jump to navigation

Continuing Resolutions Keep the Government Shutdown Suspense Going and Create Havoc for Government Agencies January 19, 2018

Posted by revengeofareasonablemind in Congress, Defense Budget, Political Commentary.
Tags:
add a comment

There will be no government shut down….again. Or, maybe there will be. Sooner or later the Congress will pass another Continuing Resolution (CR) stopgap appropriation to keep the government open a little while longer, this year. This foolishness is more that enough to prompt the revenge of a reasonable mind.

Congress will have kicked the government-funding can down the road. Senators and congressional representatives will pat themselves on the back for coming together to avert a government-closing crisis that would have impacted our military members and government workers around the world.

It is one of the consistent perversities of congressional behavior. Had they done their jobs, there would have been an FY2018 appropriations bill that funded the government back in September of calendar year 2017.

The truth is that all Congress has done is heap budget uncertainty up on budget uncertainty that will gobble up nearly half of the FY2018 funding year. The January 2018 AGA Corporate Partner Advisory Group Survey, accomplished with the support of Grant Thornton’s Public Sector group asked the Chief Financial Officers of federal, state and other government agencies what the greatest current challenge was. Of the 60 percent of those surveyed who were federal government CFOs, 41 percent said that biggest current challenge was budget uncertainty. When asked what they “anticipated being your greatest future challenge,” 45 percent said budget uncertainty. Such findings are not unusual, but very similar from year to year, yet congress evidently sees no evidence of the enormous problem.

Government contracts that were to have started back in October, November, December, or January will not start, because the serial CRs prescribe no new starts. Companies that would have hired new workers for the new contracts will not. And, if a company had anticipated increasing a current contract’s production rate and perhaps hiring additional workers, that company cannot. One of the odious aspects of the CR is that as long as the CR is in place (not replaced by a real appropriations bill) government agency spending is capped at the level of spending in the previous year. The Defense Department is particularly hard hit by CRs by virtue of the sheer magnitude and number of its budget and global operations.

Year after year, CRs cost the taxpayer real money. Put simply funding uncertainty is risk and risk is money. The time that the CRs cost in planning, purchasing and manufacturing also costs a great deal. When hamstrung by the CR’s there are “no new military construction projects.” For example, when project schedules are delayed the delays contain potential cost increases.

For FY2018 planned programs include 37 Navy projects, 38 Army projects and 16 Air Force projects. Companies doing business with the government do what they can to mitigate risk. That means recovering contract costs from the customer, in this case the government. Another example is workforce hiring and training has to be held them in abeyance or early hiring results in layoffs, re-hiring and re-training. That costs a lot of money. Companies beholding to stockholders will recover that cost, in some fashion. The loser is the taxpayer.

Perhaps worse, is that some companies, faced with the uncertainty of CRs every year, refuse to do business with the government. As a result, oftentimes valuable suppliers and their products are not available to government contracts. Sandra Erwin, last December, in Space News described the dwindling defense supplier base this way: “Unstable budget cycles have become the norm in a deeply divided Washington, although so far the impact on the economy has not been noticeable. The unpredictability of funding, however, is taking a toll on industries that heavily depend on government work.”

The taxpayer also pays a higher bill for companies not being able to increase production rates according to plan and contract terms. The price for a product normally depends on the number of products produced in a given year. In a September 8, 2017 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense James Mattis points out, “As is the case in the private sector, DoD saves money by buying in quantity. When we are forced to sever contracts and renegotiate terms with each CR, our costs grow to offset risks and delays; we offer vendors less stability and predictability, and pay accordingly.”

As Secretary Mattis implies, if a production rate that was to increase during the annual funding cycle is capped at the previous years’ lower rate, unit costs go up and so does the price. Imagine, hypothetically, if an aircraft company anticipates producing 84 aircraft this year and was producing 60 last year or five aircraft per month, the expected increase of 24 aircraft or an additional two per month is wiped out by the CR.

Unfortunately, if Congress does not pass an appropriations bill in February, half the production year (October through March) will have passed. If the 84 unit production rate can be reached, a production line original geared for seven aircraft per month will now be expected go from producing six aircraft per month under the CR to producing nine to achieve the contractually agreed to 84 aircraft. That is an increase of 50% in production in the last six months of the year. That is a stretch for any aerospace company, not to mention all the suppliers. More than likely, some portion of the 34 additional aircraft would be pushed to subsequent years at a higher unit cost.

