In the interest of full disclosure: I am not an economist. I live on the Planet Earth and buy when I can afford it.

It’s no secret to those who think about it: Most of the American economic engine is powered by the middle class. The lower - what is it? – 15%? 20%- 25% - who subsist from one government or charity check to the next don’t really throw a large amount of dollars into the boiling kettle of American commerce. Likewise that well-off top 15%, let alone the incredibly, frighteningly 1% or so that has seen its wealth just about double because G W Bush and the rest of the Republican politicians want to become even more obscenely wealthy than they already are. No, it’s that middle 40% or so – the Billy Joe Sixpack blue collar worker and the James Whiteshirt office drone who spend their time stoking the fires of America’s commercial furnaces. The mega-wealthy? Just how many people do you support when you buy yacht? Or a $75,000 gold Rolex? These people keep some lawyers, accountants, and bond brokers fed, that’s all.

These families are high school graduates, upper-grade high school dropouts with a valuable trade job, and quite a few College graduates with Bachelor’s degrees. They’ve got a wife, 2.4 kinds, two 10 year old cars, a house they co-own with a bank or mortgage company, and dreams. Dreams of the good life; dreams of climbing up the ladder of society. Dreams of those 2.4 kids as doctors, dentists, lawyers, corporate accountants, proctologists. (Well, only the male kids, I guess.)

Some of them are just old enough to have watched “Leave It To Beaver” and noted that Ward worked hard all day long at the office, and June wore a nice dress, pearl set and frilly apron, while Wally had nicely pressed chinos, penny loafers, and button down prep shirts. Now, the Beav, he was a bit of a rapscallion, of course, and wore dirty jeans, and frequently torn shirt and Keds. But he did have a Cub Scout uniform, and was trying real hard to make it into the Wolf patrol. Did the Cleavers have a car? I don’t remember; probably was a station wagon.

It’s not like that now. Billy Joe Sixpack and Joe Whiteshirt come home after 9 or 10 hours of work just in time to take over supervising the kids eating a microwaved frozen meal as Mom rushes out the door to the part-time job she works 6 nights a week at the convenience store because wages haven’t kept pace with inflation.

Lately we’ve seen a few discouraging signs: Personal disposable income dropped – precipitously
That’s REAL income by the way: what that dollar in your pocket buys. Personal income has slid, too. Inflation just always seems to outdistance wages for the middle class, doesn’t it? Hey! Not everyone can make $7 million a year. Wait till they see what a gallon of heating oil is going to cost this winter, or a unit of natural gas.

Prices paid for commodities have doubled since Mr Bush took possession of our Oval Office.

These graphs don’t figure in health care, education, or what’s euphemistically termed “other services”. Things like fire departments, garbage collection, water treatment plants, ambulance services. (In many localities, that’s funded separately from the fire department.)

Oh yes, and then there’s debt service – in a big part that’s about credit card payments. I don’t know about you, but I get three card offers a week, from banks I never heard of, and probably never heard of me. I’ve been saving all of them; firewood’s going to be damned expensive this winter, too. The Wall Street Journal reported that for the second quarter 4.81% of credit card accounts were past due, up from 4.76% in the first quarter. Both of those rates were record-setters. The American Bankers Association reported that "Delinquency rates rose for nearly all of the eight types of consumer loans the ABA tracks." (The exceptions were Property improvement and Mobile home loans).

Spending’s down too. Dropped off 0.5% this month. That’s the biggest drop since November 2001.

The Fed keeps raising rates; mortgage money is going to dry up; people who’ve been depending on the alleged housing boom of the last year to re-fatten their wallets are going to be stuck with second houses they can’t get afford, can’t get rid of, and can’t pay for. Mortgage lenders are going to have a LOT of firewood to keep them warm this winter.

And what happens to all these business that the middle class supports by their all-weekend-long shopping mall binges? When Joe Sixpack and James Whiteshirt and their families finally wake up to find their credit card accounts closed, or when they have to decide whether to spend the last $20 they have until payday on has to go to work or meat for the family? Think those stores are going to stay open in the malls with no customers? Think those mega-corporations are going to pay those incredible rents, just to feed their employees, with no customers?

The fabulous legendary Bush economy and all the propaganda have been ephemera. Just words on a piece of paper, or a TV screen, continuing the unending marketing to the middle class.

Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) recently visited Baghdad and has written an interesting public report on her trip.

Among her observations:

It’s still dangerous as hell to get into Iraq. Incoming C-130 flights are subject to small arms fire.

It’s still dangerous as hell to get from Baghdad Airport into Baghdad city, and thence to the Green Zone.

It’s still dangerous as hell trying to live in, or move around Iraq. Civilian, US Military, Iraq or American, everyone is at risk from small arms, IEDs, and EFPs.

Time is running out for us in Iraq. There people will vote for a new Constitution on October 15th, and for legislative representatives on December 15th.

The Bush administration has three months to convince the US people that this here thing is working. [ed: Stay tuned, massive PR campaign is on the way.]

Katrina, oil cost sticker shock, increasing US casualties can combine to turn the US population into rabid anti-war advocates.

We need to get electricity restored. [ed: Hello. Hasn’t the progressive side of the blogosphere been screaming that for two years?]

We need to start exporting Iraqi oil in a serious way, to create income. [ed: there’s quite a bit of evidence that a lot of oil has in fact been flowing, but since the BushCo folks have refused to install any valid measuring system there’s no way to be sure just how much.]

We need to get all the Iraqi Ministries working, especially Defense and Interior.

We need to get Zarqawi. [ed: Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha]

It’s all here.

