jump to navigation

Rushed Flightline Friday: early F-16 July 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, fun, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.
comments closed

Pretty good video on the early development of the F-16 from Air Force Systems Command in 1977. It provides a lot of detail on the F-16, including its ability to radically outmaneuver preceding jets like the F-4E (not sure if the comparison was to F-4E with fixed slats or not – they made a big difference in Phantom maneuverability).

The F-16A was quite a bit different from the F-16. There is a shot at ~8:30 that shows many of the differences: the inlet was enlarged, the nose was significantly enlarged to provide room for the air-cooled APG-66/68 radar, the fuselage was made a bit wider and deeper to hold more fuel.  The arrogant “fighter mafia” led by McNamara favorites Pierre Sprey, Col. Everest Riccione, Chuck Spinney (founder of the hard left Center for Defense Information, which has opposed every single moderate or major defense program of the past 45 years) decried all these changes, but chief F-16 designer Harry Hillaker said that if GD had built the plane the fighter mafia wanted – a totally stripped down F-104 type with nothing but a gun and two Sidewinders, with no range at all – it would have been a failure.  He was right.

I have a huge beef with Sprey, Riccione, and Spinney. For one thing, they remain stuck firmly in the mid-60s.  They’ve never managed to get over that experience, of being “whiz kids” proved utterly wrong in having forced an aircraft with no gun and problematic maneuverability on all three services (the Phantom).  So they continue to trot out extremely antiquated and disproven “data” to oppose every new fighter since the F-16, which they unreasonably regard as their brainchild.  Things like “air to air missiles work less than 10% of the time” – true for 1967, but not for 2015.  Since the Gulf War, the effectiveness of air to air missiles has been greater than 50%.  Take everything they say with a huge grain of salt, and know they have opposed the F-15 (most successful air-superiority fighter ever), E-3 “AWACS” (probably the single most important factor in providing US air superiority in all conflicts since 1975), the unbelievably capable F-22 (they contributed to the disastrous decision to cancel production after only 187 airframes, knee-capping USAF air superiority capability for decades), and even the F-35 (which ain’t great, but at this point, its the only show in town).

Another interesting point: the presenter in the video, then Brig. Gen. James Abrahamson, had quite a colorful career.  Unknown to outsiders, he played a very significant role in bringing the F-16 to fruition, and led the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initative throughout most of the 80s.  Prior to that, he was selected as a USAF astronaut in 1967 to fly on the eventually cancelled KH-10 Manned Orbiting Laboratory, and flew F-100s in combat over Vietnam.  I did a paper on SDI back in high school (actually, three papers I think, I kept recycling the one I did in 10th grade and nobody caught on), and because I’m a life member of the Air Force Association and hence receive Air Force Magazine (and have since I was 13), I had a bunch of USAF-centric articles on SDI to use.  Gen. Abrahamson figured heavily in all those articles, so I wound up knowing quite a bit about the guy.  He was a consummate USAF pilot-politician, an extremely effective program manager and reputed all-around straight shooter.  Every program he managed seemed to have been managed well.

Have a good weekend:

Reason #9948 why America is doomed July 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, asshatery, Basics, foolishness, huh?, non squitur, paganism, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Goofy Friday non sequitur post ahead.

Look, I get it, not everyone likes McDonald’s.  They have issues.  I’m rather cold to their lunch/dinner items, but I’ve always thought their breakfasts were pretty good.

But who are these people – “millenials” apparently – who have never had McDonald’s before, or at least the breakfast?  And why do they pretend as if they’ve never seen a burrito or some kind of a wrapped sandwich?  I’m calling BS on this. I’m calling “I’m so above the hoi polloi I don’t even know what this pre-packaged food for the masses is.”

But I’m calling more than that.  Wait and see:

First, I bet most of these people are BuzzFeed interns/hangers on.  I sincerely doubt their randomness.


I will admit, when I first saw Zach, I had an irresistible urge to do something cruel.  But as I watched the video I found him slightly more tolerable, but still highly annoying.

Let’s look at his statement: “When I was older, I started loving Chick Fil A, then Chick Fil A started hating gay people.”

Now what would prompt a person to make that kind of statement in this environment?  Let’s assume he is just a “man off the street” who has never had McDonald’s.  This is what he comes with?  Some radical sodo-propaganda?  Why would Chick Fil A’s now abandoned stand for marriage cause him such angst that he is still assaulting random strangers about it, even 2  years after they caved?

And yet I see statements like this all the time. I was watching some review about True Detective Season II on Youtube and the reviewer, for no apparent reason, spent the first five minutes of the review just bashing Christians and other “homophobes.”  It was completely out of left field.

My belief is, people do not make statements like this out of real conviction.  They may think that’s their motivation, but the statements are too of a kind, too plainly simply a regurgitation of propaganda they’ve heard elsewhere, to really come from a “this is something I believe down to my core” kind of motivation.

I think these kinds of reflexive ejaculations of propaganda are made for two primary reasons: a kind of gnostic tribalism, signalling oneself to be above the “other,” and base fear.  Fear at being “outed” from the elite one craves to belong to.