Production rates aren’t pulled out of thin air. They are derived from mission requirements, retirement of old weapon systems and other factors that comprise the force’s needs.

It’s not just the taxpayer that foots the bill. The Defense Department customer for products and services suffers as well. In his letter to the SASC, the Secretary of Defense also identified other downsides for the Defense Department with a 90-day CR. Keep in mind we are now looking at over 140 days of CR. Secretary Mattis explained that training for readiness of our military forces is in jeopardy. He said, “Impacts begin immediately, within the first 30-days of a CR. By 90-days, the lost training is unrecoverable due to subsequent scheduled training events. These training losses reduce the effectiveness of subsequent training events in FY18 and in subsequent years.” We are already looking at over 140 days, not just 30. It should be remembered that one of the findings in the U.S. Navy’s investigation of the U.S. destroyers USS Fitzgerald the USS McCain collisions with larger commercial vessels was lack of training.

What were once conceived-of as emergency, stopgap measures to address unforeseen circumstances that delayed passing an appropriations bill by September 30 each year, CRs have become a way of life. The Hill reported back in December that Senator John McCain and Representative Adam Smith, “have noted, it is well past time for Congress to return to regular order. We eagerly join this chorus, but are not optimistic that a return to normal budget processes is likely anytime soon.”

Since the Congress has passed a full appropriations bill only four times since 1970, the folks at The Hill are probably safe in their skepticism. At this writing, there are less than 13 hours to go before the government does not down as this CR runs out. The Senate is already talking about extending the current CR a “few days.”

Strategy Tragedy: Obama Administration Deals with ISIS or ISIL April 25, 2015

Posted by revengeofareasonablemind in National Security, Political Commentary.
add a comment

We know a great deal (not to be confused with the out come of the negotiations with Iran, which is not a “great deal”) from the Administration about their “strategy” for engaging the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  Let’s just call these creatures Daesh, since as Zeba Kahn points out in the October 9th edition of the Boston Globe, “The term ‘Daesh’ is strategically (and we are talking about strategy here) a better choice because it is still accurate in that it spells out the acronym of the group’s full Arabic name, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. Yet, at the same time, ‘Daesh’ can also be understood as a play on words — and an insult.” But, as they say, “I digress.”

Though President Obama’s “strategy” has been met with fusillade of commentary ranging from those loyal-to-a-fault sycophants who gushed how the President could not be more on the mark and insightful to those who opine that the Administration’s strategy is a confusing rehash of a random assortment of words that muddy whatever the policy is for dealing with Daesh, even more than it is muddied already; if that’s possible.  The most recent nexus of events where Iran has gotten involved with defeating Daesh or rather asserting military influence in Iraq (albeit not particularly effectively) to the consternation of the U.S., presents President Obama with a real dilemma.  The U.S. provided air support to the Iraqis in taking back the Iraqi town of Tikrit.  But, the Iranians were allied with the Iraqi’s.  So, we were providing air support to the Iranians, as well.  Now, let’s look at Yemen.  The Yemeni Houthi rebels have all but over thrown the government of Yemen.  We don’t want the government of Yemen overthrown and back the efforts of the Saudis and the Arab “Coalition” to destroy the Houthi rebels who are supported by Iran.  Meantime, Secretary Kerry is excited that he and his team are negotiating with Iran (number one state sponsor of terrorism) to stop Iran from building atomic bombs.  All of this, makes the Obama Strategy for dealing effectively with Daesh difficult to follow.   At any rate amidst the warring points of view, none being particularly compelling, the confusions about who’s side we should be supporting and why, I thought that the subject of the “strategy” was deserving of a yet-to-be-heard clear recommendation  and the revenge of a reasonable mind.

First, I think it is accurate to say that what got everyone off to bad start were the President’s comments back in September 2014 at the National Defense University, never mind the avalanche of mixed messages leading up to the speech, when used the word “strategy.”  Obama in his remarks did start the strategy discussion in a reasonable albeit small ball way.  He said the Administration’s “objective” was to “degrade and defeat” Daesh.  But, then he explained that there were four parts to the U.S. strategy.