Some fairly acerbic comments. (The TPM café regulars eat lots of red meat.)

If you thought Mike Brown was a buffoon, how do you like the Abbott and Costello routines Donald Rumsfeld and the Not Ready for Wartime Players have been staging lately?

In testimony before Congress on Thursday, the senior American military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. of the Army, said the most recent analysis of intelligence from across the country supported the Bush administration's optimistic predictions that the referendum would pass.

Intelligence analysis supports the Bush administration's predictions? That joke's getting a little stale, isn't it, General?

It looks like a private polling company agrees with the intelligence, although according to the NYT…

Their calculations are complicated, because by law the constitution will fail if it is rejected by two-thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces, even if a majority of voters nationwide approve it… In regions dominated by Sunni Arabs, opinion polls have shown sentiment running just about two to one against it.

How many US tax dollars did we pay for these complicated calculations that back up our intelligence but really don't?

---

It looks like I'm not the only one who's leery of the intelligence and the polls.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, asked General Casey in a pointed exchange during the hearing on Thursday, "If there's a strong majority of Sunnis, which is very possible, that vote against that constitution, could that not possibly lead to a worsening political situation rather than a better one?"

"I think that's entirely possible," the general replied. "I mean, as we've looked at this, we've looked for the constitution to be a national compact, and the perception now is that it's not, particularly among the Sunnis."

---

Once it's established that the intelligence and polls might be cooked, the story flip-flops.

Officials say that if the constitution is defeated, insurgents will most likely believe that they have won a significant victory and be encouraged to fight on. Conversely, it is said, the insurgency will grow stronger if the voters approve the constitution, because that will anger Sunnis who opposed it and empower Sunni insurgents who can claim that their views were ignored.

So, either way, things could be bad?

"A vote for the constitution doesn't mean we're headed for peace and prosperity," Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the Central Command, said in an interview this month. "Iraq is going to be a pretty difficult security environment for a while."

Dirdle, dirdle, dirdle. The constitution will probably pass because the intelligence says is will, but if it doesn't, that's all right, because things will be difficult either way, because the constitution we thought would be a national compact probably won't turn out to be the national compact we hoped it would be?

---

It gets worse. From Mister Rumsfeld himself:

"Insurgencies ultimately are defeated by the indigenous people in that country, not by outside forces, because outside forces can in fact contribute to the growth of an insurgency if they are seen as an occupation force."

But no word on when the indigenous people will be ready to defeat the insurgency in that country.

Mr. Rumsfeld and the panel of military officers resisted setting any date for reductions of American forces in Iraq, saying those decisions will depend on the growth of capable Iraqi security units and the level of security throughout the country.

And how is the growth of capable Iraqi units coming?

(General Casey said that) growing numbers of Iraqi police and Army forces are increasingly able to provide security in their country.

But…

…only one Iraqi Army battalion (is) capable of fighting without help from United States armed forces.

Let's do some quick math. If it took two years to make one Iraqi Army battalion that's capable of fighting without help, how long will it take to make eight or ten of them?

In the meantime, it looks like we'll have to fight the insurgency with an outside occupation force that will add to the growth of the insurgency.

ABBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTT!

Watching Rummy and his stooges buck and wing their way around Iraq reminds me of something I think whenever I see a major leaguer bobble a routine fly ball: I could play that bad for half the money this guy's making.

Commander Jeff Huber, US Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia, USA. Read more of Jeff's commentaries at Pen and Sword

A democracy lives or dies by the lifeblood of democracy: the right and ability of the citizenry to elect leaders and officials of their choice. Via the Gang of 8 at Corrente we learn:

The Federal Election Assistance Commission closes the public comment period on their proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines at 5 p.m. this Friday, September 30, 2005.

Please send the following phrase or whatever you would like to
express on the proposed guidelines immediately to Voting Systems Guidelines. Many technical people are submitting detailed comments, but all you have to do is rewrite the following a bit, so it doesn't look like Astroturf:

"I want Section 6.8 to require a voter-verified paper audit trail for ALL voters and voting systems. It should be mandatory." The current proposal does NOT require voter-verified paper audit trail.

Free and fair elections in 2006!

I hope you all know what to do.

A big hello to all the visitors from TBogg, Today In Iraq and Jesus General! Thanks for stopping over and welcome to Main and Central. I guess you could call this our corner. [heh]. If you enjoy what you see here, more can be found by this outstanding group of bloggers in their own blogs over there ---->.

Again, welcome and please, bookmark Main and Central and come back often, we'll try and make sure it's worth your while!

Well here we are on the last day of the fiscal year. Back when I had a short stint as a recruiter, it was always amusing to watch (ahem) another service which shall remain unidentified, literally bring in warm bodies to the AFEES station (AFEES, the Armed Forces Entrance and Examining Stations are now called MEPS, Military Entrance Processing Stations, I believe) to get a physical, an ASVAB and an interview, so they could be counted on the 30th of September as "recruits". If they didn't pop positive on the urinalysis for drugs or diabetes, they would find themselves shipped off to basic training within 18 to 24 hours. At that point if they were booted out, and given a free bus ride home, it didn't matter to the recruiter or that services recruiting command, they were counted as "accessions" and the "goal" was met. Needless to say, on the 28th, 29th, and 30th of September it got pretty busy around the AFEES, I always tried to get my officer candidates through their physicals before mid-September, I knew what was coming. It was not a pretty picture. It was all about making numbers. Well, guess what?

The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.
...
Officials insist the slump is not a crisis.

Because crisis is just not the word to use when disaster is a more accurate description.

