I went, for *TWO* whole hours. I left when fully disgusted. It's actually still going on, and I'm listening to it on the air, still. There were quite a few 'issues' raised. Some of them are accurate in part, but were mixed incorrectly.
First, foremost, (futilely?): There is NO physical expansion of *ANYTHING* (it's the same physical area, and it's *not* getting any increase in area).
Second: there's no 'militarization' of the coast (leastways, none more than's already done).
The proposal on the table is about increasing the testing levels (many not involving additional sorties) of various devices.
Now, whether or not the devices should be developed isn't on the table.
Whether or not the devices should be *used* isn't on the table.
What's on this table is whether or not they are *tested* in the field, in the sense of the *humans* who will be using the devices are certified *in* *the* *field*.
There simply is no other way that this can be accomplished. One can drive, or fly, or captain, only so many 'simulators' before one has to take the wheel of a *real* machine.
Would you want the pilot of your airplane to be *fully certified* in simulators, but never actually been behind the stick on a *real* airplane?
Do you want your bus driver to know exactly how to handle a computer-bus, but not having ever been in a physical vehicle?
Do you want the folks who are charged with protecting you to *NEVER* have actually tried protecting you before your life is on the line?
Really, folks.
What the *fuck* do you think we *PAY* for here?
If (note, that I say, "if") we want to have any protection, we pretty much have to pay to train them, or we might as well just blow off the whole idea of self-defense.
And (if you recall), the point of this exercise is supposed to be self-defense (not world conquest).
The Navy is the *only* part of the services authorized in the Constitution, BTW.
So, that said, here's some commentary on the above meeting:
Steve Scalmanini put forth the most salient and best worded point:
"More toxics in the ocean isn't a good idea."
And that was reflected in the direction that the Navy received to eliminate depleted uranium (DU) from their stores. They will replace it with tungsten steel.
Now, that said, "white phosphorus" (which we've reported on *EX-FUKIN-STENSIVELY*) is a flare. Incidentally, it's not a 'poison' (it's actually a fertilizer, and the 'P' in N-P-K, the other two being nitrogen and potassium [kalium]). It is a problem if it's being dumped, as it was when we used it in detergent (see 'phosphates'). But it's a problem because it *grows* seaweed. And, it's a nasty thing if it's used to 'illuminate' not a skyline, but the interior of a building. When used in that manner, it's not just a poison, it's a 'war crime'.
That said, the idea we'd be crisping dolphins or whales is kinda stretching it, yano?
I'm pretty sure if they use this 'toxic' chemical (given that they are, in fact, the Navy, and would be unlikely to use it against, say, an apartment building, as the Israelis recently did), the US Navy would likely be using this to light up darkness.
If it doesn't get all burnt up, the seaweed will prosper as a result (which is part of the reason that phosphates were made illegal in detergents in the '70s--too much veggies in the water clotting the fish). Not just phosphates, yano. I used to be able to buy laundry soap with *enzymes*.
Regardless, from my notes:
I saw a lot of 'killing marine life' statements, based on the 'taking' phrase, but the Navy reps made it quite apparent that that phrase meant that the sea life could *hear* the noise, not that they died.
There was a terribly entertaining individual named Rosalyn Peterson (sp?) that brought our attention to the 'zoom-in' feature of the map supplied (with appropriate ominous paranoid delusional fantasies).
She also was one of the clueless who warned us of the 'white phosphorus' use (bad on Gazans, Iraqis, or even Iranians, but somewhat irrelevant to sea-life, unless it's a plant and it's hungry).
Yes, it is toxic to 'marine mammals' (as to any mammal) if it's applied as a weapon. Chances are that no Navy personnel will decide to light a walrus up bright-as-day (like an IDF would do with a Palestinian).
In any case, it's apparent from attending the meeting:
There's no 'increased' area (no freakin' militarization of the 'coastline').
There's marginal increase in testing of various items, but it's *marginal*. The few things that are being increased drastically are things that have never been used.
Do you want them (really) to 'test-drive' the system the first time they have to use it to protect you?
BTW, I did look at the NRDC documents (which did *not* address the issue at hand, for the most part, but addressed the overall question of sonar).
Now, that's a different battle. It's an important battle, but it's not this battle.
This is a freakin' bureaucratic item. It's an increase in something that they are *already* doing, for the most part, and that only marginally.
And, AND *AND*, it's *ALL* above the 40th parallel.
The northern border of Mendocino county is the 40th parallel.
Freakin' tempest in a teacup, and it took *TWO* hours of my life to listen to these morons pontificate.
I won't even go into *who* posted the most moronic (and first) questions (of the Navy reps):
1) where do you live?
2) How many projects like this have you 'nixed' (cancelled)
3) Who's in charge of this project (implied 'Obama, or Bush?')
It set the mood appropriately, however.
I told the sheriff on the way out that I missed the torches and pitchforks, as they always lent such an atmosphere to such proceedings.
As I mentioned, my understanding is that it's not baseball, nor even football, that's America's Passtime (it's witch-burning).
And I still suggest that 'Tar-N-Feathers R US' is a potential franchise here in the USA.
View More Images