  1. A systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL [Daesh]
  2. Increased support to forces fighting ISIL [Daesh] (Aside: I don’t believe that Obama anticipated that this included Iran)
  3. Drawing on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL [Daesh] attacks
  4. Providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced by ISIL [Daesh]

What appears to be the case here is that the four parts to the strategy look more like tactics or actions that the U.S. would be expected to take anyway, along with a significant number of others not mentioned that would be effective, ultimately, in eliminating radical Islamic jihadism from existence.  The actions are limited in scope, addressing a very regionalized manifestation of a more global phenomenon that threatens the U.S. and it friends and allies. I think people were expecting a strategy to deal with Daesh in the broadest sense of the word “strategy” on the order of the strategy implemented during World War II when the U.S. chose a Europe First course of action.  The reason that it was a strategy was that it made very clear the way ahead, was actionable and established the foundation for integrated tactics both operational and logistical.  The four-part “strategy” the Obama Administration has offered up falls somewhere way short of being an integrated course of action that meets the “Europe First” standard.

Let’s look at what a more effective “strategy” might look like.  We need a strategy statement that in the broadest sense incorporates the objective that Administration offered, “degrade and defeat” Daesh, but one that addresses the more pervasive problem of global Islamic fanaticism that leads to terrorism.  I recommend the following: “The United States is committed to using its considerable world wide physical presence, its matchless military strength, its economic reach and diplomatic prowess to eliminate those individuals and organizations who would prostitute and use the Islamic religion to pursue terrorism or other hostile intent and represent a real, active and persistent threat to the U.S. national security and U.S. citizens wherever they may be.”  Now, I suspect the first thing someone will say is, “well you can’t hope to eliminate the Islamic jihadist threat completely.”  Ok, but if you have that as your strategy statement, you will muster the resources and focus them iHighway of Death 1991n way where you might come close.  In any event you will be on the right strategic path.  With out the breadth of such a strategy statement, we run the risk of aiming too low, like Obama did. With our strategy statement fleshed out, the U.S. strategy to achieve the objectives inherent in the statement should be.  The Middle East and Africa will be where we will focus our efforts first.  This strategy forms the basis for more pragmatic and effective actions or tactics.  We aren’t just employing what the Administration calls a “systematic campaign of airstrikes.”  Eliminate means we want our airstrikes against Daesh to mirror the effects of U.S. airstrikes in DESERT STORM (see the photo of the “Highway of Death” leading out of Kuwait in 1991).  Please note that nothing moved once the Iraqi convoys became targets.  Highway 1 leading from Mosul to Syria should look just like the “Highway of Death.”  We know what an annihilating air campaign looks like and we must not be hesitant to engage the Daesh enemy with that level of persistent air power. The problem with airpower, however, is that it is only part of kinetic enemy engagement equation.  Like it or not, fighter pilots can drop bombs, shoot rockets and pull Gs until their G-suits squeeze them silly, but if there isn’t a soldier with his rifle advancing to, standing on and defending a square meter of ground, we haven’t won anything.  The U.S. must deploy sufficient ground forces to effectively deal with Daesh in Iraq, with the understanding that redeployment will happen when we’ve achieved the goal of every Daesh fighter being eliminated from being a threat….ever.  No time limit, just a clear understanding by all involved what the end of hostilities looks like.  What is missing from the Obama list of actions, is what the outcome or goal will be.  The end state of our bombing campaign has to be that no Daesh fighter can reasonably expect to come out from hiding, day or night, be able to move, or in anyway reveal themselves without dying a quick and violent death.  No reinforcements or supplies or logistics support of any kind can reach the Daesh strongholds.  Armies must be resupplied and the Daesh is no different.  Stop there supplies.  For Daesh in Iraq there can be only two alternatives, give up the will to continue fight or be dead.  Either way it should not matter to us.