The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest - in absolute number as well as in percentage terms - since 1979, according to Army records.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.
...
The factors working against the Army, Hilferty said, are a strong national economy that offers young people other choices, and "continued negative news from the Middle East."

Gee, imagine that "continued negative news from the Middle East", who'd have thought that would deter parents from recommending that their children get on a big silver bird and spend a year in the sand. The Army is spending a lot of money to try and influence parents to see the Army as a viable option for their kids. Is it working? The jury is still out, but early indications are that it's not working too well.

I'm going to go to a "career night" at my daughters high school, and introduce myself to the local recruiters who are there, and see if they'll let me hang out with them. There are a lot of ribbon-bedecked SUV's in that parking lot every day, so many that you'd think I'll see them lined up three deep to sign up. We'll see. I'm guessing I'll be buying those recruiters a beer or two afterwards and have them tell me that General Quarters in summer without air conditioning is more fun than sitting in high school career days and watching young men and women who once might have considered an enlistment now avoid them like they have monkey pox.

Which brings up that question, with the lowered real accessions i.e. those who actually make it through Basic Training (and I notice that they Army is not releasing that number, thank you very much), and the growing demands for soldiers in Iraq, as well as other global committments, is anyone else wondering how long until those dreaded words "Mandatory National Service" rear their ugly head? Because unlike the budget, where the administration chooses to keep handing out IOU's in exchange for services rendered, they can't just fabricate warm bodies to fill the ranks of the military.

So, what's it going to be? Stay tuned...

Since this is my first post here, I think I'll lighten the mood a bit. You know, give you all a nice hearty belly-laugh or two. Anything to get our minds off the path this country is heading down in frightening lock-step with our "fearless leader".

Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends
(To the tune of Green Day's Wake Me Up When September Ends)
Thou-sands have died
In the Per-sian Gulf
Lea-ving behind
The ones they love

Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends

His plan for Social Se-cur-ity
off-ers no hope for
you or me

Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends

His po-li-cies are set by God
No separation there
I find that kind of odd
That George Bush just don't care

He says we must
Stay the course
But for all who've died
There's no remorse

Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends

He offers jobs to
All his friends
Don't you wor-ry
He'll get you in

Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends

2006 is almost here
The time to vote them
Out is near

Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends

His po-li-cies are set by God
No separation there
I find that kind of odd
That George Bush just don't care

He says we must
Stay the course
But for all who've died
There's no remorse

Slow-ly 5 years have passed
These last 3 years need to go by fast

Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends
Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends
Wake Me Up, When Bush's Term Ends

cross-posted at The Bulldog Says...

Remember just last week when all the talk of $5.00 gas was everywhere you turned? Hold onto your wallets, folks... it may be here sooner than you think.
Just last week before Hurricane Rita made landfall in the Gulf Region, the stock market had all but made up it's collective mind that Rita wasn't going to be severe enough to pose any lasting damage to flow and output, and speculatory prices had begun to fall off their weekly highs.

Jeff Matthews says - "The best energy industry research firm I know is Petrie Parkman, run by oil research veteran Tom Petrie—a man I interviewed with 25 years ago when I was first looking for work on Wall Street, although he wouldn’t remember me from the Sith Lord.
And from their morning research notes comes the following comment regarding Rowan Companies, a large operator of jack-up drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico:

Rowan has its own planes and were thus one of the first on the scene to witness the impact. They say that the rig devastation is quite significant and the pilots reported that in an area where they previously would see about 15 jack-ups there were none visible.

"None visible."

Now this is where it gets fun.... Pay attention class (and not to the MSM, mmmmkay???)

Of course, while Rowan was flying planes over the area where there were no rigs “visible,” the stock market had already decided the impact of Hurricane Rita was not too severe, based largely, I gather, on the fact that Fox and CNN TV reporters in rain gear were able to walk around parking lots in Galveston shortly after the storm passed and could see no visible damage to the infrastructure miles out in the Gulf of Mexico.

By the end of yesterday, however, the oil markets had corrected the market’s misinterpretation of the Talking Heads’ somber yet relieved reports, and bid oil prices back up—while natural gas never even bothered to head-fake anybody, and just stayed strong.

Meanwhile, Rowan sees a more significant impact on their business besides the loss of a few of their own rigs, thanks to the apparent disappearance of so many other rigs in that region: drilling rates in the Gulf should “sky rocket,” according to the Petrie Parkman note.

Lock those wallets up. 'W' says to conserve energy. AF-1 costs $6900 per hour to fly. At that rate, I believe the CinC can go fuck himself alot for OUR money.

http://jeffmatthewsisnotmakingthisup.blogspot.com/2005/09/rig-devastation-is-quite-significant.html

Semper Fidelis

A federal judge has ordered that the Pentagon release the majority of the pictures and three of the video tapes of that the DoD have been withholding from the public.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."
...
An ACLU release this afternoon said it was getting 70 photos and three video tapes. It also said that the government is being given 20 days to appeal.

What becomes even more interesting about this is not the argument that the photos and videos might inflame passions in the Arab world, and especially Iraq this close to the October 15th Vote Rigging Olympics in Iraq, but the fact that to date, no senior officer who was directly charged or implicated other than a reserve Brigadier General (Janis Karpinski) has even gotten a reprimand. In fact, some have I believe, been kicked further up the food chain by an adminstration greatfulf for their loyal silence and silencing of the facts.

