within both the public and private sectors, passing through a so-called "revolving door."   Yet these leaders and their industries have little else in common. 

Leaders of Industry A
  1. Idea of "public service" is a two-year stint in the West Wing.
  2. Purpose is profits (and large bonuses).
  3. Motivation is money.
  4. Provide jobs for fellow Harvard graduates in New York City.
  5. Attended mainly ivy league schools, prep schools.
  6. Encourage downsizing, off-shoring, and relentless margin-cutting, resulting in lower paid jobs for the American workforce. 
  7. Work in the industry that caused the Great Depression and Great Recession.
Leaders of Industry B
  1. Idea of "public service" is to spend 25 years on military bases in God-forsaken lands, including a decade being shot at by hajis in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  2. Purpose is to keep America safe, protect the free world.
  3. Motivation is patriotism, honor, ethic of self-sacrifice.
  4. Provide jobs for millions of Americans across every state in the Union.
  5. Attended mainly state schools and military academies.
  6. Provide upward mobility for millions of America's lower and middle class youth.
  7. Work in the industry that won World War II and the Cold War.
A certain journalist has been blogging about the career path of a particular Industry A man.  This guy spent 2 years in the White House, and now he's going to work for City Group, the big bank which he happened to have helped bail out while in the White House.  Name's Peter Orszag.   Fine, the guy's a schmuck.    I'm not about to defend a guy like this.  

But then the same journalist, who should know better, pointing to an article in the Boston Globe, has the audacity to compare Orszag's situation to the the career path of some of our nation's finest military leaders.   And I say that's just plain wrong.

It's no secret that in retirement, generals go to work for defense contractors, they serve on corporate boards.    Well, who the hell is supposed to serve on the  boards of our defense contractors?   Wall Street twerps like Orszag?    I mean seriously, if it's not long-serving demonstratively patriotic military minds who go on to serve on the boards of defense industry firms, then who?

Because the alternative is to see America's corporate board rooms filled with yet more self-serving ivy-educated MBAs and Wall Street bankers.  It really makes you wonder about the motivation of liberal elite media when you read this kind of thing.    The journalist pointed out something really interesting on his blog: "Until this past week," the journalist wrote, "the Post had not devoted a single newspaper item to the Orszag-Citigroup story."  Whereas the Boston Globe ran a three-thousand-word "investigative report" about the military's revolving door, for weeks, no major newspaper thought the Orszag story worth so much as a paragraph.   One revolving door is considered newsworthy, the other isn't.   Does one detect a double-standard here?   (If I was conspiratorially minded I would ask whether the liberal news media is plotting to clear some more space in corporate board rooms for their ivy-league educated brothers.)
   
One simply cannot compare the paths of Industry A and Industry B leaders through their respective  so-called "revolving doors."   Industry A is comprised of individuals who had the opportunity to attend the country's finest universities, and then elected to apply their skills and knowledge first by cashing out on Wall Street, all the whilst dining in Manhattan's finest restaurants.  This career path sometimes includes a few years networking with lawmakers at Georgetown cocktail parties.   Corrupt?  You be the judge of that.

On the other hand, Industry B is led by uniformed men and women, who, generally lacking the former group's privileges, have elected to dedicate the better part of their careers to the service of their country.  They endure years of discomfort on military bases, dodge mortar fire and IEDs in Iraq or Afghanistan, and live in cramped naval vessels.  Invariably they live away from their families for months at a time.  For the sake of our country, they put themselves in harm's way.   If finally, at the end of a long and distinguished military career, the finest among this latter group get invited to sit on this or that corporate board, perhaps standing a chance of earning some real money, that's a problem?  Please.

The elite liberal media has no business complaining about the military's revolving door unless it is prepared to look at its own reflection in the other one.
__
* DoF blog originally incorrectly identified Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III as the author of this post.  The post is by Mr. Frank Aaronson.   As explained here, the opinions represented in this post represent only the views of the author, not the United States Department of Fear.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Sue Myrick's letter to Obama on home-grown terrorists

America has become a terrorism exporting nation.

When DoF first heard that a congresswoman had written the president to complain that America is exporting terrorism, we naturally assumed that the woman was just another nutty liberal out to malign America's patriotic and profitable defense industry.