Committing the U.S. economic reach means that there isn’t a bank or investment account anywhere in the world that would or could support Daesh, Al Qaeda, Al-Shabbab, Boca Haram or any other version of Islamic Jihadist extremism.  They all would be frozen.  A more effective approach would be to simply drain the accounts of the money and give it as reparations to those who have been terrorized.   People or organizations who want to continue to funnel money to Islamic terrorist groups also risk the same fate as the Daesh fighters in Tikrit and Mosul.  We have the capability to employ covert actions against people and organizations world wide.  Let’s use it.  These objectives and strategy require that the Administration does something that up until now it has not had an appetite for, or at least failed to do.  The U.S. must employ the immense capability we have to attack and defeat the psychology of the terrorist.  The Islamic terrorists believe that sacrificing themselves to achieve their distorted view of Allah’s will is the end state that is their divine mission.  Many young Muslim men and women in Europe and the U.S. have the mistaken notion that their personal jihad is to join the Daesh in this glorious religious, righteous crusade.  We want them to realize beyond a shadow of a doubt that attempting to achieve their goal will result simply in their end.  Start to feed the social media that they watch so closely with the absolutely certain ignominious and brutal end that they will meet.  Make it clear that whatever winning means to them is simply not possible in the face of the overwhelming power of the U.S. on all fronts.  But, under no circumstance give them hope of accomplishing their purpose.    

Lastly, our diplomatic strength must be focused on our allies in Europe to convince them that their active participation in this war against Islamic radical jihadists is the only way of reducing the peril for their citizens.  We must use our diplomatic leverage to convince the Middle Eastern friendly nations that our purpose is to create less hostile environment for them as well.  They have a stake in the outcome.    In the end our strategy and tactical objectives must demonstrate that the United States understands that we are at war with fanatical Islamic terrorists and jihadists.  They declared the war and we must realize it and fight with the immense capability at our disposal on all fronts.

There’s No In Between October 8, 2012

Posted by revengeofareasonablemind in Political Commentary.
add a comment

Okay, I’m a talk show junky and it’s Sunday again and I was enjoying the patter between Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley and Senator Kelly Ayotte when the subject of the national debt came up.  Senator Ayotte made the statement that the national debt has risen more under President Obama in the last four years than it has under any other president.  Governor O’Malley leaped on the statement saying it was not true and that the Senator knew it wasn’t true.  Well, I thought that should be easy enough to determine.  So, I went to the Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables Budget of the U.S. Government, page 139.  This is a very interesting book since it tracks the U.S. Federal Government financial data back to 1940.

What I found was that during the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations from 1940 to 1952 the Federal Debt grew from $51 billion to $259 billion.  The growth during this time was $208 billion.  That is a 5.1 fold growth, but there was World War II and the Korean War to fund, so we can understand the desire to pay for the wars with borrowed money.  During Eisenhower’s two terms the debt grew from $259 billion to $291 billion or $32 billion, or 12 percent.  That’s an average annual growth of $4 billion.

During the Kennedy – Johnson Administrations the debt grew from $291 billion to $369 billion, $78 billion or 27 percent.  When Nixon was elected in 1969, the federal debt was $366 billion.  When President Ford left office in 1977, the debt was $629 billion.  During the Nixon – Ford years the debt increased $263 billion or 72 percent.  That’s an average annual increase of $32.9 billion.  From 1977 through 1980, the Carter years, the federal debt increased from $706 billion $909 billion, that is $203 billion or 28 percent.   But, the average annual growth is $50.8 billion for the Carter single term.

The Reagan years saw the federal debt go from $995 billion to $2.601 trillion, a jump of $1.606 trillion.  That represents a 2.6 fold increase or an average annual growth of $201 billion.  The George H. W. Bush years from 1989 to 1992 reflected a federal debt increase from $2.868 trillion to $4.002 trillion, a bump of $1.134 trillion or about 40 percent.  The average annual growth was $284 billion.  Then came the Clinton years where the debt went from $4.351 trillion to $5.605 trillion, a growth of $1.248 trillion or 29 percent.  That is an average annual growth of $156 billion.

Now, comes the George W. Bush years that the President Obama folks like to point to as the President who left them in such economic straights.  President Bush was in office for eight years.  When he took office the federal debt was $5.605 trillion and at the end of his first year it was $5.770 trillion.  The debt had grown by $165 billion or 3 percent.  By the end of Bush ’43’s first term the federal debt had grown to $7.355 trillion or an increase of $1.750 trillion over the Bush first term or 31 percent growth.  The average annual growth over Bush’s first four years was $438 billion.

