Here's a thought-provoking op-ed from the New York Times tying the Trayvon Martin killing to the rapid growth of gated communities and the fear that feeds them.
The author, Rich Benjamin, suggests taking a broader view than just race toward "stand your ground" laws. "Those reducing this tragedy to racism," he observes, "miss a more accurate and painful
picture. Why is a child dead? The rise of “secure,” gated communities,
private cops, private roads, private parks, private schools, private
playgrounds — private, private, private —exacerbates biased treatment
against the young, the colored and the presumably poor."
But it is clearly about fear - unreasoning, irrational fear, fed by clever marketing.
Earlier, I referred to "stand your ground" as a lynch law. Some seem to think of lynching as a racist phenomenon. I don't. Out West, there were many lynchings of alleged robbers, horse thieves, rapists and other miscreants who were white.
Henry Fonda's "The Ox-Bow Incident" is only one of many western movies depicting the theme.
What is common about lynchings, whomever the victims, is that private citizens take the law into their own hands. More to the point, lynchings demonstrate a contempt for the rule of law itself. "Stand your ground" laws are founded on contempt for professional law enforcement.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
A Case Of Serious Planning
When twenty-two B-25 aircraft left Eglin Field on March 25 seventy years ago, the Doolittle raid had been in planning since December 21, 1941, two weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor. On that day, President Roosevelt met with his Joint Chiefs of Staff and expressed the desire to bomb Japan as soon as possible.
Both Army and Navy planners went into high gear. Three weeks later, a navy captain proposed launching Army twin-engine bombers from a navy aircraft carrier. The question became: which bomber? The two services considered the B-18, an obsolescent medium bomber, its successor the B-23 Dragon, the Martin B-26 Marauder and the B-25B. The B-25B, though untried in battle, met the requirements best.
Even so, the B-25 needed extensive engineering modifications to meet the range and bomb load requirements for the mission.
February 3rd, 1942, two B-25's successfully flew from the flight deck of USS Hornet (CV-8). It was not quite two months since Pearl Harbor.
Less than a month later, two dozen crews and modified aircraft began three weeks' intensive training in simulated carrier deck takeoffs, low-level and night flying, low-altitude bombing and over-water navigation. This training in itself was a major accomplishment. When the 22 remaining aircraft flew to California, it had been three months since President Roosevelt charged the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the mission.
In the meantime, USS Hornet was preparing for a voyage halfway around the world, into hostile waters.
Hornet left Norfolk March 4 for the Panama Canal and then on to Pearl Harbor to join Yorktown, Saratoga and Enterprise in the Pacific. Her immediate orders were to head to San Diego. She arrived on March 20, mooring at the carrier berth on North Island. She had steamed more than 6,000 nautical miles from Norfolk.
Preparing for combat, Hornet's Air Group 8 squadrons were provided with upgraded aircraft. Fighting 8 (VF-8) received the F4F-4 Wildcat. Bombing 8 (VB-8) and Scouting 8 (VS-8) received the SBD-3 Dauntless. Torpedo 8 (VT-8) remained stuck with the antiquated TBD-1 Devastator due to a delay in the delivery of the new TBF-1 Avenger. Hornet spent the next week qualifying the pilots for carrier launches and landings.
On March 28, Hornet tied up at North Island again to give her crew a final weekend of liberty in the US mainland. Captain Mitscher received a new set of Top Secret orders that would take the brand new ship on a very circuitous route to Pearl Harbor. Two days later Hornet sailed north, heading towards Alameda Naval Air Station, where she arrived on March 31 and moored at pier 2.
The Doolittle Raid
Meanwhile, twenty-two USAAF B-25 Mitchell bombers arrived at Alameda. On March 31 and April 1, with Hornet’s aircraft stored in the hangar deck, sixteen of the bombers were craned aboard and tethered to the flight deck. Shortly thereafter, 134 Army pilots and aircrew, led by LtCol Jimmy Doolittle, boarded the ship and Hornet slipped out to a mooring in SF Bay to spend the night. At mid-morning on April 2, Hornet and her escorts (Task Force 16.2) steamed under the Golden Gate Bridge, beginning the legendary mission known as the Doolittle Raid.