Fortunately -- and most alarmingly -- that turns out not to be the case.  

The Age reports that Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), in a letter to Obama, warned the president that the US is now an Islamic terrorist exporting nation:
In her letter, Mrs Myrick said: ''For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalisation was not happening inside the United States. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalisation because, unlike their European counterparts, they are socially and economically well integrated into society.
"There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no mind. Today, there is no doubt that radicalisation is taking place inside America."
"The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident. What has been missed is that our home-grown terrorists are now becoming a global threat."
Among cases Mrs Myrick cited was that of David Coleman Headley, a US citizen who conducted the reconnaissance for the Mumbai attacks and also visited Britain. She also wrote about Samir Khan, a propagandist with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula who produces an English-language online magazine called Inspire. He comes from Mrs Myrick's home town of Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Congresswomen is not only a serious person, a Republican from North Carolina, but she has an enviable track record when it comes to keeping Americans alert to the threat of terrorism.   The article notes Myrick warned the nation that the Council on American Islamic Relations was trying to plant spies on Capitol Hill by placing Muslim interns.  She also urged the State Department to yank President Carter's passport after he held a meeting with Hamas, the Gaza-based terrorist group.

It goes without saying that the best way to decrease the threat of homegrown Muslim terrorism is to continue to bomb Muslim countries, thereby decreasing the number of Muslims who want to emigrate here.     Another common sense approach would be to fly drones over American communities known to be providing sanctuary to Muslim terrorists, striking any buildings in which they may be holding out.  

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Wishing You a Safe and Merry Christmas

National Christmas Tree, Washington D.C.

The National Christmas Tree (top left corner of photo) stands on the Ellipse behind the White House.  Towards the center of the above photo you can see DoF's contribution.   The photo graces the cover of our Christmas greeting card.  We mail these out to our friends in the media and former/future colleagues in the defense industry. 

A limited number of cards signed by Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III are available in the gift store at DoF Center.  If you're in Washington over the holidays, be sure to drop by and pick one up.  Sorry sold out.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Sec Fear: Problems with New START Treaty

American workers are building our anti-balistic missile defense system.

DoF has serious concerns about New START and we fully support the efforts of a few Senate Republicans to kill the treaty by amending it.   Malcolm P. Stag III, Secretary of Fear, explained the department's opposition to New START during a speech Monday at the US Chamber of Commerce:
Failure to ratify New START will make it more difficult to prevent other states from building up nuclear arsenals of their own. Even if killing New START doesn't spark a three-way nuclear arms race between the Russians, the Chinese, and ourselves, it is certain to curtail support for the NPT. Presently, the rationale for America's strategic defense initiative depends on the indefinite continuation of the rogue regimes ruling Iran and North Korea. Yet, both of these unpopular regimes could collapse at any time, depriving us of our strongest sales pitch for anti-ballistic missile technology.   Even nuclear proliferation has an upside: it opens up an array of new markets for our anti-ballistic missile defense systems. 
It has been correctly pointed out that Russia's poorly defended nuclear weapons stockpile will not be easy for the US to monitor should New START fail. This situation also has an economic upside: It will provide an incentive for greater investment in an array of counter-terrorism measures. Also, emergency preparedness, including bomb-shelter design and construction. Tolerating higher risk in one area has the advantage of stimulating more investment in other areas, creating new jobs and boosting the US economy. 
Arms control is fundamentally incompatible with the sustained growth of the security and defense sectors.... Let us not forget that the New Start treaty was negotiated during a decade of economic prosperity and jobs growth. Given the recent slowdown in the US economy, ratification of New START can no longer be justified on economic grounds.
DoF is optimistic that geo-politically speaking, killing New START ought to be sufficiently destabilizing to spur the US economy for decades to come.   From the perspective of the DoF, the economic case against New START is bunker-strong.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Why we prefer Fox News

The New York Times reports:
According to the study, which can be reviewed online, in most cases, the more a person watched and read the news, the less likely they were to have been misled about the facts. But “there were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue,” the study’s authors wrote. In particular, they found that regular viewers of the Fox News Channel, which tilts to the right in prime time, were significantly more likely to believe untruths about the Democratic health care overhaul, climate change and other subjects.
As per the department's moto, Timendi causa est nescire.