President Bush’s second term had a federal debt growth from $7.355 trillion at the end of his first term to $9.986 trillion at the end of 2008.  That is a growth of $2.631 trillion or 36 percent with an average annual growth of $658 billion.  For the entire 8 years of the Bush ’43 Administration the average annual growth rate in the federal debt was $548 billion.  Now, keep in mind that G. W. during his time in office put troops in Iraq to stop the maniacal Hussein from slaughtering his people and thumbing his nose at 17 United Nation’s resolutions and took on the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist’s strongholds in Afghanistan.  Not, to mention the fact that Bush brought the U.S. back from the most devastating terrorist attack on the U.S. in its history.  The attack took an incredible financial toll and building the financial and air transportation infrastructure took money.

Now, President Obama has been in office slightly less than four years.  Let’s call it 3.8 years. (3 years 10 months).  When President Obama took office as we said the federal debt was at $9.986 trillion.  Currently, the debt stands at $16.174 trillion.  That is an increase of $6.188 trillion or 62 percent and an average annual increase of $1.628 trillion.  Indeed the highest average annual increase in the debt and the highest overall increase in debt of any president in the history of the United States.  This debt was incurred while drawing down military forces in Iraq.  Senator Ayotte was absolute right and Governor O’Malley, an Obama supporter was absolutely wrong.

So, what is the take away.  Since anyone, even a governor or his staff could do what I did by looking up the numbers.  And, by doing so can find the real truth about the debt.   Then, one of two things has to be true.  Either the Governor knowing what the accurate numbers are chose to purposefully deceive the television viewers to promote the Obama agenda, or he is simply incompetent and doesn’t have a clue as to what he’s talking about.  There is no in between.  Pouring through historical data is not fun, but sometime it’s necessary to achieve the revenge of a reasonable mind.

It’s Sunday at the Talk Shows September 16, 2012

Posted by revengeofareasonablemind in Political Commentary.
add a comment

Today I was exposed to the most amazing cacophony of punditry.  It hurt my brain.  But, it is Sunday morning and the talk shows rule (just before NFL football, of course).   After watching for some time I’ve come to some conclusions.  The Obama Administration is in charge of and responsible for foreign policy for the United States.  Mobs in Egypt, Tunisia and a host of other Muslim countries have taken exception to a YouTube video clip that is contemptuously and insultingly critical of Islam.  This has happened before with a cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine that prompted rioting in Muslim countries around the world. It is not new. This behavior is emblematic of myriad Muslim countries.  American foreign policy must account for the predictable behaviors and cultures of all countries in which our State Department has a presence.  As it turns out, Muslim countries deserve particular vigilance.

However, the Obama Administration explains that in this latest uprising in Muslim countries the behavior is not about US policy in those countries.  It is exclusively about this video that Muslim find so offensive.  I heard Ambassador Rice explain this position in a most emphatic way on Fox News Sunday.   Many interviewers are missing an important question.   Wasn’t that behavior predictable and shouldn’t the US have a foreign policy that addresses the possibility of such behavior getting out of hand and mobs crashing our embassy gates and occupying US sovereign territory inside embassy grounds in a foreign nation.  Diplomatic presence in a foreign nation is an identity with US foreign policy.  An attack against a US embassy is an attack on the US and its policies.  Otherwise the mobs would be attacking internet cafe’s where YouTube is available.

US presence is also an identity with US core values of freedom of speech, religion, an open and free press and the right of peaceable assembly that our state department is supposed represent to a foreign nation.  Our foreign policy fortified by our core values must anticipate that not all countries share our core values.  Muslim countries seem to be least likely to adopt a cordial coexistence with our core values. We should not be surprised.  We should have a foreign policy that fundamentally recognizes that this tension with other nations that do not embrace our core values will exist.

When Egyptian rioters write on barricade walls out side the US Embassy in Cairo, “USA go to hell,” rioting Tunisians set fire to our Embassy in Tunis, and our Ambassador to Libya is assassinated along with three of our State Department staff it speaks to a failure of foreign policy on some level.  It can’t be about a video.  The video was simply the vehicle that exposed the volatility of the extreme and maniacal sentiment that these people in Muslim countries hold for the United States.  They focus on the United States not because of our movie and entertainment industry but because our core values allow for free speech, in this case.  The consequence of free speech is that despicable and vile speech can happen.  Americans don’t like it, but we’ve fought wars to preserve the right.