It was less than four months since the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Two dozen aircraft had been re-engineered.
Two dozen Army air crews had been trained in new techniques.
A brand new aircraft carrier (USS Hornet) had changed from one ocean to another, loaded newly delivered modern aircraft, qualified pilots and aircrew to operate from the new aircraft carrier.
16 B-25's were tied down on the flight deck of a ship for which they were not designed.
The sixteen Army air crews had never taken off from an aircraft carrier.
It would be five thousand miles before Hornet would reach the launch point.
Both Army and Navy planners went into high gear. Three weeks later, a navy captain proposed launching Army twin-engine bombers from a navy aircraft carrier. The question became: which bomber? The two services considered the B-18, an obsolescent medium bomber, its successor the B-23 Dragon, the Martin B-26 Marauder and the B-25B. The B-25B, though untried in battle, met the requirements best.
Even so, the B-25 needed extensive engineering modifications to meet the range and bomb load requirements for the mission.
February 3rd, 1942, two B-25's successfully flew from the flight deck of USS Hornet (CV-8). It was not quite two months since Pearl Harbor.
Less than a month later, two dozen crews and modified aircraft began three weeks' intensive training in simulated carrier deck takeoffs, low-level and night flying, low-altitude bombing and over-water navigation. This training in itself was a major accomplishment. When the 22 remaining aircraft flew to California, it had been three months since President Roosevelt charged the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the mission.
In the meantime, USS Hornet was preparing for a voyage halfway around the world, into hostile waters.
Hornet left Norfolk March 4 for the Panama Canal and then on to Pearl Harbor to join Yorktown, Saratoga and Enterprise in the Pacific. Her immediate orders were to head to San Diego. She arrived on March 20, mooring at the carrier berth on North Island. She had steamed more than 6,000 nautical miles from Norfolk.
Preparing for combat, Hornet's Air Group 8 squadrons were provided with upgraded aircraft. Fighting 8 (VF-8) received the F4F-4 Wildcat. Bombing 8 (VB-8) and Scouting 8 (VS-8) received the SBD-3 Dauntless. Torpedo 8 (VT-8) remained stuck with the antiquated TBD-1 Devastator due to a delay in the delivery of the new TBF-1 Avenger. Hornet spent the next week qualifying the pilots for carrier launches and landings.
On March 28, Hornet tied up at North Island again to give her crew a final weekend of liberty in the US mainland. Captain Mitscher received a new set of Top Secret orders that would take the brand new ship on a very circuitous route to Pearl Harbor. Two days later Hornet sailed north, heading towards Alameda Naval Air Station, where she arrived on March 31 and moored at pier 2.
The Doolittle Raid
Meanwhile, twenty-two USAAF B-25 Mitchell bombers arrived at Alameda. On March 31 and April 1, with Hornet’s aircraft stored in the hangar deck, sixteen of the bombers were craned aboard and tethered to the flight deck. Shortly thereafter, 134 Army pilots and aircrew, led by LtCol Jimmy Doolittle, boarded the ship and Hornet slipped out to a mooring in SF Bay to spend the night. At mid-morning on April 2, Hornet and her escorts (Task Force 16.2) steamed under the Golden Gate Bridge, beginning the legendary mission known as the Doolittle Raid.
It was less than four months since the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Two dozen aircraft had been re-engineered.
Two dozen Army air crews had been trained in new techniques.
A brand new aircraft carrier (USS Hornet) had changed from one ocean to another, loaded newly delivered modern aircraft, qualified pilots and aircrew to operate from the new aircraft carrier.
16 B-25's were tied down on the flight deck of a ship for which they were not designed.
The sixteen Army air crews had never taken off from an aircraft carrier.