That this belonging is almost always a total illusion only reinforces the craving to belong. This tendency seems incredibly common among millenials in particular, who, to my old grey mind, seem to be so easily manipulated by social propaganda as to essentially stand for nothing.  Whatever the “hip”  sources (what is that: Reddit, Buzzfeed, Tumblr, Gawker?) tell them to believe, they’ll parrot that like the most zealous Hitler Youth at Nuremberg in 1935.

I wonder if these people (save maybe for the Aussie?) have any idea how shallow and……dare I say it?……fake they come across.  Every reaction seems contrived, to prove some point (I’m above this).

No I do not mean to pick upon you, or your kids, I’m speaking in generalities.  I know folks in the ostensible “millenial” age range that are very much grounded in reality and who have substantial personalities in their own right.

I guess my major beef with this – and I don’t mean to come off as some McDonald’s shill because I’m not, I eat there but only on occasion – is that it seems so contrived.  And I think so much of our culture today is just that: contrived. Political theater, constant 24/7 entertainment for the masses, people dealing in shallowness, and very few having the time or inclination to go a bit deeper, to say what people have always said: why am I here?  What does this mean?  We Christians, thanks be to God, have the answers. But there are so, so many lost souls out there who do not.  I think that video struck me as emblematic of that. There are so many people, especially young people, who are essentially groundless, and thus move with whatever they perceive to be the strongest breeze blowing through the culture.

But then again, a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.


Robert Reilly’s talks on the destructive effects of the rationalization for sodomy now on Youtube July 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, disaster, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

A couple of weeks ago I linked to a couple of 1 1/2 hour talks Robert Reilly gave on the topic of his latest book: Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexuality is Changing Everything.  At that time, the talks were not in a format I could embed in a post.  Thanks to Sensus Fidelium, they now are.  Both talks are below.

I know they seem long, but if you haven’t gotten the book, this is an efficient way to get the content therefrom for free.  You’ll miss a lot of detail but I think pretty much every major topic in the book is covered pretty well in these talks.  As I’ve said before, I believe Making Gay Okay is the most thorough destruction of pseudo-sodo-marriage I’ve ever read, and it is done with zero religious reference.  It is all strictly from reason and natural law.  Now, of course I’m not saying that there are not powerful religious arguments in opposition to sodomy – of course for me those are the most powerful – the problem being, more and more people in our culture today hear “religion,” or especially “Christianity,” and they instantly shut down and write you (me) off as a worthless fundamentalist.  Which is funny, because in so doing, they are practicing a bigotry such folks typically assume themselves to be so far above.

Onwards to the vids:

Parte Deux:


TFP praying outside area mills 07/26-07/27/15 July 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Admin, contraception, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Just a quick notice and request, members of Tradition, Family, and Property are going to be praying outside area mills this Sunday and Monday.  I’m not sure of their schedule.  I think this is the group based more or less out of Tyler.  Anyway they are coming to Dallas to pray outside mills and they are looking for a place to stay Sunday and Monday night.  They will stay anywhere, sleep on the floor, etc., but they have one requirement: no teenage girls.  Anything else is fine.  I assume relative proximity to the two remaining mills would be a plus.

If you think you have an ability to help you can contact Joanne Underwood at the Dallas CPLC.

BTW, I know some readers have issues with TFP but I do think they’ve written one of the best responses to the diabolical Obergefell decision I’ve read.  It brings out a number of important points, including the fact that even the very hostile dissenting views expressed by some justices are deficient in that they ignore the natural law:

Regrettably, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent was weak and included concessions to the homosexual movement such as: “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us….”  “Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling….” “The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.”[14]

More importantly, Roberts’ dissent shares by omission in the majority’s implied denial of the obligation of every man, and therefore of society, to do good and to avoid evil. There is no discussion much less condemnation of the unnaturalness and intrinsic immorality of the homosexual act, which lies at the root of every same-sex “marriage.”[15]

With the attention of America riveted on the issue, Roberts’ dissent could have been used as an ideal “teaching moment” that a moral wrong can never become a civil right, steering America’s conservative reaction onto the high ground where it belongs……..

……Of the three other dissenting opinions only that of Justice Thomas comes close to mentioning our obligations under Natural Law, but only in a fleeting manner. He quotes John Locke and Thomas Rutherforth but does not develop this line of thought.[16] While he expounds ably our constitutional political liberty and correctly denounces the majority’s misconception of the physical liberty alluded to in the Fourteenth Amendment, he does not denounce their erroneous view of man’s moral liberty.

Both majority and dissenting opinions talk about the impact of this decision on the free exercise of religion in America. The latter show evident concern that it stands threatened, and they should be worried. Just as the homosexual movement fought for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” so that homosexuality would be accepted as normal and homosexual acts would be considered equal to the marital act, it will now push to further erode and eventually extirpate the expression of Christian morality from society.[17]

This decision increases the country’s growing polarization. If before this decision anti-discrimination laws around the country were already being used to elevate homosexuals to a privileged class, giving rise to many incidents of egregious and unjust persecution (e.g. bakers, florists, photographers, CEOs, teachers, etc.), what will the nation witness in the decision’s wake?