The riots and violence in the Middle East this past week and for what may be coming weeks is exactly about US foreign policy and its failure to accommodate to and address the possibility that some nations and Muslim countries specifically don’t like the United States.  It is not an act of political desperation to point out this failure as some in the Administration suggest.  It is the legitimate revenge of a reasonable mind.

Clinton Scores Big in the “Almost Right” Column September 16, 2012

Posted by revengeofareasonablemind in Political Commentary.
add a comment

Normally I’m not really picky about these things, but when the former president of the whole United States Bill Clinton (whom you will remember from the 1990s) ridiculed the Republicans for having the temerity to criticize the current president of the whole United States (whom we can’t forget from the last four years) for doing serious violence to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.  Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services under the guize of helping welfare recipients get assistance for not working proposes changing the definition of work.  Well, that is not working for most of us who really know what the opposite of actually working is.  Oh, I get it we’re back to the definition of “is.”  One of Former President Clinton’s favorite words.

It seems Republicans found problems with the President’s benevolence, stretching the reasonableness test of Merriam Webster’s Dictionary with taxpayer dollars.  You see President Obama’s definition of work discards what the 1996 Welfare Reform Act originally had in mind.  You know real work, manual labor, nose to the old grind stone stuff.  But, now President Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) allows states to come up with new definitions of work.  It seems that a host of  HHS waivers are available for States to skirt or ignore the work requirement in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) section of the Welfare Reform Act.  Waivers will be are possible for just about any pursuit that even in the remotest way prepares a welfare recipient to apply for work.  Suddenly, one can envision playing golf in hopes of getting that all important PGA Tour Card (Hope springs eternal among the 20 handicap crowd).  It is just plain silly.  And, you know what?  The Republicans and me, well we aren’t the only ones that think so.

Come to find out that the Government Accountability Office not only thinks the waiver business is silly (my words), but it is also illegal, in as much as it does not comport with the law.  How about that.  It’s illegal.  Apparently, even the Obama Administration actually has to go to Congress to get legislation modified or waived.  This HHS memorandum to the states constitutes a new “rule” and must be submitted to Congress for review and possibly disapproval.  That process is required by the Congressional Review Act.

So, President Clinton, nice speech at the Democratic National Convention.  Republicans, however, did do a smack down of your Candidate Obama’s attempt to get around those pesky work requirements for welfare recipients to get taxpayer provided welfare checks. But, you forgot to mention that so did the GAO.  That put’s you in the “almost right” column.  Pointing this out is just the revenge of a reasonable mind.

Revenge of a Reasonable Mind: An Introduction September 9, 2012

Posted by revengeofareasonablemind in Political Commentary.
add a comment

This is my first stab at writing a blog, or as you experts at it call “blogging,” or so I’m told.  So, if this seems a little rough, well I warned you.  The instructions that came with signing up for the WordPress.com blog writing service explained that a domain name was required and that there could be no spaces.  So, the domain name turned out to be revengeofareasonablemind which could be difficult to pronounce correctly.  There’s a chance that you could get the emphasis on the wrong syllable, since there are a lot of syllables, if you don’t use spaces.  So, I thought I’d put the spaces in in the title.  Okay, so why the title in the first place?  Well, I’ve been paying attention to what’s been going on in the news in print and on the television, both cable and the mainstream networks.  My conclusion is that I’m the victim of an intellectual assault and battery.  I’m not making this charge lightly.

At first I was just going to claim simple intellectual assault, but I got thinking.  Doesn’t the phrase that describes assault generally include “battery” also; as in, “the mugger was charged with assault and battery?”  However, I didn’t want to go overboard if all the stuff that the media wants us to believe just hurt my brain.  Although, in some very litigious circles (like California) that would be sufficient.  So, I looked up the “battery” part of assault and battery in the dictionary.  The definition explained “…even where the contact is not violent but merely menacing or offensive.”  Perfect.  That’s it in a nutshell.  Not only does the goofy stuff I am exposed to by the media actually hurt my brain, it is also menacing and offensive to what I believe is my reasonable mind.  It is an attack deserving of REVENGE.

So, from time to time as I am assaulted and batteryed (?), I will get revenge by applying a really big dose of sarcasm and ridicule in this blog space.  I will pull no punches.  No more sitting back and taking it.  Both barrels are loaded (shotgun metaphor) and I’m ready for bear.  I’m fighting back.  It’s only reasonable.  It’s revenge.