It would be five thousand miles before Hornet would reach the launch point.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Economic Consequences of Republicans
There was a major Republican takeover of state governments in 2010. Subsequent job losses were most severe in a handful of GOP-controlled states. North Carolina is among the states with severe job losses among government workers. The losses would not have been so severe and unemployment would have been lower, except for the legislature's override of Governor Perdue's budget veto.
That same budget attacked Pamlico County by imposing ferry tolls on our highways.
The Nation has an excellent article analyzing the economic consequences of the takeover. Well worth reading.
That same budget attacked Pamlico County by imposing ferry tolls on our highways.
The Nation has an excellent article analyzing the economic consequences of the takeover. Well worth reading.
Rents Are Too D**n High
We keep hearing charges that "Oriental needs to be more friendly to business."
The truth is that the biggest obstacles to businesses in Oriental are:
1. Real estate is too expensive, resulting in business rentals that are too high;
2. We don't have enough customers - a permanent population of 900 just doesn't support many businesses.
Still, one of our present commissioners has emotionally charged a previous board with failure to adopt "the one thing" that would allow us to recruit more businesses, namely conditional zoning.
Balderdash!
Actually, when I first read the provisions in North Carolina General Statutes about conditional zoning, I thought it was worth investigating. We arranged to have a professional urban planner from the Easter Carolina Council brief us on the purposes and procedure. All of his examples came from larger towns and cities.
It pretty quickly became apparent to me that conditional zoning may be a good thing in towns with a number of specialized business districts with restrictive zoning categories. That isn't characteristic of Oriental.
We have only five zones, three of which are residential and two multi-use zones, with both business and residential uses. Scrutiny of the allowed uses within MU and MU-1 reveals that neither is very restrictive. For that matter, neither are our three residential zones. We allow business use in residents, so long as the use does not exceed 400 square feet.
So why the push for conditional zoning? The only possible use of such zoning would be to convert some portion of our residential zones to commercial use. Do we have such a critical shortage of commercial space that we need to expand into our residential zones?
I just rode my bicycle up Broad Street to the town limits. back down Midyette Street to the water and across Hodges. That route takes one along most of the area set aside for MU and MU-1 uses.
What did I find? At least four dozen properties for sale or lease and vacant lots. We seem to have no shortage of places to do business.
What we need are more customers. And lower rents.
The truth is that the biggest obstacles to businesses in Oriental are:
1. Real estate is too expensive, resulting in business rentals that are too high;
2. We don't have enough customers - a permanent population of 900 just doesn't support many businesses.
Still, one of our present commissioners has emotionally charged a previous board with failure to adopt "the one thing" that would allow us to recruit more businesses, namely conditional zoning.
Balderdash!
Actually, when I first read the provisions in North Carolina General Statutes about conditional zoning, I thought it was worth investigating. We arranged to have a professional urban planner from the Easter Carolina Council brief us on the purposes and procedure. All of his examples came from larger towns and cities.
It pretty quickly became apparent to me that conditional zoning may be a good thing in towns with a number of specialized business districts with restrictive zoning categories. That isn't characteristic of Oriental.
We have only five zones, three of which are residential and two multi-use zones, with both business and residential uses. Scrutiny of the allowed uses within MU and MU-1 reveals that neither is very restrictive. For that matter, neither are our three residential zones. We allow business use in residents, so long as the use does not exceed 400 square feet.
So why the push for conditional zoning? The only possible use of such zoning would be to convert some portion of our residential zones to commercial use. Do we have such a critical shortage of commercial space that we need to expand into our residential zones?
I just rode my bicycle up Broad Street to the town limits. back down Midyette Street to the water and across Hodges. That route takes one along most of the area set aside for MU and MU-1 uses.
What did I find? At least four dozen properties for sale or lease and vacant lots. We seem to have no shortage of places to do business.
What we need are more customers. And lower rents.