What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

Consider another scandal that rocked a branch of the military a decade ago: Tailhook. After the charges were leveled by a female officer virtually every officer in the Navy who was an aviator or in any way associated with Naval Aviation had to prove that they were not there. Senior officers, and not just one or two were summarily sacked and many, because "they should have known better and stopped that awful, behavior". At Tailhook, the harrassment of a white female Naval Officer and other female guests ended careers, even for folks who were not cognizant of the events that happened.

As time went on, however, the fallout from Tailhook '91 continued. Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention.

At Abu Ghraib, the behavior went beyond harrassment, but not a single senior officer who was in command has been sacked or even honestly investigated. The same is true for the senior civilian leadership as well, right up to Mister Bush.

It's certainly not a direct parallel or even close, the horrors of Abu Ghraib dwarf anything that happened in Las Vegas that night. But it's interesting in an ironic way that there was an absolute paralysis (and I speak from experience here) of the Officer Corps in Naval Aviation after Tailhook. It seems to be business as usual after Abu Ghraib, with promotions all around, especially for the loyal minions.

There’s a rumor going around that we’re winning in Iraq. We’ve turned the corner, and there’s light at the end of the tunnel, and it may not be an oncoming freight train. We just need to stay the course a little bit longer, hang tough, because all the metrics show we’re gaining, and pulling ahead.

I love metrics, don’t you? There they are: hard, incontrovertible proof, quantifiable results. You can measure them, weigh them, lay them out on a table and dissect them with the Occam’s razor.

Case in point: we’re killing and capturing a lot more people than they’re killing of us. Well, we’re apparently not getting our troops captured, which is probably a good thing, considering the way we treat the people we capture. I mean, can you imagine the squealing if THEY had an Abu Ghraib and took photos of our troops on leashes and piled into pyramids? So we continue to capture people, handcuff them, take them away somewhere and they’re all – you know – insurgents (wink, wink)

It all reminds me of Viet Nam: if the guy’s alive and unarmed he’s a farmer. If he’s dead, he’s a guerrilla. No weapon? Others were probably with him, and took his weapon when they didi’d. But the body count. Oh my friends, the body count was phenomenal. The metrics were right there: the body count was 20 to 1. We were winning. Right up until that sad, tragic day when the very last Huey took the very last Marine guard off the roof of the Embassy.

Another case in point: Last week we killed the #2 guy in Iraq. Abu Azzam was the “top lieutenant” of Abu Massab al-Zarqawi, who of course, is the #1 guy, the head of al_Qaeda in Iraq. Now, being the #2 guy is a very dangerous job. I know this, because we’ve killed or captured the #2 guy about 30 times. It’s true. You could look it up. A fella over at Blogenlust has been keeping score.

We can’t seem to catch the top guy, because he’s a wily, slippery guy. I mean, reportedly having only one leg, and all, he’s real hard to find. And that other #1 guy? The guy with the mobile dialysis pump? Osama bin Forgotten? We can’t find him, either. Maybe he has a stealth dialysis unit, and that’s why we can’t find him.

Yes, the metrics are looking good.

But our Army is still being whittled down, by the death of 10,000 cuts.

Seems that soldiers over in Iraq are still without either body armor, or if they've gone out and bought their own body armor, without reimbursement for the money they've spent.

Nearly a year after Congress demanded action, the Pentagon has still failed to figure out a way to reimburse soldiers for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.
...
Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke said the department “is in the final stages of putting a reimbursement program together and it is expected to be operating soon.” But defense officials would not discuss the reason for the delay.

Krenke said the Pentagon’s first priority is to ensure that soldiers “have all they need to fight and win this nation’s wars.”
...
Soldiers and their families have reported buying everything from higher-quality protective gear to armor for their Humvees, medical supplies and even global positioning devices.

“The bottom line is that Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department are failing soldiers again,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for Iraq veterans.

“It just became an accepted part of the culture. If you were National Guard or Reserve, or NCOs, noncommissioned officers, you were going to spend a lot of money out of your pocket,” said Rieckhoff, who was a platoon leader with the 3rd Infantry Division and served in Iraq from the invasion in March 2003 to spring 2004.

On the other hand, if you're a huuuge contributor to the Bush Administration, like some companies that won't be named halliburton, you not only get paid, you don't even have to bid for contracts to get piles of taxpayer-supplied cash.

It's another sign that the civilians running the Pentagon know nothing about the wars they have been complicit in starting, or how to wage them. The dumbest second lieutenant or ensign knows that taking care of your troops is their NUMBER ONE priority. Pentagon civilians and others in charge of this administration's alleged "policy" apparatus never learned that little, incontrovertable fact. They were too busy reading the "One Minute Manager" and getting their mail-order MBAs while doing their part as party functionaries to learn that simple ground truth.

So many people have said "you don't have to be a Veteran to know how to fight a war". True. But looking at BS like this, it's certainly clear that any competant vet would not leave these troops over-exposed and not reimbursed.

This is an early draft of a piece I'm preparing for some woebegone segment of the mainstream media. I've pilfered many of these ideas from "real" political science guys. Some of them are semi-original. Please feel free to critique, suggest, castigate, what have you…

There is no miracle solution in Iraq. If there were, Rumsfeld and his generals would have stumbled across it by now. Come civil war or high water, Iraqis need to ratify their constitution in October and hold their elections in December. And America needs to bring its troops home so we can get organized to face the next new world order.

Another tectonic shift in global power is already taking place. American's days as a "hegemon" are over. We must take prudent steps to ensure we emerge as a "first among political entities." To do so, we need to have a basic grasp of the coming redistribution of power.

A quick look at global gross domestic products suggests we'll soon live in a world with four distinguishable but interconnected tiers of state, super-state, and non-state players: major powers, balance powers, regional powers, and wild cards.