Long Range Planning For Town Of Oriental
About five years ago, the Town of Oriental's Board of Commissioners established a Long Range Planning Committee. I suggest that it is time to abolish the LRPC. Or, perhaps rename it the Long Running Planning Committee. Or perhaps the Interminable Planning Committee.
It may be time for the Town Board to declare the LRPC victorious and return all of its functions to the Town's Planning Board, to which they properly belong, anyhow.
It has been two and a half years since the original Long Range Planning Committee (of which I was a member) created its Long Range Vision Statement. The Town Board approved it October 9, 2009. A summary of the vision statement is posted on the wall at Town Board meetings. It is fine, as far as it goes. In fact, it is a good basis for planning, though I think it leaves out a thing or two.
What was supposed to happen next is that the town would work from the Vision statement and prepare a Comprehensive Plan.
North Carolina General Statutes stipulate that the town must have a comprehensive plan, but does not spell out exactly what that is. For at least one statutory purpose, the town's Growth Management Map meets the requirement for a Comprehensive Plan.
The effort for a more elaborate Comprehensive Plan has evolved into a kind of search for the Holy Grail of planning.
More than two years ago, Planning Board member Jim Barton made an excellent start to the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan. That effort fell apart for reasons that have never been entirely clear.
What is clear is that recent efforts of the LRPC II have detracted from planning efforts that need to be undertaken. For example, the Town needs to replace its decades-old Thoroughfare Plan (which is certainly a component of the elusive Comprehensive Plan) with a Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The reason is, that a CTP is necessary should the town seek Department of Transportation funding for bicycle paths, pedestrian pathways, etc. It would be best to task the Planning Board with development of a CTP (in conjunction with the DOT transportation planning department) and get on with it.
I think a long range plan without any specific mention of annexation does not meet the planning needs of the town.
What the town doesn't need the LRPC to do is to keep bringing up certain solutions in search of a problem as, for example, "Conditional Zoning" and "Smart Growth." Neither makes any sense without a plan for growth through annexation.
I'll have more to say about Conditional Zoning in the future.
It may be time for the Town Board to declare the LRPC victorious and return all of its functions to the Town's Planning Board, to which they properly belong, anyhow.
It has been two and a half years since the original Long Range Planning Committee (of which I was a member) created its Long Range Vision Statement. The Town Board approved it October 9, 2009. A summary of the vision statement is posted on the wall at Town Board meetings. It is fine, as far as it goes. In fact, it is a good basis for planning, though I think it leaves out a thing or two.
What was supposed to happen next is that the town would work from the Vision statement and prepare a Comprehensive Plan.
North Carolina General Statutes stipulate that the town must have a comprehensive plan, but does not spell out exactly what that is. For at least one statutory purpose, the town's Growth Management Map meets the requirement for a Comprehensive Plan.
The effort for a more elaborate Comprehensive Plan has evolved into a kind of search for the Holy Grail of planning.
More than two years ago, Planning Board member Jim Barton made an excellent start to the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan. That effort fell apart for reasons that have never been entirely clear.
What is clear is that recent efforts of the LRPC II have detracted from planning efforts that need to be undertaken. For example, the Town needs to replace its decades-old Thoroughfare Plan (which is certainly a component of the elusive Comprehensive Plan) with a Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The reason is, that a CTP is necessary should the town seek Department of Transportation funding for bicycle paths, pedestrian pathways, etc. It would be best to task the Planning Board with development of a CTP (in conjunction with the DOT transportation planning department) and get on with it.
I think a long range plan without any specific mention of annexation does not meet the planning needs of the town.
What the town doesn't need the LRPC to do is to keep bringing up certain solutions in search of a problem as, for example, "Conditional Zoning" and "Smart Growth." Neither makes any sense without a plan for growth through annexation.
I'll have more to say about Conditional Zoning in the future.
Monday, March 26, 2012
ALEC Target: Public Schools
ALEC doesn't like public schools. "The mission of ALEC’s Education Task Force," their web site proclaims, "is to promote excellence in
the nation’s educational system, to advance reforms through parental
choice, to support efficiency, accountability, and transparency in all
educational institutions, and to ensure America’s youth are given the
opportunity to succeed." Of course, their principal target is public school teachers and their unions.
Speaking of transparency, last year I was able to view the titles of ALEC-sponsored legislation drafted to achieve conservative goals in state legislatures. It was pretty easy to see, for example, which of the many bills pushed through North Carolina's legislature by the new Republican majority had originated in ALEC, because they used the same title. "Faithful Presidential Electors," for example, absorbed a lot of legislative attention. When was the last time you heard of a presidential elector not voting for the presidential candidate to whom he was pledged? It's pretty rare.
Anyhow, a lot of Alec's bills deal with public schools and particular the charter movement. After all, "our schools are failing and we have to do something." Today I wasn't able to find ALEC's list of bills.
Fortunately, the Center For Media And Democracy has established a web site to expose ALEC's legislative agenda: http://www.alecexposed.org
The site provides a road map to ALEC's agenda. It verifies, for example that voter ID laws came right out of ALEC's game plan. As did Wisconsin's anti labor provisions, its assault on public workers, and the rest of Governor Walker's radical agenda.
A lot of this session's bills in the North Carolina legislature likewise had nothing to do with the concerns of North Carolinians - and a lot to do with the concerns of ALEC's corporate sponsors.
Speaking of transparency, last year I was able to view the titles of ALEC-sponsored legislation drafted to achieve conservative goals in state legislatures. It was pretty easy to see, for example, which of the many bills pushed through North Carolina's legislature by the new Republican majority had originated in ALEC, because they used the same title. "Faithful Presidential Electors," for example, absorbed a lot of legislative attention. When was the last time you heard of a presidential elector not voting for the presidential candidate to whom he was pledged? It's pretty rare.
Anyhow, a lot of Alec's bills deal with public schools and particular the charter movement. After all, "our schools are failing and we have to do something." Today I wasn't able to find ALEC's list of bills.
Fortunately, the Center For Media And Democracy has established a web site to expose ALEC's legislative agenda: http://www.alecexposed.org
The site provides a road map to ALEC's agenda. It verifies, for example that voter ID laws came right out of ALEC's game plan. As did Wisconsin's anti labor provisions, its assault on public workers, and the rest of Governor Walker's radical agenda.
A lot of this session's bills in the North Carolina legislature likewise had nothing to do with the concerns of North Carolinians - and a lot to do with the concerns of ALEC's corporate sponsors.
National Lobbyists At NC Legislature
I have mentioned the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This innocuous-sounding organization is working assiduously to transform our form of government through changes to state laws.
It turns out that ALEC actually drafted Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that has become so notorious in the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing.
NY Time columnist Paul Krugman informs us in today's blog, Lobbyists, Guns and Money, how such things happen.
Has he been reading my blog? Probably not, but regular readers will recall that I called attention nearly a year ago to ALEC's influence on the newly-elected North Carolina state legislature here and here and here.
Apparently this legislature is interested mostly in serving their constituents at ALEC's headquarters instead of in their own districts.
It turns out that ALEC actually drafted Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that has become so notorious in the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing.
NY Time columnist Paul Krugman informs us in today's blog, Lobbyists, Guns and Money, how such things happen.
Has he been reading my blog? Probably not, but regular readers will recall that I called attention nearly a year ago to ALEC's influence on the newly-elected North Carolina state legislature here and here and here.
Apparently this legislature is interested mostly in serving their constituents at ALEC's headquarters instead of in their own districts.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Doolittle Update - 70 Years Ago
In February, 1942, the US Army Air Corps ferried two dozen B-25 medium bombers to a factory in Minneapolis to be modified for a very secret and hazardous mission. Everyone from the squadrons wanted to go, but only 24 crews were picked. The 24 crews selected picked up the modified bombers in Minneapolis and flew them to Eglin Field, Florida,
beginning 1 March 1942.