The major powers will be the United States, the European Union, and China. They will establish (reestablish) geographic spheres of primary influence that will look much like the ones that existed prior to World War I. America, for instance, will exert direct influence over and area similar to the one it dominated after the Spanish American War.

England, Russia, and Japan will be key balance powers that exert influence globally, but usually in loose alliance with one or more of the major powers.

Regional powers like India, South Korea, and Malaysia will be the third tier. Their main influences will be somewhat limited to the geographic spheres of their nearest major power, but they too will have effect on certain aspects of the entire global scene (as witness the "brain drain" of American technology jobs to India).

The wild cards will include The Middle East, North Korea, and Africa.

The Middle East is a veritable herd of cats. Post-U.S. Iraq occupation, it could fall into a serendipitous age of relative peace at one extreme or a decades long era of "third world war" at the other. How the Middle East evolves will determine the extent to which the other tiers can coax it into the 21st century or will need to contain it until the region matures sufficiently.

The North Korea situation will likely remain much as it is. The major and balance powers will play a containment game of stick and carrot until North Korea matures and stabilizes.

Africa, I don't know. Henry Kissinger called it "the loaded gun pointed at the South Pole." Barring some truly unexpected phenomenon (like the discovery of extra-terrestrial intelligence), the subcontinent will remain the world's orphan. It may be the best the tiered powers can do to keep it from becoming the annex to a chaotic Middle East.

---
The major and balance powers will compete and cooperate in the economic realm. Arms races and conflicts among them will be rare; not necessarily because of a breakout of international brotherly love, but because as America's Iraq experience has illustrated, modern symmetric warfare has become an utterly counterproductive means of pursuing national aims.

Economy will be the primary instrument of power for the regional entities as well, though they may cling to armed force as a way of coping with neighboring wild cards.

---

Though economy will be the primary engines of the major and balance powers, they will also maintain a modicum of military force as a means of keeping the wild cards corralled. And given that the United States presently outspends the rest of the world combined on defense, it will retain the lead in "armed diplomacy." But America will need to cut its arsenal to a realistic minimum in order to stay competitive economically.

"Expert" opinions to the contrary, we do not need to build a bigger Army. We would only need a larger land force to fight more wars like the one in Iraq. And if the Iraq war taught us anything, it's that we don't need to fight any more wars like that one.

For the time being, we'll need to maintain sufficient land power to deter or repel an invasion of South Korea from the north, and keep enough air and naval power to dissuade or interdict a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Keep in mind, though, that we won't have to do these things alone. Both South Korea and Taiwan have built up defense forces over decades for the sole purpose of countering the specific threats they face.

America will also retain the bulk of the nuclear deterrence arsenal. Ballistic missile defense may prove a fiscally superior alternative to deterrence at some point in the future, but not before significant technological breakthroughs are achieved.

---

The next new world order will depend on the major and balance powers resolving two key issues, and resolving them fairly quickly.

First is their dependence on Middle East oil. Unless the big powers wean themselves from this energy requirement, they will find it difficult to tame or contain this wild card region.

Second--and this is important to everyone in the upper power tiers--America must transition to a peacetime economy. We have been on a fiscal war footing since Pearl Harbor. Given the ubiquitous influence and power the military-industrial-congressional complex has consolidated over the past sixty some years, changing the economy will be a daunting task. But I'm convinced it’s a necessary undertaking, and an achievable one.
If America truly is dependent on a half-trillion dollar annual input from the federal government to run it's economic engine, there are plenty of things we can pour tax dollars into besides weapons. Rebuilding our national infrastructure (particularly along the Gulf Coast) and undertaking a complete makeover of our energy system are two good places to start.

Cross posted at Pen and Sword

When our present rulers took power in 2000, one of the leaders of the New Team, Mr Rumsfeld, declared his interest in a leaner, faster, more mobile Army. He served notice on the Army top Managers of his intentions. In the interest of clarity, I don’t refer to the Flag Officers as Leaders, but rather Managers, since they are all fully-vested members of the “I got mine, screw you” fraternity.

Mr Rumsfeld introduced a concept that caused alarm bells to go off all over the E-Ring, of course, since most procurement honchos retire to nice cushy positions in the armaments and defense technology industries. Imagine: if we stop buying expensive stuff, how am I gonna be able to afford that 7 acre farm out past Falls Church when I retire and take that top marketing job with Amalgamated Mega-Systems, selling to the guys I sat next to when I was in uniform?

So, Mr Rumsfeld decreed, in effect, “M1A1 Abrams are all very nice, but we don’t have a lot of C-5s and C-17s to fly those babies around all over the place. And that new Paladin mobile howitzer? Real pretty, I guess, but it’s too darned heavy. I need a lighter, smaller tank and howitzer because I got lots of C-130s and that’s what we need for all my future invasion plans.”

This was part of a much-heralded “Future Combat Systems” plan the Army came up with. Smaller, lighter, leaner, meaner. Among other things it was decreed that next generation weapon system would not contain that stainless steel multi-purpose can opener/garage door opener/TV remote control with lithium coated controls so it’s easy to find in the dark. No more than one, or at most, two, leap-ahead technology advances per program. And it’s got to be cheaper.

There was much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments when this decision was announced. Imagine the shock when Mr Rumsfeld announced the Russians weren’t coming and we didn’t need to fight the Battle of Kursk all over again.

Fortunately, reason prevailed. With only one of two technology jumps permitted per program, we can now have the trickle down theory of economics applied to weapon systems and we will buy an expensive series of stuff by hocking our grandkids’ futures, and then in 3 years buy the next round of stuff by hocking our great-grandkids’ futures.

Recently Army Secretary Harvey has announced that, sadly, we can’t build a better, lighter tank that will survive a hit from the sort of anti-armor weaponry to be expected in the future. Abrams tanks and Bradley AFVs are proving to be too vulnerable to IEDs and RPGs in Iraq. So, the Army’s FCS program will have to be bigger, fatter, and more expensive. Bartender! Champagne for everyone!

Meanwhile, our smaller, leaner, meaner Army, including the much-overworked Reserve component, is dying the death of 10,000 cuts in Iraq, day by day.

Howdy to all the new friends stopping by this evening. We're into our first 24 or so hours of life, still working on getting the look and feel of the site down. So poke around a bit, enjoy our authors, there are more to come in the days ahead and we're all looking forward to hearing from you and keeping you informed, entertained and hopefully not bored!

So please, feel free to bookmark us and stop back by "early and often" everyday!!!

At West Point and Annapolis, where the Honor Code once meant something, they taught young Cadet Ian Fishback that living the Code was an important part of becoming an Army Officer and remembering what it taught would serve him well in his career as a Regular Officer in the Army of the United States. Well, at least until it's inconvenient. For the Army.

When Army Capt. Ian Fishback told his company and battalion commanders that soldiers were abusing Iraqi prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention, he says, they told him those rules were easily skirted.
...
At every turn, it seemed, the decorated young West Point graduate, the son of a Vietnam War veteran from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, whose wife is serving with the Army in Iraq, felt that the military had shut him out.

So Captain Fishback took what is a pretty unusual step for an Officer, he sought advice from someone in Congress he apparently looked up to, Senator John McCain:

The following letter was sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sept. 16:

Dear Senator McCain:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.

Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.

With the Utmost Respect,

-- Capt. Ian Fishback

1st Battalion,

504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,

82nd Airborne Division,

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Instead of getting on with actually doing something, DoD is finding that WarPorn is just fine, and the dehumanization of the Iraqis who really don't want to be a conqoured people and the (hopefully) few individuals engaged in these practices continues. The good Captain will be lucky to get out with an Honorable Discharge and his skin, I think. Perhaps one day he'll be vindicated, but until that day, how do any of the Service Academies or any Officer Programs teach that doing the Right Thing is the Right Thing?

Right now, it's not, is it? At least for Captain Fishback.

This from the AP, via Military.com.

Soldiers Have Army Records Stolen Associated Press | September 26, 2005 DENVER - While fighting in Iraq, Army Sgt. Steven Behr suddenly found himself vulnerable at home. Four computer hard drives containing soldiers' Social Security numbers and other personal records were stolen from Fort Carson - a crime that could expose Behr to identity theft. Behr was one of 15,000 active duty soldiers notified this month of the theft, along with family members and civilians who work at the Army post in Colorado. "They have my information for the last 11 years in the military," Behr told The Associated Press last week in Iraq. "With the way fraud is going in the U.S. these days, anybody could get my credit report, or something like that. I'm just trying to figure out how someone could steal four computers from a secure area. They're supposed to be locked up pretty tight." Fort Carson spokeswoman Dee McNutt said there is no way to determine how many records were compromised. Everyone who could be a potential victim was being notified, McNutt said. McNutt said there have been no reports that the records have been used to steal identities. The heist is still under investigation by military authorities. The FBI said it has not been called in to assist; the military said it would not ask for help unless there was evidence a civilian was involved. The hard drives were stolen in mid-August from a building on the post in Colorado Springs where soldiers get identification cards and update their personnel records, McNutt said. Records taken included soldiers' Social Security numbers, dates of birth, rank, unit, citizenship and jobs. Behr said he and other members of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment fighting in Iraq were told to report any credit card or other unusual financial activity to military police. Michelle Joyner, spokeswoman for the National Military Family Association, a nonprofit organization that helps military families, said soldiers are still at risk even though the military has made great strides helping them protect themselves from identity theft. Joyner said the military no longer requires soldiers to put their personal information and Social Security numbers on checks and other documents. The military also offers financial training to recruits that includes information on ways to protect themselves from identity theft. Soldiers who go on active duty can put an "active duty alert" on their credit reports, requiring creditors to verify an applicant's identity before granting credit. Joyner said soldiers are just as vulnerable as civilians, but the theft of the computer hard drives was particularly troubling because the military keeps a lot more information about its personnel than does private industry. Claudia Bourne-Farrell, spokeswoman for the Federal Trade Commission, which provides records of identity theft to 1,400 law enforcement agencies across the country, said soldiers do not get special treatment when it comes to such crimes. Mary Lou Wild, district manager for the Consumer Credit Counseling Service in Colorado Springs, said soldiers are particularly vulnerable to identity theft because they are usually young, transient, inexperienced in financial matters and do not frequently check their credit histories. Even so, Maxine McKay, manager of the Armed Forces Bank, a private bank on post, said many soldiers are proficient with computers and do monitor their accounts online from all over the world, even though they may not check their credit histories very often. "They can watch every withdrawal their girlfriend makes," she said. ********************************************************************

I don't even know where to begin about this item. Computers can be useful tools (kinda like Freepers, if you get my drift and I'm sure youy do.) There have been numerous publicly reported incidents of hacked computers, stolen ID information, etc, etc. Now the grunts, those who are actually out there in that hellish country with its heat, diseases, cancer threats from the DU munitions, inadequate rations and water supplies mishandled by Halliburton's KBR, which is more concerned with screwing another couple of billion dollars out of the US Treasury. Add to that poorly prepared and maintained vehicles, inadequate personal armor, insufficient munitions supplies (we're now buying Nato 5.56mm ammo from israel, because our own CONUS suppiers can't do the job.) Now they have to worry about their savings and pay being skeeved away by some Slicky Joe at home. (I'll bet Slicky is a Bush supporter, too.) I keep thinking of Casey Stengel, who once threw his cap on the floor of the NY Mets' dugout and screamed, "Can't anybody here play this game?"