They went through three weeks of intensive training in simulated carrier deck takeoffs, low-level and night flying, low-altitude bombing and over-water navigation. Lieutenant Henry Miller, USN, from nearby Naval Air Station Pensacola supervised their takeoff training. and accompanied the crews to the launch. One aircraft was heavily damaged in a takeoff accident and another scratched from the mission because of a nose wheel shimmy.
On 25 March 1942, 70 years ago today, the remaining 22 mission-ready B-25s took off from Eglin for McClellan Field, California. Two days later, they touched down at Sacramento Air Depot for final modifications.
The North American B-25 Mitchell (named in honor of Air Power pioneer, Army General Billy Mitchell) was an untried aircraft. None had ever flown in combat. A total of 16 B-25s flew to Naval Air Station Alameda, California, on March 31.
The aircraft would push their design capabilities to the limit:
First Flight August 19, 1940
Number Built: 119 (actually it was supposed to be 120, but one crashed before delivery to the US Army Air Forces)
Powerplant(s): Wright cyclone R-2600-9 14 cylinders each
Weight (empty) 20,000 pounds
Maximum Horsepower (per engine) 1,700
1,350 HP at 13,000 feet
Maximum Speed 322 mph
300 Miles per Hour at 15,000 feet
Initial Rate of Climb 1,704 feet per minute
Ceiling 23,500 feet
Maximum Range 1,300 miles (with 694 gallons of fuel and a 3,000-pound bomb load)
[These planes had been modified, increasing fuel to 1,141 gallons and a 2,000-pound bomb load]
Gross Take-off Weight 26,208 pounds
Maximum Take-off Weight 28,460 pounds
Span 67 feet 7 inches
Wing Area 610 square feet
Length 52 feet 11 inches (without broomsticks :-) )
Height 15 feet 9 inches
Normal Bomb load 2,400 pounds
Various combinations of bombs could be carried. Total weight depended on amount of fuel carried and other variables
Normal range 2,000 miles
Crew: 5
They went through three weeks of intensive training in simulated carrier deck takeoffs, low-level and night flying, low-altitude bombing and over-water navigation. Lieutenant Henry Miller, USN, from nearby Naval Air Station Pensacola supervised their takeoff training. and accompanied the crews to the launch. One aircraft was heavily damaged in a takeoff accident and another scratched from the mission because of a nose wheel shimmy.
On 25 March 1942, 70 years ago today, the remaining 22 mission-ready B-25s took off from Eglin for McClellan Field, California. Two days later, they touched down at Sacramento Air Depot for final modifications.
The North American B-25 Mitchell (named in honor of Air Power pioneer, Army General Billy Mitchell) was an untried aircraft. None had ever flown in combat. A total of 16 B-25s flew to Naval Air Station Alameda, California, on March 31.
The aircraft would push their design capabilities to the limit:
B-25B Specifications and Data:
Manufacturer: North American AviationFirst Flight August 19, 1940
Number Built: 119 (actually it was supposed to be 120, but one crashed before delivery to the US Army Air Forces)
Powerplant(s): Wright cyclone R-2600-9 14 cylinders each
Weight (empty) 20,000 pounds
Maximum Horsepower (per engine) 1,700
1,350 HP at 13,000 feet
Maximum Speed 322 mph
300 Miles per Hour at 15,000 feet
Initial Rate of Climb 1,704 feet per minute
Ceiling 23,500 feet
Maximum Range 1,300 miles (with 694 gallons of fuel and a 3,000-pound bomb load)
[These planes had been modified, increasing fuel to 1,141 gallons and a 2,000-pound bomb load]
Gross Take-off Weight 26,208 pounds
Maximum Take-off Weight 28,460 pounds
Span 67 feet 7 inches
Wing Area 610 square feet
Length 52 feet 11 inches (without broomsticks :-) )
Height 15 feet 9 inches
Normal Bomb load 2,400 pounds
Various combinations of bombs could be carried. Total weight depended on amount of fuel carried and other variables
Normal range 2,000 miles
Crew: 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