Now that I'm semi-hemi-demi-associated with Jo Fish, I have to start being more respectful about the Navy. Ours, that is.

Fleet Week 2005 - San Francisco will take place on the San Francisco Waterfront, October 6th - 10th. Events will include aerial demonstrations by the Navy's Blue Angels, Team Oracle, the Air Force's F-16 Demonstration Team, tours of U.S. Navy warships by the crew and more. Get tickets and showtimes at http://www.fleetweek.us/fleetweek.

This is an annual fesitval, and to the best of my knowledge "travels" through the various US cities that qualify as berthing ports - or do they call them home ports? I always get so confused about the Navy. To me, port is something you pass around the table to the left.

Anyway, congratulations to a fine organization which has always met its challenges, and always made our country look good. And the Blue Angels are outstanding. I've seen them at Ft Lauderdale Air-Sea show and it's well worth the price of admission.

And San Francisco? Well, helloooooo, sailor.

Ah, the timing couldn't have been sweeter. Monday, CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) pubilished a report titled -
Beyond Delay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress. And guess who's right at the top... Rep Roy Blunt (R), Mo. selection for the next House Majority Leader.

The nice CREW backgrounder on Rep. Blunt, gives us these useful pieces of information;

Rep. Blunt’s ethics issues stem from his misuse of his position for the benefit of his family.
In 2003, Rep. Blunt divorced his wife of 31 years to marry Philip Morris (now Altria) lobbyist Abigail Perlman. Before it was known publicly that Rep. Blunt and Ms. Perlman were dating – and only hours after Rep. Blunt assumed the role of Majority Whip – he tried to secretly insert a provision into Homeland Security legislation that would have benefitted Philip Morris, at the expense of competitors.
In addition, Rep. Blunt’s son Andrew lobbies on behalf of Philip Morris, a major client he picked up only four years out of law school. Notably, Altria is Rep. Blunt’s largest campaign contributor, having donated more than $270,000 to political committees tied to him.

In 2003, Rep. Blunt also helped his lobbyist son Andrew by inserting a provision into the $79 billion emergency appropriation for the war in Iraq to benefit U.S. shippers like United Parcel Service, Inc. and FedEx Corp. The provision required that military cargo be carried only by companies with no more than 25% foreign ownership. UPS and FedEx were seeking to block the expansion of a foreign-owned rival’s U.S. operations. Andrew Blunt lobbies on behalf of UPS in Missouri, and UPS and FedEx have contributed at least $58,000 to Rep. Blunt since 2001.

Members of the House are prohibited from "taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else." 5 CFR §2635.702(a). By pushing for legislation that would benefit Philip Morris and UPS, and, as a consequence, his then-girlfriend and his son, Rep. Blunt may have violated this provision.

Federal law also prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. If Rep. Blunt accepted campaign contributions from Philip Morris, FedEx or UPS in exchange for legislative assistance, he may have violated the bribery statute.

Then, the nice little tie to our good friend, Mr Jack Abramhoff, "...In June 2003, Mr. Abramhoff persuaded Majority Leader Tom DeLay to organize a letter, co-signed by Speaker Hastert, Whip Roy Blunt, and Deputy Whip Eric Cantor, that endorsed a view of gambling law benefitting Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta, by blocking gambling competition by another tribe. Mr. Abramoff has donated $8,500 to Rep. Blunt’s leadership PAC, Rely on Your Beliefs. If as it appears, Rep. Blunt was accepting campaign contributions from Mr. Abramoff in exchange for using his official position so support a view of gambling law that would benefit Mr. Abramoff’s client, he would be in violation of the law.

Same as the old boss...

Greetings to visitors from The Stakeholder, Alternate Brain, Skippy and Dark Bilious Vapors. We're just getting going, and have some outstanding contributing bloggers with a deep breadth of military service who will be writing for Main and Central.

Please, bookmark us and come back often. Thanks, and again, welcome to Main and Central.

So, you say you want to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and that you disagree that the war in Iraq isn't creating more terrorists despite all evidence to the contrary.

What then, can we say about this?

BAGHDAD, Iraq Sep 28, 2005 — A woman strapped with explosives blew herself up outside an Iraqi army recruiting center in a northern town Wednesday, killing at least six people and wounding 30 in the first known attack by a female suicide bomber in the country's bloody insurgency.

I got an e-mail a while back that defended racial profiling by pointing out the bombings and attacks that had been carried out by Muslim men. It was basically a list of ridiculous "multiple choice" questions, with the "right answer" always being "Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 35."

(More)

Continue reading "Equal Opportunity Terror"

Did you know the Week of Sept 23rd to the 30th is Banned Book Week, as proclaimed by the American Library Association? Yep.

Before a book can be banned it has to be challenged. Who challenges books, and on what grounds? Most challenges are put forward by parents, although there is a great deal of evidence that these parents are prompted by an agency of entity outside the family to present the challenge. The three most common grounds for challenging an American’s right to read a book are “sexually explicit” content, “offensive” language, and content “inappropriate” to an age group.

The ALA reports that books are most frequently challenged by someone in an attempt “to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information”.

Some of the difficult ideas include Leslie Newman’s “Heather has Two Mommies”, where the family of three apparently go the zoo and have a wonderful time looking at the animals. We also learn that one of her friends, Juan, has a mommy, a daddy, and a big brother named Carlos. Another friend, Miriam, has a mommy and a baby sister. Yet another friend, Joshua, has a mommy, a daddy, and a stepdaddy. Obviously these are dangerous families. Rudolfo Anaya’s “Bless Me, Ultima” was challenged and banned from a Colorado school after a challenge from a parent who never read the book. It seems the concept that the body heals better with a sense of belief and connection to the Universe is too dangerous for American youth. Think of it as an introduction to holistic healing and the advantages of naturopathic remedies. I can see why the American Medical Association, the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma would want to protect American youth from such dangerous ideas, can’t you?

What the ALA is saying here is that those folks believe in censorship. In his essay “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill wrote:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Anyone serious about defending America as a useful Democracy should be familiar with Mill. There seem to be a lot of folks out there who believe their form of Democracy is better than ours.

Comments seem to be working. Sorry for the delay. Welcome everyone who has come over for a visit. I'm honored to have had Lurch start us off with such a great post.

I'm working on getting this up and running over the next few days. Keep checking back with us!

I’ve been intensely interested in the recent happenings in Basra. Maybe you heard about it. Two SBS Royal Marines, dressed in civilian clothes, wearing Arab-looking beards, were stopped by an Iraqi policeman, alerted by locals who were alarmed about the suspicious car. No one seems to know much more, because these Marines were well-heeled, and smoked the Iraqi. More police arrived, and some more shots were apparently exchanged, and the Marines were arrested. The Iraqi police state their car was loaded with weapons and explosives. The Brits organized a rescue mission, crashed into the Iraqi jail with a “tank” (probably a Scimitar AFV) and broke them out. Various reports credit the Iraqis, police and civilians, with burning two of these AFVs. There were even photos of one of the vehicles in flames, with a crewman, engulfed in flames, escaping through the turret hatch. That was on Monday the 19th, and it took the Brits until Sunday the 25th to come up with the cover story that these two were part of a covert effort to surveill and intercept illegal arms shipments from Iran.

Uh huh.

That would certainly explain why there was ample reportage of automatic weapons and explosives in their vehicle, but no mention of communication equipment, right?

The story has changed over the days. Now the Brits claim these men were SAS operatives, and some fool mentioned a “classified” successor to “14 Intel” which was originally a SAS program to ambush IRA fighters on both sides of the Irish border. That story has now been “revised”.

There’s a sequence about stories like this: first reports are chaotic and confused, followed by clarified agreement by the reporting agencies. Within a day or three, the official story is decided upon, and that lie is then put forward by the government agency directly involved in managing the coverup. Previous reports that contradict the coverup are condescendingly described as due to chaos and misunderstanding of the military by the reporters. Reporters are in deadly danger when they go abroad in Iraq. More have been killed in this Imperial adventure than in a similar time period in Viet Nam and Korea. So reporters are forced to get their daily mimeo from CENTCOM, and if they are lucky enough to develop local sources they get an entirely different story.

So, we’re left with two British soldiers, operating in disguise, in a civilian car, with automatic weapons and explosives, but apparently no radios to report on those alleged weapons supplies coming out of Iran. They’re driving around Basra, making civilians nervous, and gun down an Iraqi policeman who stops them.

Just who were they looking to light up when they got discovered?

And who believes only the Brits are doing this?

This is my first attempt at online blogging, and I’d like to thank a fine man and Officer, Jo Fish, for affording me the opportunity to put down on “paper” some of my thoughts regarding these “interesting times” we live in. (Hat tip to Chris Anderson of the y-clept named blog and the an unknown Chinese philosopher who first developed the curse.) I’ve been writing prose and poetry since high school, way back before John F. Kennedy first decided he could get more whup in the White House than in the Senate cloakroom. It seems he figured correctly, as history has cautiously revealed. He also figured he might be able to do something good for the country, and history also reveals that he had some limited success in that area, too. Maybe one day we’ll discuss history, the New Camelot, dreams, visions, and whup.

I became attracted to blogs through natural curiosity, and was drawn to progressive sites because of my social and educational background. Having spent some time in the US Army, I have developed some particular ideas regarding the function of the military in supporting a government’s foreign policy and found an outlet for my rather cynical views with the aforesaid Mr. Fish’s blog, Democratic Veteran. ( http://www.usndemvet.com ) You probably arrived here from there, and if you haven’t, I’d earnestly recommend checking it out.

In college my major was political science, with minors in history and education. I wanted to teach. So, after graduation I got hired by the US Government.

In the Army I was a rifleman, and later a squad leader, in Viet Nam. I also spent some time LRRPing around the countryside and I don’t talk too much about that side of the business, for various reasons. I saw some unpleasant things. I came home. I was lucky. I had some time left in service, and after finally being released from Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, was offered a sweetheart deal working for another branch of the Army in Europe, one that would have eventually led to my being commissioned as a Warrant Officer, which is a very cool rank, even if you’re not a rotorhead. I don’t talk much about that part of the business either, again for various reasons. Things didn't work out and I left the Army.

The point of all this is to explain that while I take an intense interest in politics, law, and the social sciences, my primary emphasis in the past has been military affairs and history.

As the Real Estate ladies in Manhattan say. "It's a nice space, dahling."

This is a test of this install of MT before upgrading.